Vehicular Cycling (VC) - Other Agendas

I don't agree with their choices. Nor do I believe that systematically ignoring the rules of the road is a safe choice for most cyclists. But I don't hold them in contempt and I have serious doubts that doing so is a good strategy for cycling advocacy.

I understand your intellectual position. I also think that I understand what you think to be a good strategy for cycling advocacy. However, I see that the most important task before cyclists is the preservation of our right to operate in accordance with the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles. I believe that one imperative for that strategy is to maintain that no better method of operation has been devised, and that the attempts to invent a better method are supported by no more than superstition.

Example #1



Example #2

Shouldn't they be called 'Exhibits'?

;)

:lol:

Read the history. Motorists invented them, insisted on them, and still want them enough to pay for them.

The motorists may still want them, but now they want the cyclists to pay for them...


Saying they’re short on cash for new bike lanes and trails, Clark County’s commissioners said Wednesday that they’re willing to consider charging to license bicycles outside city limits.

“As a bicyclist, I would pay a licensing fee if I had better trail access,” Commissioner Steve Stuart said in a work session on bicycle and pedestrian routes in the county. “We license our dogs. You license your car. Why wouldn’t you license your bikes?

Commissioners Marc Boldt and Tom Mielke agreed, asking to set up a new work session on the issue.

“It’s a good funding source,” Boldt said.
http://bikeportland.org/2009/07/15/columbian-clark-county-commisioners-want-to-look-into-bike-license-fee/

You're also completely wrong about who wants them today, it's the cyclists not the motorists, John

So tell us what "bike advocacy" should be doing?

1. Appealing to cyclists to promote a particular riding behaviour?

2. Appealling to the world at large for material and behavioural considerations towards cyclists?

I think that "bike advocacy' should be doing both.
Living in a semi- rural area, bike infrastructure isn't really viable or necessary. Densely populated cities may benefit from separate bike infrastructure.

The motorists may still want them, but now they want the cyclists to pay for them...


http://bikeportland.org/2009/07/15/columbian-clark-county-commisioners-want-to-look-into-bike-license-fee/

You're also completely wrong about who wants them today, it's the cyclists not the motorists, John

Of course, I have never written otherwise. Motorists invented bikeways to suit their own convenience, but people interested in bicycles, for several different reasons, then jumped on the bikeway advocacy program. That occurred about two or three years into the bikeway program. So, the act that cries out for explanation is when the people you refer to as cyclists, more likely the bicycle advocates, demand the kind of facility that was invented to oppress them for the convenience of motorists. It's like a black man advocating slavery. The only explanation that has been advanced for this bicycle advocacy against the interests of cyclists is the cyclist-inferiority phobia.

so 'bicycle advocates' aren't 'real cyclists'?

:rolleyes:

Of course, I have never written otherwise. [SNIP]
The only explanation that has been advanced for this bicycle advocacy against the interests of cyclists is the cyclist-inferiority phobia.

Exhibit 3.
"The interests of cyclists" i.e. what cyclists' interests should be IAW John Forester's dogma.

I think that "bike advocacy' should be doing both.
Living in a semi- rural area, bike infrastructure isn't really viable or necessary. Densely populated cities may benefit from separate bike infrastructure.

Thanks :) someone noticed!

Yes! Buy the Good Book(s) by you know who.

I have an even better book. It's by James Patterson and is marketed as fiction, unlike the one you're talking about which is not marketed as fiction despite it being so.

'bike lanes oppress bicyclists and bicyclists that advocate bike lanes are like black people advocating slavery'

:eek:

:roflmao:

john's agenda is bankrupt, his quixotic rants show an individual who is so out of touch he is borderline psychotic. John Forester's myopic ignorance is staggering. he needs to deploy an ARMY of angry strawmen to shelter his quixotic delusions.

Don't know much history, do you? Lanes carrying traffic consisting of vehicles traveling at different speeds have existed for some thousands of years. Yes, I had written that WOLs were invented by cyclists to get bike-lane demanding motorists off the backs of cyclists. I should have written, to be sure of heading off ill-informed criticism such as yours, that the concept of WOL was explicitly created to describe a useful existing form of roadway in terms that would benefit cyclists.

Don't know much about bike safety do you? History or who started what has nothing to do with if something is safer then something else. The idea that you can make up an argument to support something and your trump card is historical context of who did what is laughable. Is this a valid argument?: "Bob propose a solution but since Bob is from the opposing side we should not support his solution." Your arguments are just as petty as that.

I will also note that through most of the US cyclists cannot legally take the lane in WOL, they have to stay far right. This complicates things, as while we can say safe operation of a bicycle is possible in a WOL the legality of taking the lane in a WOL is questionable at best and illegal at worst. I have a hard time advocating for facilities where illegal bike operation is required to maintain safety.

Don't know much about bike safety do you? History or who started what has nothing to do with if something is safer then something else. The idea that you can make up an argument to support something and your trump card is historical context of who did what is laughable. Is this a valid argument?: "Bob propose a solution but since Bob is from the opposing side we should not support his solution." Your arguments are just as petty as that.

I will also note that through most of the US cyclists cannot legally take the lane in WOL, they have to stay far right. This complicates things, as while we can say safe operation of a bicycle is possible in a WOL the legality of taking the lane in a WOL is questionable at best and illegal at worst. I have a hard time advocating for facilities where illegal bike operation is required to maintain safety.

The operation of bike lanes has not changed from their initial introduction. They do today exactly what they have done since motorists invented them for their own convenience. If you can demonstrate that bike lanes provide a new method of operation, then it may be that their original invention has been overcome, but you have never even tried to demonstrate a new method of operation.

You say that I do not know much about cyclist safety. To support your claim, you need to refute the sections of my books on cycling that are devoted to safety, by demonstrating that they were false from the beginning or that they have been superseded by better information, or that so much better information has been developed since to make them just a small part of the field. You have not, so far, advanced any evidence to support your claim.

You complain that the law is against proper operation in WOLs. I agree that it is. However, you advocate bike lanes in which two laws are against proper operation. No advantage to bike lanes.

Note that I have maintained for many years that the three restrictive bicycle traffic laws, mandatory right, mandatory lane, and mandatory path, were all invented and enacted by motorists for their own convenience, and should be repealed. The mandatory right law, however, is far less enforced than are the bikeway laws, because the bikeways are far more noticeable. Note also, that with the greater quantity of bikeways, the need to protect cyclists from these legal oppressions becomes greater and greater.

The success of the bikeway promoters is such that bikeways will exist. The only recourse for cyclists is to get out from under the restrictive laws that require their use. Do you approve of the mandatory bikeway laws? If so, why? If you don't, what are you doing to counteract your advocacy of bikeways whith their associated restrictive laws?

Note that I have maintained for many years that the three restrictive bicycle traffic laws, mandatory right, mandatory lane, and mandatory path, were all invented and enacted by motorists for their own convenience, and should be repealed. The mandatory right law, however, is far less enforced than are the bikeway laws, because the bikeways are far more noticeable. Note also, that with the greater quantity of bikeways, the need to protect cyclists from these legal oppressions becomes greater and greater.

The success of the bikeway promoters is such that bikeways will exist. The only recourse for cyclists is to get out from under the restrictive laws that require their use. Do you approve of the mandatory bikeway laws? If so, why? If you don't, what are you doing to counteract your advocacy of bikeways whith their associated restrictive laws?

on this I agree with John, the mandatory lane and sidepath laws should be repealed. This is especially true today in Oregon as Portland begins to 'experiment' with newer unapproved designs such as 'cycle tracks' which are just another name for a side path, and will be fraught with all the hazards and drawbacks of side paths.

references on new cycle tracks in Portland (http://www.google.com/custom?domains=bikeportland.org&q=cycle+track&sa=Search&sitesearch=bikeportland.org&client=pub-0575421035147591&forid=1&ie=ISO-8859-1&oe=ISO-8859-1&cof=GALT%3A%23008000%3BGL%3A1%3BDIV%3A%23336699%3BVLC%3A663399%3BAH%3Acenter%3BBGC%3AFFFFFF%3BLBGC%3 AFFFFFF%3BALC%3A0000FF%3BLC%3A0000FF%3BT%3A000000%3BGFNT%3A0000FF%3BGIMP%3A0000FF%3BLH%3A50%3BLW%3A2 57%3BL%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fbikeportland.org%2Fwp-content%2Fgooglebanner.gif%3BS%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fbikeportland.org%3BFORID%3A1&hl=en)

I would care a lot less about Portland's decision to implement these designs if I wasn't legally required to use them if I thought they were unsafe.

The operation of bike lanes has not changed from their initial introduction. They do today exactly what they have done since motorists invented them for their own convenience. If you can demonstrate that bike lanes provide a new method of operation, then it may be that their original invention has been overcome, but you have never even tried to demonstrate a new method of operation.


You say that I do not know much about cyclist safety. To support your claim, you need to refute the sections of my books on cycling that are devoted to safety, by demonstrating that they were false from the beginning or that they have been superseded by better information, or that so much better information has been developed since to make them just a small part of the field. You have not, so far, advanced any evidence to support your claim.

There may have been a day and age where we made logical arguments about human behavior and who ever had the more compelling argument won the debate. That day and age has ended and we now study and compare different kinds of accommodations and note advantages and disadvantages between different accommodations. In recent years we have been verifying previous assumptions and on occasion we have found that some assumptions have been wrong, even counterintuitive at first glance, which stresses the importance of verifying assumptions no matter how old they are and how intuitive they seem.

So I look at this debate much like some sports enthusiast that is saying all the reasons why his team is going to win the playoffs and he may be right but we won't know till the playoffs, likewise we will not know till studies are done.

So I am not saying you're wrong, just not verified as being correct in the modern way of verifying road safety. What you have written in terms of bike safety might as well be classified as science fiction at this time, sure there is some basis in science but by and large nothing has been verified as true, its like a fantasy world where you tie up all the lose ends with fictional concepts of cyclists inferiority and motorists wanting cyclists out the way = bad but cyclists wanting to be out of the way of motorists = good. All this makes for a "good" story but even so it does not make it true until it is verified.


You complain that the law is against proper operation in WOLs. I agree that it is. However, you advocate bike lanes in which two laws are against proper operation. No advantage to bike lanes.

...

One this side point I'll note that is I am riding to the right of a WOL and want to take the lane, I yield to passing traffic, signal and take the lane, the exact same operation as if there was a bike lane, so the difference in operation is totally lost on me.

As far as two laws against proper operation in bike lanes only a few states have mandatory bike lane laws but I'll note that in Maryland with its mandatory bike lane law I can leave a bike lane when motoring traffic might turn right (I can't "legally"* do that in a WOL) and since the bike lane makes the travel lane a NOL I have full use of the lane whenever the bike lane is unusable for a variety of reasons. I'm not saying this to support mandatory bike lane laws but to point out that not everything is pure black and white, everything has its advantages and disadvantages and the complexity in which they play out should not be reduced to such simplistic terms of the operation of bicycles has not changed so any new road design must accompany new changes of operation of bicycles. This is a ludicrousness assertion, where is it written that the original road designs were perfect from the beginning? Some world convention of great thinkers took place and they thought of every possibly contingency then and for the future? All you are spewing is sci-fi and nothing more.


* Can't "Legally" be done: the legal proof is a hard one but with a good lawyer there is hope, so I recommend riding safe.


If you don't, what are you doing to counteract your advocacy of bikeways whith their associated restrictive laws?

Short answer is more then you are doing.

in part

[About cycling safety]
So I am not saying you're wrong, just not verified as being correct in the modern way of verifying road safety. What you have written in terms of bike safety might as well be classified as science fiction at this time, sure there is some basis in science but by and large nothing has been verified as true, its like a fantasy world where you tie up all the lose ends with fictional concepts of cyclists inferiority and motorists wanting cyclists out the way = bad but cyclists wanting to be out of the way of motorists = good. All this makes for a "good" story but even so it does not make it true until it is verified.



When you assert that my conclusions about cycling safety have "some basis in science", I have to assume, since you have not specified what you think are my bases, that you accept the Cross statistics on car-bike collisions and the traffic engineering knowledge that is the basis of both modern highway design and the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles. You are asserting, then, that these are insufficient to reach conclusions about safe and dangerous cycling.

If you accept that these two bases are useful information, then you need to answer why it is that you advocate a system that these two bases indicate provides a higher accident rate and less utility.

If you do not accept that these two bases provide useful information, then you need to answer why it is that you advocate a system that has no scientific support at all. You should be advocating an investigation into the very basics of traffic engineering and not doing anything at all until that investigation produces what you consider to be "verified as true."

I need to point out to you that there is no such procedure in science or engineering as "verification as true", to use your phrase. The fact that you set that as your criterion demonstrates that you are either ignorant of scientific procedure or are deliberately obfuscating the issue.

in part:

its like a fantasy world where you tie up all the lose ends with fictional concepts of cyclists inferiority and motorists wanting cyclists out the way = bad but cyclists wanting to be out of the way of motorists = good. All this makes for a "good" story but even so it does not make it true until it is verified.



So the idea that motorists "want cyclists out of the way is fictional"? The history demonstrates otherwise. So do many current discussions among motorists. Is it fictional to consider that "bad"? No, when motorists force cyclists to operate without the protection of the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles, that is demonstrably bad. Are you saying that the idea that "cyclists want to be out of the way of motorists" is also fictional? Can't tell from your grammar, but I suggest that you consider this to be fact and also "good". Why you list this as something I hold puzzles me, for I have never held it. I have held for thirty years that exaggerated fear of same-direction motor traffic causes both dangerous cyclist behavior and also causes facilities that cater to that exaggerated fear.

in part:

As far as two laws against proper operation in bike lanes only a few states have mandatory bike lane laws but I'll note that in Maryland with its mandatory bike lane law I can leave a bike lane when motoring traffic might turn right (I can't "legally"* do that in a WOL) and since the bike lane makes the travel lane a NOL I have full use of the lane whenever the bike lane is unusable for a variety of reasons. I'm not saying this to support mandatory bike lane laws but to point out that not everything is pure black and white,

There is no justifiable reason why cyclists should be required to legally justify obeying the standard rules of the road, since motorists never have to do that. That requirement for obtaining legal justification, with its troubles and costs, is clear demonstration that cyclists have a lesser legal status than to motorists. All bicycle advocates ought to be hard at work trying to eliminate that discriminatory state.

in part:

everything has its advantages and disadvantages and the complexity in which they play out should not be reduced to such simplistic terms of the operation of bicycles has not changed so any new road design must accompany new changes of operation of bicycles. This is a ludicrousness assertion, where is it written that the original road designs were perfect from the beginning? Some world convention of great thinkers took place and they thought of every possibly contingency then and for the future? All you are spewing is sci-fi and nothing more.



This sounds like you are trying to be profound, but whatever information you are tying to convey has got muddled in transmission. Your literal meaning (as well as I understand it) is that if the operation of bicycles is changed, then new road designs are needed. If that is your meaning, then it is reasonable. If the official way to operate bicycles is no longer according to the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles, but in what I have named the cyclist-inferiority way (nobody else has given this method of operation any name), then it is desirable to provide facilities for this type of operation. However, here is the big catch. There has been no demonstration, over the decades that it has been tried, that cyclist-inferiority operation provides safer or more efficient operation than does operation in accordance with the rules of the road. Furthermore, the scientific and engineering evidence that is available to date says that cyclist-inferiority operation is likely to be either more dangerous or less efficient, with one at the cost of the other in a tradeoff.

When you assert that my conclusions about cycling safety have "some basis in science", I have to assume, since you have not specified what you think are my bases, that you accept the Cross statistics on car-bike collisions and the traffic engineering knowledge that is the basis of both modern highway design and the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles. You are asserting, then, that these are insufficient to reach conclusions about safe and dangerous cycling.

The "Cross statistics" are just that, statistics, no more no less. A listing of a group of car-bike collisions with some analysis by Cross to determine the cause(s) of those specific accidents. No data was gathered by Cross as to the exposure rate of cyclists to the various road locations of the cycling population, nor as far as I can tell was any data gathered or analyzed as to the severity of injury of the accidents. In other words no "scientist" or safety person with any integrity would state that the Cross Statistics do any more than provide an interesting tabulation of data that may suggests further study. No credible safety person would try to draw conclusions about cycling risk or the management of that risk without the associated probability/exposure to the various hazard scenarios and severity data.

Forester's "unique" analysis method of this very limited study data (twist and grossly extrapolate the data far beyond its scope to fit a predetermined conclusion,) forms the basis of his conclusions about cycling risk. The actual risk to the general cycling public from following following various techniques cannot be determined by the hocus pocus "scientific method" employed by John Forester. And certainly not from his gross misrepresentation of his so-called "analysis" of the Cross Statistics as the final word on the cycling safety.

In the Forester lexicon, "traffic engineering knowledge" is what John Forester says it is, period. Any deviation from John Forester's views on this subject (or any other cycling subject) is either the product of incompetent engineers and planners on the take, or phobias.

The "Cross statistics" are just that, statistics, no more no less. A listing of a group of car-bike collisions with some analysis by Cross to determine the cause(s) of those specific accidents. No data was gathered by Cross as to the exposure rate of cyclists to the various road locations of the cycling population, nor as far as I can tell was any data gathered or analyzed as to the severity of injury of the accidents. In other words no "scientist" or safety person with any integrity would state that the Cross Statistics do any more than provide an interesting tabulation of data that may suggests further study. No credible safety person would try to draw conclusions about cycling risk or the management of that risk without the associated probability/exposure to the various hazard scenarios and severity data.

Forester's "unique" analysis method of this very limited study data (twist and grossly extrapolate the data far beyond its scope to fit a predetermined conclusion,) forms the basis of his conclusions about cycling risk. The actual risk to the general cycling public from following following various techniques cannot be determined by the hocus pocus "scientific method" employed by John Forester. And certainly not from his gross misrepresentation of his so-called "analysis" of the Cross Statistics as the final word on the cycling safety.

In the Forester lexicon, "traffic engineering knowledge" is what John Forester says it is, period. Any deviation from John Forester's views on this subject (or any other cycling subject) is either the product of incompetent engineers and planners on the take, or phobias.

Fine, person who asserts that nobody knows anything about cycling safety. If you know nothing about cycling safety, since you assert that the information that is available doesn't tell us anything worthwhile, then you, too, should shut up, fold your tent, and retreat into your own solipsism.

i'm going to go right back to the original post, since john forestor's lunatic rantings have rendered this thread distasteful.

chipseal, did you actually quote yourself in your original post and refer to yourself in the third person? :snicker: chipseal asked himself.... 'ChipSeal said: “I am therefore astonished that so many of our “bicycle advocates” reject and dismiss best practices for a facilities based paradigm that exposes cyclists to far greater peril. It makes me wonder if they are really interested in their constituents safety at all.”

to which he answered (himself)


That’s the problem with bike advocacy, it’s been overrun by people with other agendas—reducing motoring, obesity, air pollution, fuel use, save the world, sell bicycles, etc. Those people aim for the lowest common denominator of ignorance to get “butts on bikes.” They don’t really care that their facilities hamstring cyclists, virtually eliminating their ability to protect themselves. A cyclist on a “separated” parallel facility (like a sidewalk) has only one method of avoiding crashes — keep head on a swivel and ride slow enough to stop instantly.

This is something most sidewalk riders don’t understand, and that’s why they make up almost half of Orlando’s bike-v-car crashes

actually, chip, a lot of bike advocates DO understand that reducing sidewalk and wrong way riding is a prime way to increase cyclist safety. that's why many bonifide bike advocates from THIS century work to increase networks of on street bicycle facilities.

on street bikelanes have been proven in studies to reduce wrong way and sidewalk cycling. proven effect.

this increase in safety, shown in a recent (2003, not 1977!) study, shows that bikelanes reduce wrong way and sidewalk cycling and reduce intersection conflicts.


Despite the lack of much data surrounding the effects of on street bike infrastructure, communities that have viable networks of AASHTO compliant or greater bike lanes have both higher ridership rates and lower accident rates than communities that fail to facilititate cycling. This is seen in US census statistics and city bike counts.

this correlative effect is seen and felt in enough cities it is considered COMMON KNOWLEDGE in the bicycling community. only blowhards deny the obvious about road infrastructure!

Even in Texas, like your town chipseal. 250 plus miles of bikelanes, isn't there? you reap the benefits from them regardless if you'll admit it in here or not! :roflmao: motorists might be more cognizant of bikes on road in your town due to the abundant on street bike infrastructure!

Chipseal, cyclists like yourself, concerned about other cyclists' safety, should be lobbying for proven results:

a well thought out network of on street bike infrastructure that helps to reduce sidewalk and wrong way cycling. your concern, proven fix.

really dude. 'far greater peril?' H I L A R I O U S ! !

The "Cross statistics" are just that, statistics, no more no less. A listing of a group of car-bike collisions with some analysis by Cross to determine the cause(s) of those specific accidents. No data was gathered by Cross as to the exposure rate of cyclists to the various road locations of the cycling population, nor as far as I can tell was any data gathered or analyzed as to the severity of injury of the accidents. In other words no "scientist" or safety person with any integrity would state that the Cross Statistics do any more than provide an interesting tabulation of data that may suggests further study. No credible safety person would try to draw conclusions about cycling risk or the management of that risk without the associated probability/exposure to the various hazard scenarios and severity data.

Analyzing bike crash data it has been shown that cyclists with zero blood alcohol level had the highest number of crashes by far, while cyclists who had one or two drinks had the fewest crashes so therefore it is safer to ride after a couple of drinks or even totally ripped then to ride without consuming any alcohol at all.

If you agree with this then you agree with Forester's Cross analysis otherwise ILTB has a point.

[more tomorrow, it's late]

Fine, person who asserts that nobody knows anything about cycling safety. If you know nothing about cycling safety, since you assert that the information that is available doesn't tell us anything worthwhile, then you, too, should shut up, fold your tent, and retreat into your own solipsism.

JF's bottom line response to any criticism of his "information" has been consistent for decades:
Critics of his methods should shut up. He has made available "THE INFORMATION", end of story; believe it as written, or shut up.

This is a typical Forester response to criticism of his faulty analytical methods, biased testing methods, misrepresentations, farcical extrapolations, slipshod and biased methods of cherry picking data sets to draw the preselected conclusion, etc.

JF Brand "information" about cycling safety has been made "available" by John Forester and his few acolytes and no rejection is permitted of JF "information" and/or his unique "scientific" methods for substantiating his predetermined conclusions about safety. To do so makes the non believer an enemy of the Real "Information" about cycling Safety as professed by John Forester.

when chipseal mistakenly criticized, in his original post,


advocates that reject 'best practices' for a facilities based paradigm that exposes cyclists to far greater peril. It makes me wonder if they are really interested in their constituents safety at all.”

I think he was being willfully misleading with his statements and viewpoint. Chips should have said,

"ENDORSE 'best practices' coupled with enhancements to transportation infrastructure, enhancements correlated to increased cyclist ride share without affect on cyclist accident rates while increasing lawful, vehicular bicycle street use in communities.

'far greater peril?' Hardly. a lame misdirect by a chipseal cyclist with his 'cars reign supreme' agenda.

Analyzing bike crash data it has been shown that cyclists with zero blood alcohol level had the highest number of crashes by far, while cyclists who had one or two drinks had the fewest crashes so therefore it is safer to ride after a couple of drinks or even totally ripped then to ride without consuming any alcohol at all.

If you agree with this then you agree with Forester's Cross analysis otherwise ILTB has a point.

[more tomorrow, it's late]

You flunk elementary engineering analysis. I don't commit the error that you apparently believe in.

Or, if you recognize that your statement is erroneous, then you are just one more of those who tell lies to support their agenda.

'im going to take issue with jf's misinformed, 30 year old opinion.

john lamely opined on the first page of this thread....


The problem is that no design has been shown to provide safer and more efficient bicycle transportation than operating according to the rules of the road on good roads. It is only when an experimental change has been produced and shown to be better that it is wise to consider system-wide change.

'ctually, john - no problem at all! Haven't you been keeping up with bicycling advocacy in this country since the 1970's? what are you, archie bunker in an armchair thinking about bicycling?

there's strong, mutally intertwined correlations between community enhancements of on street, bike specific infrastructure with increases in bicycle traffic, facilitated cycling across communities. these street enhancements encourage and increase on street, lawful road bicycling while keeping accident rates flat.

'experimental' change has been produced and shown to be better. additionally, a lot of arterial road, bike specific infrastructure DOES NOT contradict the rules of the road you so quixotically obsess about.

so hey, john, no real problem at all, except from bliviots with agendas like yours!

You flunk elementary engineering analysis. I don't commit the error that you apparently believe in.

Or, if you recognize that your statement is erroneous, then you are just one more of those who tell lies to support their agenda.

Right back at you buddy! Just as analyzing blood alcohol level in crashes does not result in saying which blood alcohol level is the safest so does analyzing crash locations does not result in saying which locations are the safest.

With my erroneous blood alcohol level study conclusion we assume that for zero blood alcohol level 1 out of a large number of cyclist are in a crash and with some blood alcohol the rate is 1 out of a small number. But without numbers of cyclists blood alcohol level who are not in crashes we cannot say for certain. Likewise we do not have numbers of cyclists not in crashes for the Cross study so we cannot say with any certainty which is safer as even a large crash type count can have even a larger count not in crashes thus making it safer. So by your own admission you flunked elementary engineering analysis but since the numbers fit your agenda you are too blind to see that.

As far as telling lies to support their own agenda, whoa! Look in the mirror please. All I have been saying here is I would like to see better studies as the ones we have are insufficient for this kind of discussion. But hey if you want to oppose better studies, I can certainly understand that as after all you have an agenda to support, I just would like to know one way or the other, I have no vested interest here.

'im going to take issue with jf's misinformed, 30 year old opinion.

john lamely opined on the first page of this thread....



'ctually, john - no problem at all! Haven't you been keeping up with bicycling advocacy in this country since the 1970's? what are you, archie bunker in an armchair thinking about bicycling?

there's strong, mutally intertwined correlations between community enhancements of on street, bike specific infrastructure with increases in bicycle traffic, facilitated cycling across communities. these street enhancements encourage and increase on street, lawful road bicycling while keeping accident rates flat.

'experimental' change has been produced and shown to be better. additionally, a lot of arterial road, bike specific infrastructure DOES NOT contradict the rules of the road you so quixotically obsess about.

so hey, john, no real problem at all, except from bliviots with agendas like yours!

Bekologist, you are apparently arguing that the fact that I don't agree with your opinions means that I have not studied the activities of American bicycle advocates. That's an erroneous argument, as you should know from my continued presence in discussions of bicycle advocates. It is because I have studied the activities of bicycle activists, from the beginning to today, that I am confident that I have accurate knowledge of your claims and their validity.

For example, you have just claimed that "street enhancement" have increased "lawful road bicycling". I know of no evidence for this claim, but then, the claim is very ambiguous. You made the claim. Please advance the evidence for this claim.

I have always held that bicycle advocates advocate what is popular, and it is reasonable to think that doing what is popular increases bicycle transportation. However, in the realm of bicycle transportation that which is popular is no more than superstition, contrary to known facts. Therefore, doing what is popular inherently works against both cyclist safety and cycling efficiency. For that matter, you know that yourself, for you claim that you, yourself, ride in the vehicular manner on bike-laned streets.

I object to the detriment to vehicular cyclists that is inherent in doing what is popular, and I deplore (to use the mildest possible term) the lying that is done to support popularity, as in the current discussion.

What the dickens is 'solipsism'?

That describes about where the thread went.

If y'all gotta argue like that, whatever point you managed to start with is lost in the wilderness. JF, please, know you mean it and have a passion but I just woke up an hour ago.

Right back at you buddy! Just as analyzing blood alcohol level in crashes does not result in saying which blood alcohol level is the safest so does analyzing crash locations does not result in saying which locations are the safest.

With my erroneous blood alcohol level study conclusion we assume that for zero blood alcohol level 1 out of a large number of cyclist are in a crash and with some blood alcohol the rate is 1 out of a small number. But without numbers of cyclists blood alcohol level who are not in crashes we cannot say for certain. Likewise we do not have numbers of cyclists not in crashes for the Cross study so we cannot say with any certainty which is safer as even a large crash type count can have even a larger count not in crashes thus making it safer. So by your own admission you flunked elementary engineering analysis but since the numbers fit your agenda you are too blind to see that.

As far as telling lies to support their own agenda, whoa! Look in the mirror please. All I have been saying here is I would like to see better studies as the ones we have are insufficient for this kind of discussion. But hey if you want to oppose better studies, I can certainly understand that as after all you have an agenda to support, I just would like to know one way or the other, I have no vested interest here.

You are presenting erroneous arguments about analyses that have not been made precisely because they would be erroneous. I can't help your ignorance; read the well-known material and criticize it directly or just shut up. You are like a student who never does his homework.

I can't help your ignorance; read the well-known material and criticize it directly or just shut up. You are like a student who never does his homework.

What a piece of work! :p

When the so-called "well known material" is criticized directly (http://67.201.16.77/showpost.php?p=9310883&postcount=69), Forester has the same response: "shut up." http://67.201.16.77/showpost.php?p=9311993&postcount=70

C'mon VC disciples, defend your guru and your blind faith in his scientific methods and so-called safety analyses.

For example, you have just claimed that "street enhancement" have increased "lawful road bicycling". I know of no evidence for this claim, but then, the claim is very ambiguous. You made the claim. Please advance the evidence for this claim..

hunter, 2003, bikelane streets had lower incidence of sidewalk and wrong way cyclists. also, reduced intersection conflict.

john- a reduction in sidewalk and wrong way cycling is an INCREASE in on street, right way cycling, an increase in lawful road bicycling.

additionally, cities with infrastructure have more cyclists on all roads in their communities, not just the 3-5 percent streets that have bikelanes, another increase in street cycling.

you might be ignorant of the facts, but the evidence is all around you. (don't get out much anymore, do ya?)

You are presenting erroneous arguments about analyses that have not been made precisely because they would be erroneous. I can't help your ignorance; read the well-known material and criticize it directly or just shut up. You are like a student who never does his homework.

Nice attempt at misdirection and name calling but I have no real problem with the "Cross statistics" only with people who try and make them say what they do not to support their own agenda.

Just because getting accurate exposure data for the cycling population has been next to imposable in the past does not mean that using no exposure data is more accurate to make the kind of assertions you want to make. Sorry but using no exposure data leads to erroneous conclusions as I have demonstrated. In the quest for accuracy you have made grievous errors to support your preconceived superstition theories.

I find it extremely humorous that you are guilty of what you are accusing others of. We have not done a study of a study to try and make it say what it did not originally, that's you. And it is you not us that tries to prolificate an erroneous conclusion never stated in the original study. You want us to criticize studies directly yet when we criticize your study of a study directly you tell us to shut up. You are so convinced of the superiority of your arguments yet when your arguments fail to convince you resort to childish name calling.

Nice attempt at misdirection and name calling but I have no real problem with the "Cross statistics" only with people who try and make them say what they do not to support their own agenda.

Just because getting accurate exposure data for the cycling population has been next to imposable in the past does not mean that using no exposure data is more accurate to make the kind of assertions you want to make. Sorry but using no exposure data leads to erroneous conclusions as I have demonstrated. In the quest for accuracy you have made grievous errors to support your preconceived superstition theories.

I find it extremely humorous that you are guilty of what you are accusing others of. We have not done a study of a study to try and make it say what it did not originally, that's you. And it is you not us that tries to prolificate an erroneous conclusion never stated in the original study. You want us to criticize studies directly yet when we criticize your study of a study directly you tell us to shut up. You are so convinced of the superiority of your arguments yet when your arguments fail to convince you resort to childish name calling.

Very little of my conclusions regarding cycling safety come from the type of data in the Cross statistics that would need exposure data, and that little is stated rather weakly precisely because of that reason. You make claims that are contrary to the types of analysis that have been done from the Cross statistics, showing that you are either ignorant or lying.

Very little of my conclusions regarding cycling safety come from the type of data in the Cross statistics that would need exposure data, and that little is stated rather weakly precisely because of that reason.
There is something to this admission.
So many of JF's safety "conclusions" are made up of whole cloth without any credible data. Conclusions like "Cyclists fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles;" or Cyclists "most likely to be vehicular cyclists" have 80% less risk than other cyclists, and that if cyclists would get "educated" in vehicular cycling techniques accident rates can be expected to drop by similar fantastic percentages.

Very little of my conclusions regarding cycling safety come from the type of data in the Cross statistics that would need exposure data, and that little is stated rather weakly precisely because of that reason. You make claims that are contrary to the types of analysis that have been done from the Cross statistics, showing that you are either ignorant or lying.

OK going back to when you brought up Cross statistics:


When you assert that my conclusions about cycling safety have "some basis in science", I have to assume, since you have not specified what you think are my bases, that you accept the Cross statistics on car-bike collisions and the traffic engineering knowledge that is the basis of both modern highway design and the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles. You are asserting, then, that these are insufficient to reach conclusions about safe and dangerous cycling.

All this is insufficient to say with any degree of accuracy as to what is safer WOL, NOL, bike lanes, shoulders or sharrows. You essentially assert by doing nothing we will improve the safety of cyclists which is laughable. You use Cross-Fisher to exaggerate the danger of the right hooks if we do anything near an intersection just as my example exaggerates the danger of riding sober. But never admitting the reason why right hooks play so predominantly in the study in the first place is because cyclists were riding on car centric designed roads, so the solution for improvement is car centric designed roads???

OK going back to when you brought up Cross statistics:



All this is insufficient to say with any degree of accuracy as to what is safer WOL, NOL, bike lanes, shoulders or sharrows. You essentially assert by doing nothing we will improve the safety of cyclists which is laughable. You use Cross-Fisher to exaggerate the danger of the right hooks if we do anything near an intersection just as my example exaggerates the danger of riding sober. But never admitting the reason why right hooks play so predominantly in the study in the first place is because cyclists were riding on car centric designed roads, so the solution for improvement is car centric designed roads???

You are still arguing from ignorance of the type of analysis which was made thirty-five years ago.

The only criticism you make of my method is that I exaggerate the danger of right hook collisions. OK, prove that I exaggerate that danger.

You also claim that the reason that right hook collisions have the frequency shown in the Cross statistics "is because cyclists were riding on car-centric roads." OK, demonstrate why car-centric roads produce right-hook car-bike collisions.

You also make the following claim about my recommendations: "You essentially assert by doing nothing we will improve the safety of cyclists which is laughable." I am not the fool that you claim that I am, because that is not my argument and has never been. You are just presenting another argument that demonstrates how ignorant you are.

Furthermore, to show your further ignorance, my intention has been to prevent worse being done to cyclists by people in authority who possess thoughts similar to yours.

...my intention has been to prevent worse being done to cyclists by people in authority who possess thoughts similar to yours.

yeah, and we all know how well that works out....'cause you're such a suave negotiator

:rolleyes:

:thumb:

:lol:

OK, demonstrate why car-centric roads produce right-hook car-bike collisions.

Because motorists fail to treat cyclists "as drivers of vehicles..." and will overtake a slower, narrower vehicle and operator, in spite of that operator acting fully as the driver of a slow, narrow vehicle, and then motorists will make unannounced turns in close proximity to that bicycle and operator, in spite of having just seen, and overtaken said vehicle and operator.

Because motorists fail to treat cyclists "as drivers of vehicles..." and will overtake a slower, narrower vehicle and operator, in spite of that operator acting fully as the driver of a slow, narrow vehicle, and then motorists will make unannounced turns in close proximity to that bicycle and operator, in spite of having just seen, and overtaken said vehicle and operator.

I suggest that nothing you have written indicates that the reason for the collision is a car-centric road.

I suggest that nothing you have written indicates that the reason for the collision is a car-centric road.

Well if it is a narrow road with lower speeds (a bicycle centric road) it is very difficult for a motorist to overtake and then right hook a cyclist.

But as long as laws and road designs dictate that a slower vehicle must stay to the right, and slogans such as "share the road" (vice "cyclists may use full lane") encourage side by side use of a lane by both motorists and cyclists, then the propensity for right hooks will continue unabated.

Fast wide roads (preferred by those enamored by the automobile culture) encourage motorists to dismiss cyclists and act as though the cyclist is NOT a driver of a vehicle, but a mere obstacle to be overcome.

You are still arguing from ignorance of the type of analysis which was made thirty-five years ago.

The only criticism you make of my method is that I exaggerate the danger of right hook collisions. OK, prove that I exaggerate that danger.

You also claim that the reason that right hook collisions have the frequency shown in the Cross statistics "is because cyclists were riding on car-centric roads." OK, demonstrate why car-centric roads produce right-hook car-bike collisions.

You also make the following claim about my recommendations: "You essentially assert by doing nothing we will improve the safety of cyclists which is laughable." I am not the fool that you claim that I am, because that is not my argument and has never been. You are just presenting another argument that demonstrates how ignorant you are.

Furthermore, to show your further ignorance, my intention has been to prevent worse being done to cyclists by people in authority who possess thoughts similar to yours.

Yep lets not study and test any of this stuff but use arcane logic that has failed to convince all but a few over the last several decades... that's a great plan... not!

So are you saying pocket lanes at intersections will make the situation of right hooks worse, please explain if you are.

Re: "OK, demonstrate why car-centric roads produce right-hook car-bike collisions."
Read the Cross-Fisher study, sheesh.

Re: "You are just presenting another argument that demonstrates how ignorant you are."
And you are resorting to name calling rather then presenting any argument at all, that's going to work real well "to prevent worse being done to cyclists by people in authority who possess thoughts similar to yours." No wounder you are fighting a losing battle.

You are still arguing from ignorance of the type of analysis which was made thirty-five years ago.

The only criticism you make of my method is that I exaggerate the danger of right hook collisions. OK, prove that I exaggerate that danger.

You also claim that the reason that right hook collisions have the frequency shown in the Cross statistics "is because cyclists were riding on car-centric roads." OK, demonstrate why car-centric roads produce right-hook car-bike collisions.

You also make the following claim about my recommendations: "You essentially assert by doing nothing we will improve the safety of cyclists which is laughable." I am not the fool that you claim that I am, because that is not my argument and has never been. You are just presenting another argument that demonstrates how ignorant you are.

Furthermore, to show your further ignorance, my intention has been to prevent worse being done to cyclists by people in authority who possess thoughts similar to yours.





Yep lets not study and test any of this stuff but use arcane logic that has failed to convince all but a few over the last several decades... that's a great plan... not!

So are you saying pocket lanes at intersections will make the situation of right hooks worse, please explain if you are.

Re: "OK, demonstrate why car-centric roads produce right-hook car-bike collisions."
Read the Cross-Fisher study, sheesh.

Re: "You are just presenting another argument that demonstrates how ignorant you are."
And you are resorting to name calling rather then presenting any argument at all, that's going to work real well "to prevent worse being done to cyclists by people in authority who possess thoughts similar to yours." No wounder you are fighting a losing battle.

You have not demonstrated that I exaggerate the danger of right hook car-bike collisions. That's the claim you made, that I asked you to prove.

You have not demonstrated that car-centric roads produce right-hook car-bike collisions. That's the claim that you made, that I asked you to prove.

When I say that you are arguing from ignorance, you have made false claims about my reasoning and arguments, saying that only a fool would make such arguments. My description is not name calling, but a plain and accurate statement of fact. Well, not quite, for you might be lying instead; there has to be some explanation for your actions.

Yes, it is important to prevent worse being done to cyclists by those in authority, with whom, by all the evidence, you are allied. And it has been a losing battle, indeed. I am now hoping that it will be possible to establish freedom for cyclists, the legal right and liberty to operate as drivers of vehicles no matter what people who think and act as you approve do to prevent us, to restrict us. This should not be a matter of wonder; what should be a matter of wonder is that your side have won out without having a shred of evidence that your designs reduce car-bike collisions while providing equal efficiency, and, to tell the truth, no reasonable argument except that the designs that you like were produced by motorists to increase their convenience.

such rancor, coupled to an amazing lack of substance!

john, respond to post #82.

a decrease in sidewalk and wrong way cycling indicates more lawful, road cycling doesn't it?

john forestor is either ignorant or a liar if he denies the strong correlative effects seen between the large amounts of lawful road cycling going on in cities with high rider share that is intertwined to infrastructure enhancements in those cities.

-this is COMMON KNOWLEDGE in the transportation engineering community and the bicycling community, BTW, john.

Ignorant, a liar, or a man with an agenda counter to increasing and facilitating lawful road bicycling in communities.

john is redolent of a blind bat stuck in the 1970's with a diners card and lifetime membership in the flat earth society.

The only criticism you make of my method is that I exaggerate the danger of right hook collisions. OK, prove that I exaggerate that danger.

that's not the only criticism to be made of your cantankerous blather, john. didn't you almost singlehandedly discredit the use of paid 'expert testimony' in american legal cases?

here's an actual professional engineer's opinion of how it is to face off with guys like john forester providing 'expert testimony'....


....There is nothing more difficult than having a “nut case” on the other side that will not take the facts of the matter into account, has a personal agenda, is not qualified, and attacks anyone who disagrees with them on a personal level. I wonder if he's met john?

but as to bicycling advocacy, there's strong criticism to be made of both your fossilized opinions on road design, and your psychotic obsession with arguing semantics despotically. like a loon!

john forester- near home, southbound on Lemon Grove Ave, Lemon Grove California, with the 5 foot + bikelane, no on street parking, and limited intersections due to the light rail running alongside.


riding vehicularily as a vehicular cyclist in the bikelane? ignoring best practices? or not riding his bike anymore, instead stuck in traffic alongside the bikelane, pissed at the cyclists riding vehicularily in the bikelane past his contribution to traffic congestion?

What the dickens is 'solipsism'?

Solipsism is a philosophy which teaches that no one can be certain of anything except his own existence. If you are a solipsist, you accept the possibility that you are the only person who exists, and that everything you know (or think you know) about the universe may only be a delusion. Any facts or evidence presented to you about the existence of other people or things could simply be figments of your own imagination. For instance, what if you're asleep right now, and everything you remember about your whole life is really a dream? How can you prove otherwise? That's the kind of thing solipsists worry about.

Solipsism is a philosophy which teaches that no one can be certain of anything except his own existence. If you are a solipsist, you accept the possibility that you are the only person who exists, and that everything you know (or think you know) about the universe may only be a delusion. Any facts or evidence presented to you about the existence of other people or things could simply be figments of your own imagination. For instance, what if you're asleep right now, and everything you remember about your whole life is really a dream? How can you prove otherwise? That's the kind of thing solipsists worry about.

If I were imagining the world around me, I would never have a headwind on a bike ride. Because I do experience a world filled with pain and hardships, it is not a construct of my mind.

If I were imagining the world around me, I would never have a headwind on a bike ride. Because I do experience a world filled with pain and hardships, it is not a construct of my mind.

I often ride faster than the wind and feel a headwind, even though there is none.

But it's not a hardship.

I'm as free as a breeze
And I ride where I please
Saddle tramp, saddle tramp

If I were imagining the world around me, I would never have a headwind on a bike ride. Because I do experience a world filled with pain and hardships, it is not a construct of my mind.

you're imagining a LOT of stuff, chip.

do you mind addressing the topic of your original post, or has it caused you too much anguish and mental pain to be so in the wrong about an issue?

you brushed over my response to you on page 3 so here it is again.

...."I'm going to go right back to the original post, since john forestor's lunatic rantings have rendered this thread distasteful.

chipseal, did you actually quote yourself in your original post and refer to yourself in the third person? :snicker: chipseal asked himself.... 'ChipSeal said: “I am therefore astonished that so many of our “bicycle advocates” reject and dismiss best practices for a facilities based paradigm that exposes cyclists to far greater peril. It makes me wonder if they are really interested in their constituents safety at all.”

to which he answered (himself)

Originally Posted by chipseal, original post

That’s the problem with bike advocacy, it’s been overrun by people with other agendas—reducing motoring, obesity, air pollution, fuel use, save the world, sell bicycles, etc. Those people aim for the lowest common denominator of ignorance to get “butts on bikes.” They don’t really care that their facilities hamstring cyclists, virtually eliminating their ability to protect themselves. A cyclist on a “separated” parallel facility (like a sidewalk) has only one method of avoiding crashes — keep head on a swivel and ride slow enough to stop instantly.

This is something most sidewalk riders don’t understand, and that’s why they make up almost half of Orlando’s bike-v-car crashes


actually, chip, a lot of bike advocates DO understand that reducing sidewalk and wrong way riding is a prime way to increase cyclist safety. that's why many bonifide bike advocates from THIS century work to increase networks of on street bicycle facilities.

on street bikelanes have been proven in studies to reduce wrong way and sidewalk cycling. proven effect.

this increase in lawful road bicycling, detailed in a recent (2003, not 1977!) study, shows that bikelanes reduce wrong way and sidewalk cycling and can reduce intersection conflicts.


Despite the lack of much data surrounding the effects of on street bike infrastructure, communities that have viable networks of AASHTO compliant or greater bike lanes have both higher ridership rates and lower accident rates than communities that fail to facilititate cycling. This is seen in US census statistics and city bike counts.

this correlative effect is seen and felt in enough cities it is considered COMMON KNOWLEDGE in the bicycling community. only blowhards deny the obvious about road infrastructure!

Even in Texas, like your town chipseal. 250 plus miles of bikelanes, isn't there? you reap the benefits from them regardless if you'll admit it in here or not! motorists might be more cognizant of bikes on road in your town due to the abundant on street bike infrastructure!

Chipseal, cyclists like yourself, concerned about other cyclists' safety, should be lobbying for proven results:

a well thought out network of on street bike infrastructure that helps to reduce sidewalk and wrong way cycling. your concern, proven fix.

really dude. 'far greater peril?' H I L A R I O U S ! !