Cycling and bicycle discussion forums. 
   Click here to join our community Log in to access your Control Panel  


Go Back   > > >

Vehicular Cycling (VC) No other subject has polarized the A&S members like VC has. Here's a place to share, debate, and educate.

User Tag List

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 03-04-07, 07:56 PM   #1
invisiblehand
Part-time epistemologist
Thread Starter
 
invisiblehand's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Washington, DC
Bikes: Jamis Nova, Bike Friday NWT, STRIDA, Austro Daimler Vent Noir, Haluzak Horizon, Salsa La Raza, Hollands Tourer, Bike Friday tikit
Posts: 5,547
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13 Post(s)
Evidence that VC is safer

Sorry for the delay. We have been quite busy here--house shopping--and one computer died. Given that the boss is surfing for homes all of the time it leaves little time for Bike Forums.

The theme for this post is the evidence that vehicular cycling is safer than alternative theories/paradigms/strategies. More specifically, what is the scientific evidence that supports vehicular cycling as
(1) an effective accident reduction strategy
(2) a strategy that is better than the alternatives?

So notice that (1) is different from (2). Question (1) asks, "How do we scientifically know that this is an effective strategy relative to just riding and learning?" Question (2) asks, "Given the other well-defined strategies, What is the evidence that implementing VC is the best option?" Feel free to address either. Note that this is not about J. Forester.

Seriously, wouldn't we rather talk about safer cycling than some guy?

Anecdotal evidence, while helpful to describe a characteristic observed in empirical data, is generally not considered scientific. So please use it sparingly. A theoretical discussion of cycling theory is interesting, but since we are searching for empirical backing for those theories, we should only introduce it in the context of empirical evidence.

The motivation was a recent thread on J. Forester where there was a discussion of the evidence used to support vehicular cycling as an effective accident reduction tool and there was a disagreement on the value of the evidence presented. Long story short, it turns out that Effective Cycling (6th Edition, ~pages 257-278) doesn't really provide enough details for me to evaluate.

The argument in Effective Cycling as I understand it, goes roughly like this ...

(1) we can show that experience matters
(2a) we have information on numbers of accidents by their characteristics
(2b) we have an understanding how to avoid certain classes of these accidents
(3) effective cycling instruction speeds up the learning process of traffic-safe cycling

Presumably J. Forester is talking about vehicular cycling when he writes the effective cycling program.

I recall explicitly reading some research that I-Like-To-bike referenced, but I did not find it in the expected section. It is probably on his website someplace. I did notice ILTB link an article at the end of the aforementioned thread, perhaps it leads to the online source.

Since the "good book" did not have the details, I will follow ILTB's link. If that doesn't get the article, I'll surf for it.
invisiblehand is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-07, 08:14 PM   #2
pj7
On Sabbatical
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Bikes:
Posts: 1,543
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I don't understand the purpose of this thread exactly.
Are you going to provide evidence that VC is the safest way to cycle?
Or are you making a blanket statement that VS *is* the safest way to cycle and you are expecting other to provide evidence of this?
*confused*
pj7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-07, 08:16 PM   #3
I-Like-To-Bike
Been Around Awhile
 
I-Like-To-Bike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Burlington Iowa
Bikes: Vaterland and Ragazzi
Posts: 23,528
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by invisiblehand
Sorry for the delay. We have been quite busy here--house shopping--and one computer died. Given that the boss is surfing for homes all of the time it leaves little time for Bike Forums.

The theme for this post is the evidence that vehicular cycling is safer than alternative theories/paradigms/strategies. More specifically, what is the scientific evidence that supports vehicular cycling as
(1) an effective accident reduction strategy
(2) a strategy that is better than the alternatives?

So notice that (1) is different from (2). Question (1) asks, "How do we scientifically know that this is an effective strategy relative to just riding and learning?" Question (2) asks, "Given the other well-defined strategies, What is the evidence that implementing VC is the best option?" Feel free to address either. Note that this is not about J. Forester.

Seriously, wouldn't we rather talk about safer cycling than some guy?

Anecdotal evidence, while helpful to describe a characteristic observed in empirical data, is generally not considered scientific. So please use it sparingly. A theoretical discussion of cycling theory is interesting, but since we are searching for empirical backing for those theories, we should only introduce it in the context of empirical evidence.

The motivation was a recent thread on J. Forester where there was a discussion of the evidence used to support vehicular cycling as an effective accident reduction tool and there was a disagreement on the value of the evidence presented. Long story short, it turns out that Effective Cycling (6th Edition, ~pages 257-278) doesn't really provide enough details for me to evaluate.

The argument in Effective Cycling as I understand it, goes roughly like this ...

(1) we can show that experience matters
(2a) we have information on numbers of accidents by their characteristics
(2b) we have an understanding how to avoid certain classes of these accidents
(3) effective cycling instruction speeds up the learning process of traffic-safe cycling

Presumably J. Forester is talking about vehicular cycling when he writes the effective cycling program.

I recall explicitly reading some research that I-Like-To-bike referenced, but I did not find it in the expected section. It is probably on his website someplace. I did notice ILTB link an article at the end of the aforementioned thread, perhaps it leads to the online source.

Since the "good book" did not have the details, I will follow ILTB's link. If that doesn't get the article, I'll surf for it.
Forester apparently removed from his website the more detailed description of his idiotic comparison of wildly different cyclist populations and concluded that differences in "accident rates" could be attributed to unnamed Vehicular Cycling techniques that are either learned from 20 years of experience or taking his proprietary classes. The essence of that "comparison" can be found at http://www.johnforester.com/Articles/Social/aaas94.htm go to the section heading "Studies of the safety and convenience of cycling transportation" . This is where Forester compares vaguely defined and undefined "accident rates" of various groups. Perhaps some Forester devotee can tell us the appropriate Chapter and Verse of Effective Cycling that tells all of how Forester determined that Vehicular Cycling training will lead to 80% reduction in "accident rates."
I-Like-To-Bike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-07, 08:22 PM   #4
Bekologist
totally louche
 
Bekologist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: A land that time forgot
Bikes: the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes
Posts: 18,025
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I think statistics regards accident rates in Portland would indicate adding facilities helps bring down accidents per miles travelled by bicyclists. Facilties both increase cyclists numbers and decrease per trip accident rates.

If you looked at cities like Copenhagen, Denmark, with 40 percent of trips by bicycle, i have an unfounded idea that facilties there help to both increase ridership and keep riders safer than unaccomodated road networks

And Bogota, Columbia....


NOW, I am not trying to indicate that vehicular cycling isn't valid or valuable; it is. but what helps keep riders, en masse safer? a notion about riding technique, shared by a few select percent of all cyclists, or on the ground engineering to benefit bicycles? seems pretty basic, actually.
Bekologist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-07, 08:23 PM   #5
I-Like-To-Bike
Been Around Awhile
 
I-Like-To-Bike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Burlington Iowa
Bikes: Vaterland and Ragazzi
Posts: 23,528
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by pj7
I don't understand the purpose of this thread exactly.
Are you going to provide evidence that VC is the safest way to cycle?
Or are you making a blanket statement that VS *is* the safest way to cycle and you are expecting other to provide evidence of this?
*confused*
Heck, if anyone has a reference to quantitative evidence of any kind of safety record for an identified group of vehicular cyclists vis--vis non vehicular cyclists - Please post it here. Be sure that the reference indicates how the distinction was made between the population of cyclists who are vehicular and those who were not.
I-Like-To-Bike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-07, 08:33 PM   #6
sbhikes
Dominatrikes
 
sbhikes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Still in Santa Barbara
Bikes: Catrike Pocket, Lightning Thunderbold recumbent, Trek 3000 MTB.
Posts: 4,920
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
You want evidence that VC is safer? Safer than what? Are you trying to suggest that you cannot employ vehicular cycling and still use on-street or off-street cycling facilities? That they are somehow opposed to each other?

I don't find the dichotomy VC vs bike lane or VC vs bike path to be a valid dichotomy.
sbhikes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-07, 08:35 PM   #7
pj7
On Sabbatical
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Bikes:
Posts: 1,543
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by I-Like-To-Bike
Heck, if anyone has a reference to quantitative evidence of any kind of safety record for an identified group of vehicular cyclists vis-`a-vis non vehicular cyclists - Please post it here. Be sure that the reference indicates how the distinction was made between the population of cyclists who are vehicular and those who were not.
ummm... big words... big words...ooh, I recognize that one... big words...
remember man, I'm just a hillbilly
but I see your point, and quite possibly share it

however, I still don't see the point of this thread other than to start another pissing match
pj7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-07, 08:39 PM   #8
Bekologist
totally louche
 
Bekologist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: A land that time forgot
Bikes: the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes
Posts: 18,025
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by sbhikes
You want evidence that VC is safer? Safer than what? Are you trying to suggest that you cannot employ vehicular cycling and still use on-street or off-street cycling facilities? That they are somehow opposed to each other?

I don't find the dichotomy VC vs bike lane or VC vs bike path to be a valid dichotomy.
Excellent points, Diane. Vehicular cycling and roadway cycling networks are NOT mutually exclusive.
Bekologist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-07, 08:42 PM   #9
I-Like-To-Bike
Been Around Awhile
 
I-Like-To-Bike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Burlington Iowa
Bikes: Vaterland and Ragazzi
Posts: 23,528
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by pj7
ummm... big words... big words...ooh, I recognize that one... big words...
remember man, I'm just a hillbilly
but I see your point, and quite possibly share it

however, I still don't see the point of this thread other than to start another pissing match
If you don't see the point of this thread, maybe this thread is not for you.
I-Like-To-Bike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-07, 08:45 PM   #10
pj7
On Sabbatical
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Bikes:
Posts: 1,543
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by I-Like-To-Bike
If you don't see the point of this thread, maybe this thread is not for you.
I think you're right
/me heads back to Foo
pj7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-07, 08:46 PM   #11
I-Like-To-Bike
Been Around Awhile
 
I-Like-To-Bike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Burlington Iowa
Bikes: Vaterland and Ragazzi
Posts: 23,528
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Check out the following URL for more preposterous unsubstantiated Forester safety claims for his proprietary Effective Cycling "VC" Course. This Forester's manual for the Instructors of his miracle course.
http://www.johnforester.com/BTEO/ECIM5.pdf

See
Paragraph 4.2, Accident prevention

Forester, without a shred of evidence that his course has ever altered the behavior of a single student over any extended period, estimates Effective Cycling Courses would eliminate over 50% of all bicycling fatalities and reduce injuries by over 100,000.
I-Like-To-Bike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-07, 09:10 PM   #12
pj7
On Sabbatical
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Bikes:
Posts: 1,543
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by I-Like-To-Bike
Check out the following URL for more preposterous unsubstantiated Forester safety claims for his proprietary Effective Cycling "VC" Course. This Forester's manual for the Instructors of his miracle course.
http://www.johnforester.com/BTEO/ECIM5.pdf

See
Paragraph 4.2, Accident prevention

Forester, without a shred of evidence that his course has ever altered the behavior of a single student over any extended period, estimates Effective Cycling Courses would eliminate over 50% of all bicycling fatalities and reduce injuries by over 100,000.
Yet more statistics from "The department of I Just Pulled This Out Of My Arse".
I just don't see VC as being the safest thing to do in most circumstances. It's like the whole idea of it is to give you one option and one option only and if it fails, then it's your fault, because the "system" can not fail.
I think this guy just wanted to make some money so he started his own cult, like L. Ron hubbard or that J. Christ guy.
pj7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-07, 09:22 PM   #13
remsav
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Bikes:
Posts: 478
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by pj7
ummm... big words... big words...ooh, I recognize that one... big words...
remember man, I'm just a hillbilly
but I see your point, and quite possibly share it

however, I still don't see the point of this thread other than to start another pissing match
Yeah I don't get it either. "VC is safer"? I would imagine following vehicle traffic laws would be safer then not . I think for safety you should emphasis teaching handling skills and technique since there is some anecdotal and real evidence that taking those types of skill based classes will make you a better and safer like driving school. Several accidents that I actually saw was based on poor handling skills on rough road... they did repave that section after 3 (edit: that I actually saw happen so was probally more. ) accidents in 2 years but it was clear the cyclist had poor handling skills.
remsav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-07, 09:23 PM   #14
I-Like-To-Bike
Been Around Awhile
 
I-Like-To-Bike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Burlington Iowa
Bikes: Vaterland and Ragazzi
Posts: 23,528
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by pj7
Yet more statistics from "The department of I Just Pulled This Out Of My Arse".
I just don't see VC as being the safest thing to do in most circumstances. It's like the whole idea of it is to give you one option and one option only and if it fails, then it's your fault, because the "system" can not fail.
I think this guy just wanted to make some money so he started his own cult, like L. Ron hubbard or that J. Christ guy.
Welcome back from FooLand; your journey was brief. You do get it. VC may (or may not) be the safest method. Only neither Forester, nor his minions have ever produced any evidence of any Vehicular Cyclists' safety record from which to make an evaluation.

Just Horse Arse products that we incompetents are to take at face value as safety gospel.
I-Like-To-Bike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-07, 09:26 PM   #15
Helmet Head
Banned.
 
Helmet Head's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: San Diego
Bikes:
Posts: 13,075
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by invisiblehand
The theme for this post is the evidence that vehicular cycling is safer than alternative theories/paradigms/strategies. More specifically, what is the scientific evidence that supports vehicular cycling as ...
In order to explore this, we would have to be clear about what you mean by vehicular cycling. I don't see such a definition in this thread, explicit or implied.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pj7
I just don't see VC as being the safest thing to do in most circumstances. It's like the whole idea of it is to give you one option and one option only and if it fails, then it's your fault, because the "system" can not fail.
For example, what is the definition of VC to which pj7 refers above? What interpretation of VC "gives you one option and one option only"?
Helmet Head is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-07, 09:31 PM   #16
I-Like-To-Bike
Been Around Awhile
 
I-Like-To-Bike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Burlington Iowa
Bikes: Vaterland and Ragazzi
Posts: 23,528
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by remsav
Yeah I don't get it either...but it was clear the cyclist had poor handling skills.
And what makes you think cyclists' handling skills improved after being certified as trained vehicular cyclists?

It is only a product of John Forester's egotistical boasting that all his graduated students permanently alter their assumed pre-training "incompetent behavior" to cycling standards that match his training objectives.

Last edited by I-Like-To-Bike; 03-04-07 at 09:42 PM.
I-Like-To-Bike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-07, 09:31 PM   #17
John C. Ratliff
Senior Member
 
John C. Ratliff's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Beaverton, Oregon
Bikes: Rans Stratus, Trek 1420, Rivendell Rambouillet
Posts: 1,906
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Take a look at the work that Dr. Ian Walker, Department of Psychology, University of Bath in Great Britian has published. It's at this website:

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releas...-wah091106.php

At the bottom of this webpage, there is link to this page:

http://www.drianwalker.com/overtaking/

and a downloadable PDF on the "overview of the main results." This is the most scientifically valid study that I have yet seen. I cannot spend time discussing it yet (supper time), but after you have looked it over, I think it deserves some attention.

John
John C. Ratliff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-07, 09:36 PM   #18
I-Like-To-Bike
Been Around Awhile
 
I-Like-To-Bike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Burlington Iowa
Bikes: Vaterland and Ragazzi
Posts: 23,528
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Helmet Head
In order to explore this, we would have to be clear about what you mean by vehicular cycling. I don't see such a definition in this thread, explicit or implied.
Good point. Nor does Forester or any of his minions identify any characteristic that makes a cyclist "vehicular" when their claims are made about an alleged superior safety record for the mystery population of vehicular cyclists. The closest working definition for the proselytizers establishing a "safety record" appears to be that everybody is a "vehicular cyclist" until they have an accident, then they are not.
I-Like-To-Bike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-07, 09:40 PM   #19
I-Like-To-Bike
Been Around Awhile
 
I-Like-To-Bike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Burlington Iowa
Bikes: Vaterland and Ragazzi
Posts: 23,528
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by I-Like-To-Bike
Good point. Nor does Forester or any of his minions identify any characteristic that makes a cyclist "vehicular" when their claims are made about an alleged superior safety record for the mystery population of vehicular cyclists. The closest working definition for the proselytizers establishing a "safety record" appears to be that everybody is a "vehicular cyclist" until they have an accident, then they are not.
To the OP. The reference for the comparison of wildly mismatched populations of cyclists with scanty to non existent risk factors can be found in the other Forester tome, Bicycle Transportation, 2nd Edition published by MIT Press in 1994. Chapter 5 I believe.
I-Like-To-Bike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-07, 09:45 PM   #20
pj7
On Sabbatical
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Bikes:
Posts: 1,543
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
From what I gather, VC means riding your bike as though it were any other vehicle, obeying ALL traffic laws and wot-not, this also means to me "getting stuck in the same traffic messes".
So if I'm riding along the road and there is an accident up ahead, blocking all lanes and traffic is backed up for a mile, I should sit there and wait like every other vehicle instead of hopping the curb and riding on the sidewalk, because afterall, other vehicles aren't allowed on the sidewalk so why should I?
That's just one example.
In my mind though, I can't figure out why this guy whould have gone thru all of this if there hadn't been a monitary gain or fame out of it for him. And we all know that the human race would sell their own mother for a chance to become wealthier and have their name associated with various organizations.
pj7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-07, 09:49 PM   #21
JRA
Senior Member
 
JRA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: St. Louis
Bikes:
Posts: 945
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by I-Like-To-Bike
Forester apparently removed from his website the more detailed description of his idiotic comparison of wildly different cyclist populations and concluded that differences in "accident rates" could be attributed to unnamed Vehicular Cycling techniques that are either learned from 20 years of experience or taking his proprietary classes. The essence of that "comparison" can be found at http://www.johnforester.com/Articles/Social/aaas94.htm go to the section heading "Studies of the safety and convenience of cycling transportation" . This is where Forester compares vaguely defined and undefined "accident rates" of various groups. Perhaps some Forester devotee can tell us the appropriate Chapter and Verse of Effective Cycling that tells all of how Forester determined that Vehicular Cycling training will lead to 80% reduction in "accident rates."
Forester probably calculated the 80% figure from either the Kaplan survey of LAB members or from one of the Cross studies (since those seem to be the main sources, besides Forester, that he references).

It can be hard to find things on Forester's website. Forester discusses his study of the traffic behavior of four groups of cyclists (3 "college town" cyclists compared to one group of club cyclists, with JF doing the evaluation). That discussion is on a page under the "Lost League" heading, not the "Social" section.

http://www.johnforester.com/LAW/Bike...ontroversy.htm

Look down near the bottom of the page for a section entitled "The Evidence from Cyclist Behavior".
JRA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-07, 09:50 PM   #22
remsav
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Bikes:
Posts: 478
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by I-Like-To-Bike
And what makes you think cyclists' handling skills improved after being certified as trained vehicular cyclists.

It is only a product of John Forester's egotistical boasting that all his graduated students permanently alter their assumed pre-training "incompetent behavior" to cycling standards that match his training objectives.
Any skill based training course would by definition increase your skill in that endevour. There must be some statistical evidence for insurance companies to lower premium based on a driver taking a driving course. Who knows maybe its just coincidence but I would imagine skill has a some factor evidenced by every winter when 1st snow fall you have 300% increase in traffic accidents till people get used to it.

I get the arguments in ski technique thread about which teaching method is better or worse and they argue endless there too but here I'm not even sure what you guys are arguing about when you argue over VC most of the time.
remsav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-07, 10:00 PM   #23
genec
genec
 
genec's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: West Coast
Bikes: custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2
Posts: 24,633
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 165 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by remsav
Yeah I don't get it either. "VC is safer"? I would imagine following vehicle traffic laws would be safer then not .
Perhaps not... as a vc cyclist one is expected to ride in the street and obey traffic laws... but while riding in the street one is exposed to not only intersection traffic, but traffic from behind and traffic from the side in the form of motorists leaving parking positions.

Riding as a sidewalk rider, one only is exposed to traffic at intersections... the very same intersections where a vc cyclist also has to be on the defensive, however the sidewalk cyclist is not exposed to traffic from behind, nor motorists suddenly leaving parking spaces.

Just by sheer exposure alone, the sidewalk cyclist encounters fewer situations of potential danger.

This alone explains the preponderance of sidewalk cyclists I see in the area near my home... it is easier for those cyclists to simply act like fast pedestrians, especially considering the rarity of actual pedestrians on those same local sidewalks.

Now of course the sidewalk cyclists still have to obey all the pedestrian laws... but again sheer exposure to automotive traffic simply reduces their potential for automotive accidents.

Now I know that the response to this will be to offer that greater numbers of pedestrians are killed annually then cyclists. Could this possibly be that there are more pedestrians than cyclists, on any particular day using sidewalks and crossing streets? And how many of those ped deaths are due to alcohol?
genec is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-07, 10:01 PM   #24
I-Like-To-Bike
Been Around Awhile
 
I-Like-To-Bike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Burlington Iowa
Bikes: Vaterland and Ragazzi
Posts: 23,528
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by remsav
Any skill based training course would by definition increase your skill in that endevour. There must be some statistical evidence for insurance companies to lower premium based on a driver taking a driving course...I'm not even sure what you guys are arguing about when you argue over VC most of the time.
Obviously. Here's a hint, we are not discussing driving an automobile. And here's another hint, better look up the definition of results and note that it is not the same as training objectives. Lots of people are taught the Golden Rule or how to lead the "Good Life". In case you haven't noticed it doesn't necessarily increase the student's skill in those endeavors.
I-Like-To-Bike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-07, 10:09 PM   #25
I-Like-To-Bike
Been Around Awhile
 
I-Like-To-Bike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Burlington Iowa
Bikes: Vaterland and Ragazzi
Posts: 23,528
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by JRA
It can be hard to find things on Forester's website. Forester discusses his study of the traffic behavior of four groups of cyclists (3 "college town" cyclists compared to one group of club cyclists, with JF doing the evaluation). That discussion is on a page under the "Lost League" heading, not the "Social" section.

http://www.johnforester.com/LAW/Bike...ontroversy.htm

Look down near the bottom of the page for a section entitled "The Evidence from Cyclist Behavior".
Oh these are the studies alright but he used to give the details. Like how he "tested" random unaware cyclists for compliance with his own secret test, and compared the results of the cyclists who had no idea they were taking a test with his students who were being specifically tested on what Forester had just taught them to do and had to pass the test to get the certificate. And better yet, Forester jumps to the conclusion that these results had some sort of statistical significance beyond showing what a statistical charlatan Forester is.

Apparently he has removed from his site the details of these comparisons but our Forester scholars should be able to cite chapter and verse from the hardback tomes.
I-Like-To-Bike is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:26 PM.