Tom Stormcrowe

On JF's defense, to be fair.....and I am most assuredly not a proponent of VC, but more of an adaptive cyclist.
A person is entitled to an honorarium when they are speaking. It's good work if you can get it! I wasn't there and can't say what he said, and in the interest of fairness, until a transcript of what he said is posted, I won't condemn a man for accepting an honorarium for speaking. If he represented the cyclists viewpoint at a meeting of the Board of Directors of General Motors and they paid him, it still wouldn't be an issue as long as he was faithful to the viewpoint of cyclists if he was speaking as a cycling advocate.

Payments and honorariums are a nonissue.

chipcom 

I agree, if it were me I'd ESPECIALLY want to speak in front of motorist-friendly groups to give them the perspective of a cyclist, who also happens to be a motorist...and if I can do it without LOSING money on the deal, all the better.

Bekologist

the problem, tom, is that john forester ISN'T faithful to the viewpoints of cyclists. john forester is faithful to outdated, auto-centric roadway design, at the expense of increasing transportational cycling in this country.

chipcom 

Bek, he just has a differing viewpoint, aspects of which some of us don't agree with.

Tom Stormcrowe

Isn't it more the case that he tries to advocate a cycling technique that he believes will work under current conditions?

That said, I don't agree with a lot of it, as I said, I am more of an adaptive cyclist. I don't think he's the Antichrist of Anticycling though, I just believe he looks at different priorities than I do or you do! After all, Bek, we have differing views as well, as does every other cyclist on the planet. I incorporate those of his techniques that I agree with, those of yours that I agree with, I incorporate my own as well. I draw my store of survival tips from eclectic sources!

chipcom 

I tend to incorporate techniques I don't agree with, just to be ornery...but that's because I'm

CHIPCOM MAN!! DA DA-DA DA!

Bekologist

advocating a cycling technique is far removed from advocating multimodal road design to benefit all users of public rights of way that in turn increase the use of bikes for transportation, Tom.

john forester wants to start a cycling school, great. more power to him.

if john forester intends to damnify and undo positive benefits seen and proven by the addition of bike specific infrastructure to public space, shame on him.

john foresters' autocentric views of community road design and the marginalization of 'untrained' cyclists, lead me to conclude he is the modern anticyclist.

CB HI

That is the same argument (complaint) I heard about JF in the 1980s. I guess you are just outdated Bek.

Bekologist

hmm, people have been complaining about his point of view for almost 30 years? I wonder why?
you think that scores one for his platform? CB, you think vanguard, 21st century multimodal transportation and road planning is somehow trumped by foresters' dated, autocentric views? sorry, but I must laugh a little.


like I said, dude wants to start a cycling school, more power to him. if he stands in the way of increasing cycling in this country, shame on the anti-cyclist john forester has become.

CB HI

And yet his methods and training have stood the test of time regardless of constant harping like yours and the construction of bikelanes. LAB still uses his training program. Canada has a national training program. The Hawaii BikeED program for fourth graders is a huge success and is still going strong today. Sad that more communities (and many individuals here) are unwilling to support this success in their schools.

Edit: Hawaii BikeED program was set up by JF. So while I keep hearing of young drivers harassing cyclist all over the US, the young drivers in Hawaii have treated me well, unlike the baby boomers here.

sbhikes

In the instance of Santa Barbara, the Santa Barbara Safe Streets group specifically invited John Forester to speak and not someone from our local bicycle advocacy group becasue JF would further the aims of folks who are against traffic calming and other measures designed to encourage alternatives to private motor vehicle use.

JF is entitled to his perspective, but I believe that people ought to understand that pro-car organizations find him more useful than alternative transportation organizations do.

Bekologist

CBHI, maybe his training methods should work congruent with bike infrastructure -

and john forester shouldn't rally against community designs for public space that increase bicycling, like the santa barbara imbroglio sbikes posted about.

I suspect john forester does a lot of honorarium-collecting, all expenses paid speaking engagements where he marginalizes cycling infrastructure, much to the pleasures of the auto lobby.

CB HI

For you transportational cyclist that think JF has done nothing for you recently, you should look up the David Prokop v City of Los Angeles appeal effort. JF started the appeal effort in 2005 and o-my it‘s purpose is to preserve cyclist protections on CA bikepaths (could also impact bikepaths nationally).

I believe HH also worked to bring some of the CA cycling groups into the effort.

Hopefully, several other CA advocacy cyclist in this forum have also helped out, but I sometimes think a few of them spend all of their time here complaining about JF and HH rather than doing something real to help cyclist in CA.

From Jim Baross, CABO President:

First some background... bike paths vs trails.

California designates and defines three types of official "bikeways"
and notes in passing that bicycling also occurs on "shared roadways."
Bikeways include bike lanes (Class 2), bike routes (Class 3) and bike
paths (Class 1). Each type of bikeway is developed and designed
primarily for transportation purposes and each facility type has
design standards established by the state.
Owners of property over which the public is allowed access on
undeveloped, unpaved routes for recreation were granted immunity from
liability for the conditions of these informal routes. We call these
trails in California.

PRESS RELEASE: California, February 19, 2007

Bike Paths: Safe or Sorry? Los Angeles City's Bait and Switch

People injured on Bike Paths are being cheated out of the protections
available to all Californians who are hurt on a public road, sidewalk
or bike lane due to the negligence of a municipality. The public has
been led to believe that Bike Paths (Class 1 bikeway transportation
routes, paved and separated from car traffic) are built with safety
in mind partly because California Highway Code establishes minimum
safety standards for Bike Paths. But the reality is that
municipalities such as the City of Los Angeles are hiding from their
responsibility behind a claim that Bike Paths built for
transportation are the same as unpaved trails opened for recreation.
People are being baited by the promise of a safe Bike Path, but
switched to the "ride at your own risk" exposure of an undeveloped trail.

The cycling community is fighting back. California bicyclists and
three of the largest cycling organizations in the country, the
California Association of Bicycling Organizations (CABO), the
California Bicycle Coalition (CBC), and the national League of
American Bicyclists (LAB) have rallied to bring an appeal of current
court precedent. The appellate briefs in the appeal, Prokop v. City
of Los Angeles et al have been filed with the California Court of
Appeal. Oral argument in this case, Case: B184025 2nd District,Division 8, is scheduled for February 28, 2007 at the California
Court of Appeal, Los Angeles.

The appellate briefs, two amicus curiae briefs submitted by the
cycling community that were rejected by the courts without
explanation, and other background information are available at
<https://www.cabobike.org/Prokop.htm>www.cabobike.org/Prokop.htm.

Contacts

The following individuals are recommended and available regarding this appeal:
* John Forester, America's preeminent cycling engineer - 619-644-5481
* Jim Baross, CABO President - 619-280-6908; cell 619-980-5752
* Alan Wachtel, CABO Government Relations Chair - 650-494-7520
* Amanda Eichstaedt, LAB, President & West Coast Representative -
415-663-1777.
Karen Coffin-Brant, Esq., appellate attorney for the plaintiff, can
be reached at 661-964-7880.

CB HI

Please show us which well designed, reasonably safe transportational cycling facility that JF has opposed/blocked. You label avid VCers that oppose unsafe bikelanes and sidepaths as anti-all-facilities, which is simply not true. Many avid VCers have fought for bikepaths that are safe, well designed and have improved transportational cycling in our area. But as JF and others have stated before, the locations for which this is true are limited.

JF did not seem to have a problem with Diane’s bikepath if it does all that she states it does. He just noted that it would be one of the limited locations where that would be the case and noted her fortune. How many downtown cores have bikepaths with few intersections, other than along rivers or some other natural barrier to roads? That is the point.

Bekologist

bike paths, its not that he endorses some- shortcut bike paths, CBhi,

it's his damnification campaign against bike lanes, CBhi.

Bike lanes, integrated onto public rights of way, that enourage and increase cycling in communities while at the same time decreasing the indexed cyclist accident rates.

john forester- can he endorse on-road bike lanes? does he? does he support adding bike infrastructure like bike lanes in portland, that have both 1)increased cycling as well as 2)decreased the accident rate for cyclists?

John - can john endorse and support integrated Class 2 bike lanes? any endorsement? or just damnification against bike specific road infrastructure like a class 2 bike lane??

Bekologist

there's a fundamental difference between desiring cyclists have more training for their own good, and making roads reflect multimodal use while concurrently increasing transportational cycling in america.

if he wants to start a cycling school, more power to him. if he works against on-road bike facility implementation that will increase cycling and decrease the cyclist accident rates in america, shame on john.

CB HI

Bek,

This will be the third thread that I have asked you for the ideal bikelane design that keeps cyclist safe through intersections and driveways. When you forward that safe design, I will be happy to take it to the Honolulu City Council with my full support.


Many VCers consider the data you claim shows bikelanes make our travel safer, is flawed and that bike lanes are less safe, except maybe >= 5 feet bikelanes on long stretches of road without intersections and driveways. Because much of the data collected for accidents in intersections on roadways with bikelanes discount the bikelane, your data is useless. I would support a properly performed scientific study on bike lane safety. How much money Bek, are you willing to put up for this study.

Without training, how many casual cyclist even understand the added dangers of right hooks and left hooks that bikelanes cause. What Portland program informs Portland cyclist of these added dangers so that they can counter the increased risk?

I-Like-To-Bike

Baloney! Test of Time? You mean "stuff," repeated over and over no matter how much it is discredited.

John Forester's self proclaimed "Scientific" Methods of testing, statistical and comparative analysis, psychological analysis, and risk assessment have been bogus and a sham from day one of publication. It is these Forester unique methods of so-called testing and sophomoric analysis that form the basis of his claims about the incredible quantitative risk reducing value of his training methods. Whether you agree with the conclusions he reached about "best" cycling technique or not, does not add any validity to any of his quantitative claims about the relative dangers/risk/safety of any method of cycling. ESPECIALLY bogus is the claim of fantastic risk reducing power (80%!) of his "training" program or "methods" of cycling.

chipcom 

IMO a bike lane is only more dangerous if one is required to remain within its confines. If no such requirement exists, the bike lane is only dangerous to those who let paint dictate where they ride and put themselves in dangerous situations. Bike lanes don't cause danger, people's actions cause danger.

So perhaps if the pro & anti facilities folks spent more time working together to educate cyclists & motorists and less time arguing amongst themselves about the dangers of facilities, the dangers of facilities would be lessened because the people using them wouldn't be so dangerous to themselves.

sggoodri

Forester has been consistent on this issue. He endorses the extra pavement width provided by the combination of a bike lane and an ordinary travel lane. He advocates these as wide outside lanes. He does not advocate a stripe demarcating one portion of that for cars and another for bikes, because he, like many cyclists, observe that such segregation stripes generally create more problems than they solve.

N_C

I can atest to this folks. While I do not like JF's tactics & the way he shoves his doctrine down our throats I can say I have yet to ride in a better area, traffic wise then Honolulu.

When I was there last Nov. I rode with CBHI one of the days I was there. We rode through a good portion of the city in traffic of course. It is very congested & busy. Yet I do not recall being cut off, swerved at, flipped off, etc. We never had any problems with traffic, despite the amount or how busy it was.

We were only honked at once & CBHI pointed out it was a tourist in a rental vehicle, probably from the mainland. We did get yelled at once, but it was a good yell. I forgot what CBHI called it, but it is part of Hawaii tradition to do this yell. It was a vehicle full of very pretty females, who also did the hang loose sign if I recall correctly.

The same goes for the other 3 days I rode when I was there. Traffic was quite pleasent to deal with.

chipcom 

probably SHAKA BRA!

I loved riding on Oahu, but there are places that it can cause some stress...like using the Like-Like or Pali highways to get to/from Honolulu and the windward side. Granted, I was stationed there in the late 70s, so no doubt things have changed one way or the other. I hear they even finally completed the H3!

I-Like-To-Bike

What neither you, I, nor anyone else can attest to is the nature of the relationship (if any) between your traffic observations of a couple of days, and the training program that CB Hi mentioned.

galen_52657

It's all smoke and mirrors...

bigpedaler

The honorarium is only an issue because JF denies receiving any money other than travel expenses.

I'd love to get a piece of that, too, and i wouldn't be shy about admitting my honorariums! trouble is, most people don't want to hear my often-blunt verbiage (that, and i don't usually say enough to fill the time allotted for such things, i'm usually a man of few words.)