Advertise on Bikeforums.net



User Tag List

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 51 to 75 of 87
  1. #51
    -=Barry=- The Human Car's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Baltimore, MD +/- ~100 miles
    Posts
    4,077
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by John Forester View Post
    Bek, you have so little understanding of rational discussion that you attempt to play semantic games to suit your ideology. Bikeways are defined by law as: bicycle lanes, bicycle paths, and bicycle routes. That's the legal definition, and I adhere to it. You insist on adding in other names, not specified in the law, and then condemning me for making statements that agree with the law but not with your personal additions to the law.

    Bicycle lanes [bicycle routes] are, by law, part of the roadway. However, they are no longer part of the normal roadway, and they are intended to produce operation that is in conflict with the normal rules of roadway operation. Shoulders are not legally part of the roadway.

    Get your facts together before you split your brain with unlawful additions.
    Depending on what item we pick from paragraph #1 and insert into paragraph #2 can make paragraph #2 invalid. So therefor your point is ether invalid or your use of bikeways is invalid. Might I suggest you get your terminology together before you split your brain with nonsensical additions.
    Cycling Advocate
    http://BaltimoreSpokes.org
    . . . o
    . . /L
    =()>()

  2. #52
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    4,069
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Bekologist View Post
    what is a 'practical bikeway system' john forester, in your definition?

    more basic and germane to the discussion, what is a 'bikeway?' you're the self professed bicycle transportation ingenue, please provide an accurate definition of a 'bikeway.'

    you seem confused, because a 'normal' road can be a 'bikeway' and several classes of 'bikeway' do not 'kick bicyclists off the roadways'

    please clarify your misunderstanding of these terms before any more of your rancorous, misleading blather about 'transportation infrastructure.'
    I need to inform you, Bek, that your ideologically driven semantic incompetence is enough to frequently drive others into anger. I think that the powers that control this group should have prohibited your participation for at least two reasons. One reason is gross impoliteness. The other is your ideologically driven semantic incompetence that so often results in gross misunderstanding of the words of other people.

    Here's the current example. I repeat, again, that I have always used the legal definition of bikeway and its three classes of bike path, bike lane, and bike route, with the legal requirement that each of these bikeways be specially designated for bicycle use.

    You claim that I am "confused, because a 'normal' road can be a 'bikeway'. Your description is indefinite, for no one can distinguish between my postulated confusion about your claim that a normal road can be a bikeway, and, the other possibility, that I am confused because I said that no normal road can be a bikeway. I don't know how you developed this confusion, because it is quite legally clear that no normal road can be a bikeway. Even a previously normal road does not become a bikeway until it is so designated with signs so people can tell it is a bikeway.

  3. #53
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    4,069
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by The Human Car View Post
    JF: Bikeways are defined by law as: bicycle lanes, bicycle paths, and bicycle routes. That's the legal definition, and I adhere to it.

    Bicycle lanes [bicycle routes] are, by law, part of the roadway. However, they are no longer part of the normal roadway, and they are intended to produce operation that is in conflict with the normal rules of roadway operation.

    Human Car now argues:

    Depending on what item we pick from paragraph #1 and insert into paragraph #2 can make paragraph #2 invalid. So therefor your point is ether invalid or your use of bikeways is invalid. Might I suggest you get your terminology together before you split your brain with nonsensical additions.


    More semantic nonsense for no purpose. I made it clear that bike lanes are no longer a part of the normal roadway. Note carefully that I wrote "normal roadway". A normal roadway is one without bike lanes, for then it becomes a bikeway.

  4. #54
    Senior Member randya's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    in bed with your mom
    My Bikes
    who cares?
    Posts
    13,696
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by John Forester View Post
    More semantic nonsense for no purpose. I made it clear that bike lanes are no longer a part of the normal roadway. Note carefully that I wrote "normal roadway". A normal roadway is one without bike lanes, for then it becomes a bikeway.
    you can't just go making up your own definitions like that, based on your own biases and prejudices (well, I guess you can do whatever you want, but you do realize that it totally destroys your credibility, don't you?)

  5. #55
    Elitest Murray Owner Mos6502's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    My Bikes
    1972 Columbia Tourist Expert III, Columbia Roadster
    Posts
    2,562
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by John Forester View Post
    More semantic nonsense for no purpose. I made it clear that bike lanes are no longer a part of the normal roadway. Note carefully that I wrote "normal roadway". A normal roadway is one without bike lanes, for then it becomes a bikeway.
    And yet strangely, when I went outside and observed a nearby street with a bike lane - it seemed strikingly similar to a normal one. Indeed, upon close inspection, it seemed that the bike lane was made from the very surface of the street itself. As if... it was part of the normal roadway.

    It really makes you think. I wonder what other mysteries are out there.

  6. #56
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    4,069
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Mos6502 View Post
    And yet strangely, when I went outside and observed a nearby street with a bike lane - it seemed strikingly similar to a normal one. Indeed, upon close inspection, it seemed that the bike lane was made from the very surface of the street itself. As if... it was part of the normal roadway.

    It really makes you think. I wonder what other mysteries are out there.
    The operating rules are different. And it appears on the bicycle transportation plan.

  7. #57
    -=Barry=- The Human Car's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Baltimore, MD +/- ~100 miles
    Posts
    4,077
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by John Forester View Post
    More semantic nonsense for no purpose. I made it clear that bike lanes are no longer a part of the normal roadway. Note carefully that I wrote "normal roadway". A normal roadway is one without bike lanes, for then it becomes a bikeway.
    No, you condemn all bikeways because bike lanes are no longer a part of the normal roadway [at least per JF]

    A normal roadway with a bike route sign becomes a bikeway.
    Cycling Advocate
    http://BaltimoreSpokes.org
    . . . o
    . . /L
    =()>()

  8. #58
    -=Barry=- The Human Car's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Baltimore, MD +/- ~100 miles
    Posts
    4,077
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by John Forester View Post
    The operating rules are different. And it appears on the bicycle transportation plan.
    And the same thing applies to JF endorsed shoulders.
    Cycling Advocate
    http://BaltimoreSpokes.org
    . . . o
    . . /L
    =()>()

  9. #59
    Elitest Murray Owner Mos6502's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    My Bikes
    1972 Columbia Tourist Expert III, Columbia Roadster
    Posts
    2,562
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by John Forester View Post
    The operating rules are different.
    If you think in terms of "vehicles" instead of "bicycle" and "car" - nothing is really different. A slow vehicle travels in the slow lane, and a fast vehicle travels in the fast lane. That pretty much applies to any situation where there is a lane provided for slow traffic, and lane provided for fast traffic.

  10. #60
    totally louche Bekologist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    A land that time forgot
    My Bikes
    the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes
    Posts
    18,026
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    let me try to sort this out from johns perspective, for fear of losing sight of this study's considerable breadth in the field of bicycle transportation literature....

    a road is a road is a road. add a sign for bikes and it is no longer the same road. right.

    an agreeable shoulder along a road is okay for bikes to ride on but if a state makes the shoulder beter for bike traffic it becomes unagreeable.

    got it.

    and the mere fact of planning for bikes as part of the transportation mix on specific public roads somehow makes these roads less acceptable for bicycle transportation.

    right.
    Last edited by Bekologist; 11-05-09 at 11:01 PM.
    "Evidence, anecdote and methodology all support planning for roadway bike traffic."

  11. #61
    Senior Member meanwhile's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    3,903
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by John Forester View Post
    You say that you ride in the UK. The attitude there is far different from the attitude in the USA. The USA bikeway standards, and the accompanying laws, were designed by motorists, over the opposition of organized cyclists, with the purpose of clearing the way for motorists. That's the difference.
    I've ridden in the US. In fact I was a courier there. I'm unware of any laws that force riders on to "bike ways". Mind you - I was a courier. So I was pretty much professionally ignorant of all traffic laws...

    I still don't understand why you won't publish your letter here. Saying that people can't meaningfully disagree with you because they haven't seen it and then refusing to post it seems a little weird.

  12. #62
    totally louche Bekologist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    A land that time forgot
    My Bikes
    the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes
    Posts
    18,026
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    keep in mind, meanwhile, as i think you were a bit confused earlier, that in the USA,

    several types of 'bikeway' actually are part of the roadway, shared lanes, bike routes, wide or narrow lanes as part of a bikeway network, sharrowed streets, and bikelanes are all part of the roadway.

    john objects to laws in the extreme minority of states that 'discriminate' against bicyclists, the 'mandatory' bikelane and sidepath rules, and most bicycle advocates in the USA would like to see these laws repealed.

    one major reality check is that there are very, very few sidepaths or bikelanes as a percentage of any states' highways..... this simple fact predicates that bicyclists will be riding unenhanced public roads the vast, vast majority of the time.


    I lived in a state with mandatory sidepath rules and never, never, had an issue if i wasn't on the rare sidepath instead of the roadway.

    and in oregon, a state with mandatory bikelane laws, never, ever had a problem riding as i saw fit and ignoring the bikelane in favor of a general travel lane at times.....


    mandatory laws absent enforcement are not an issue. john chooses to endlessly rant hysterics about these rules in a very small minority of states.

    he somehow extrapolates these as dealbreakers to the entirety of planning for bikes on public roads and highways.


    refusing to acknowledge that bicycle transportation literature is eclipsing his opinion on how best to accommodate bikes in the transportation mix?

    the recriminations of a paralyzed status quotian.
    Last edited by Bekologist; 11-06-09 at 07:55 AM.
    "Evidence, anecdote and methodology all support planning for roadway bike traffic."

  13. #63
    Part-time epistemologist invisiblehand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    My Bikes
    Jamis Nova, Bike Friday NWT, STRIDA, Austro Daimler Vent Noir, Haluzak Horizon, Salsa La Raza, Hollands Tourer, Bike Friday tikit
    Posts
    5,174
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by meanwhile View Post
    I still don't understand why you won't publish your letter here. Saying that people can't meaningfully disagree with you because they haven't seen it and then refusing to post it seems a little weird.
    Are you referring to his review? I thought JF posted something on his website and gave a link earlier.

  14. #64
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    4,069
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by randya View Post
    you can't just go making up your own definitions like that, based on your own biases and prejudices (well, I guess you can do whatever you want, but you do realize that it totally destroys your credibility, don't you?)
    I follow the legal definitions of the facilities about which I write. If you disagree, then provide the contrasting information.

  15. #65
    Senior Member meanwhile's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    3,903
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by invisiblehand View Post
    Are you referring to his review? I thought JF posted something on his website and gave a link earlier.
    I missed that - thanks.

  16. #66
    genec genec's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    san diego
    My Bikes
    custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2
    Posts
    22,571
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by John Forester View Post
    I follow the legal definitions of the facilities about which I write. If you disagree, then provide the contrasting information.
    Do motorists follow the legal definitions and rules of the facilities about which you write? If they did, there would be far fewer conflicts between motorists and cyclists.

  17. #67
    Senior Member meanwhile's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    3,903
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by John Forester View Post
    I follow the legal definitions of the facilities about which I write. If you disagree, then provide the contrasting information.
    "Bikeway" is a term so vague as to be almost useless, it seems -

    http://www.ncdot.org/transit/bicycle...ikewayact.html

    1. Bicycle: A non-motorized vehicle with two or three wheels tandem, a steering handle, one or two saddle seats, and pedals by which the vehicle is propelled.

    2. Bikeway: A thoroughfare suitable for bicycles, and which may either exist within the right-of-way of other modes of transportation, such as highways, or along a separate, independent corridor.

    3. Department: North Carolina Department of Transportation.
    However you definitely can't assume that the concept automatically implies compulsion.
    Last edited by meanwhile; 11-06-09 at 09:50 AM.

  18. #68
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    4,069
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by meanwhile View Post
    I still don't understand why you won't publish your letter here. Saying that people can't meaningfully disagree with you because they haven't seen it and then refusing to post it seems a little weird.
    I think that you are a bit confused. Are you referring to my review of the bicycle infrastructure paper in Environmental Health? I have posted that on my website and published the URL in BF. Here it is again:

    http://johnforester.com/Articles/Saf...e%20Impact.pdf

    Or are you referring to the letter that I attempted to send to the editors of Environmental Health? They wanted something short, and I provided a 6 paragraph letter. That was a short introduction to the errors published, with the URL given above as well. However, I was not permitted to send that letter to them, because their procedure, intended for professional scientists and professors, demanded that I first pay $1350. That is a significant amount for an amateur as I am, and I refused to do it. The text of the letter that I prepared but was prohibited, by demands for money, from sending, follows:

    Comment on: The Impact of Transportation Infrastructure on Bicycling Injuries and Crashes: A Review of the Literature, by Reynolds, Harris, Teshke, Cripton, and Winters.

    The authors admirably attempted to review only papers that scientifically demonstrated a safety effect produced by bicycle infrastructure, commonly called bikeways, and they remarked, accurately, on the scarcity of papers in this field meeting their criteria. However, the authors concluded that several types of bikeway reduced car-bike collisions when none of the papers actually so demonstrated. The authors were misled by the combination of two factors. One is the population-wide bias that safety for cyclists requires that they stick to the edge of the roadway, or off it, the performance that bikeways are designed to produce. The other is ignorance about bicycle transportation engineering, a field with literature going back to 1976. (1)

    For example, the authors equated roadway cycling with vehicular cycling. Roadway cycling is any cycling on the roadway, typically done in a dangerous, unlawful and incompetent manner, while vehicular cycling is roadway cycling done in accordance with the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles. The best evidence is that vehicular cycling has a crash rate only about 25% of that of the typically incompetent cycling.

    As another example, the authors attributed significant crash reduction to bike lanes in an American paper written in 1975 that combined the statistics for bike lanes and bike routes. The contribution of bike lanes to those statistics was vanishingly small, because there were almost no bike lanes in America at that time, while there were many bike routes.

    The fields of bicycle transportation and cyclist safety are filled, as the authors discovered, with seriously defective papers. The first cause was the societal and legal view that the prime duty of cyclists is to stay out of the way of cars, taught largely through the motivation of fear. This produces cyclists who have great difficulty in persuading themselves to operate safely and lawfully. The second cause is the current environmental patriotism that demands facilities to attract people with that defective view of cycling but which, as the authors (if they accept my criticism) have discovered, do not make cycling significantly safer.

    My detailed review of the review paper is at:
    http://johnforester.com/Articles/Saf...e%20Impact.pdf

    Note my statement above, that lawful, competent cycling in accordance with the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles produces a crash rate only about 25% of that for the general bicycling public. I do not know of any other safety program that presents such a large, but reasonably possible, improvement.



    1: Forester, John; The Bicycle Transportation Controversy; Transportation Quarterly Vol 55 No 2, p7-17, Spring 1001


    John Forester, MS, PE
    7585 Church St
    Lemon Grove CA 91945-2306
    619-644-5481
    www.johnforester.com



    It is often asserted that I have a competing interest in this field. My cycling books make very little money, and the effort that I have contributed over the years to the governmental programs for bicycling has always been contributed without compensation. Government will pay for the superstition it wants, but will not pay for accurate information about bicycle transportation. What I do say is that my competing interest is the welfare of lawful, competent cyclists, my associates through a cycling life starting in 1937, no matter what is the opinion of the general public.

  19. #69
    Senior Member meanwhile's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    3,903
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by John Forester View Post
    I think that you are a bit confused.
    Yes, I was. That was because you wrote

    You can only make a reasonable statement of views after you have read the initial papers that were reviewed, the review paper, and my review of the review paper. Until you have reached the minimal reasonable level of expertise in this subject, your opinions of this type are no more than hot air. If you want to develop the level of expertise necessary for reasonable discussion, then put your mind into doing so.
    - which ASSUMED that the person you were replying to hadn't read the letter. Obviously the only way this assumption could be made was if the letter was unavailable.

    As for your letter/paper - it's hard to give a definite opinion without access to a lot more material. I'd certainly take issue with one of the arguments, i.e. that the higher accident rate for roundabouts with cyclelanes proves the lanes are dangerous. It could well be that the type of roundabouts where accidents are more likely have been selected for bike lanes. Or that lanes are more common in cities where there are more riders, hence there are more accidents. You don't define what you mean by "worst safety" performance in this passage (3.2) - absolute accident rate? rate adjusted for rider numbers? for traffic density? - and your online version doesn't provide the necessary references - your conclusions MAY be right, but you certainly haven't proved them.

  20. #70
    genec genec's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    san diego
    My Bikes
    custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2
    Posts
    22,571
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by John Forester View Post
    (clipped for brevity)

    For example, the authors equated roadway cycling with vehicular cycling. Roadway cycling is any cycling on the roadway, typically done in a dangerous, unlawful and incompetent manner, while vehicular cycling is roadway cycling done in accordance with the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles. The best evidence is that vehicular cycling has a crash rate only about 25% of that of the typically incompetent cycling.

    (clipped for brevity)

    Government will pay for the superstition it wants, but will not pay for accurate information about bicycle transportation. What I do say is that my competing interest is the welfare of lawful, competent cyclists, my associates through a cycling life starting in 1937, no matter what is the opinion of the general public.

    (clipped for brevity)
    How has this 25% crash rate of "vehicular cyclists" verses "the typically incompetent" cyclist determined?

    Was the data compared to similar age cyclists? Was the data compared to similar experienced cyclists (cycling years)?

    Who or what determined who was a vehicular cyclist? Who or what determined who was a "typically incompetent" cyclist?

    Where is this data located so that the scientific community may use it as a metric when comparing other data such as that used for the aforementioned Environmental Health paper may examine it?

    Has the data or paper been reviewed for statistical errors or anomalies or biases?

    Has the data or paper been submitted to any scientific journals?

    Have these theories been tested by any independent group?

  21. #71
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    4,069
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by genec View Post
    How has this 25% crash rate of "vehicular cyclists" verses "the typically incompetent" cyclist determined?

    Was the data compared to similar age cyclists? Was the data compared to similar experienced cyclists (cycling years)?

    Who or what determined who was a vehicular cyclist? Who or what determined who was a "typically incompetent" cyclist?

    Where is this data located so that the scientific community may use it as a metric when comparing other data such as that used for the aforementioned Environmental Health paper may examine it?

    Has the data or paper been reviewed for statistical errors or anomalies or biases?

    Has the data or paper been submitted to any scientific journals?

    Have these theories been tested by any independent group?
    Start out by reading my book Bicycle Transportation, which will provide the sources and comparisons used.

    However, here's a bit. The crash rate comparisons were two. Kaplan's study of club cyclists and National Safety Council's study of university associated cyclists. Watkins's study of CTC cyclists comparing new members with members of four or more years standing. Both gave similar ratios.

    Club cyclists probably had older average age than university associated cyclists. If incoming CTC members did not change in age range, then those with four or more years standing must be at least four years older.

    Club cyclists in the years of Kaplan's study were largely vehicular cyclists, based on my hundreds of hours of experience with them, and many discussions among them. The one time that I scored such a group the group average cycling behavior score was 98%. Typical California cyclist populations have been measured by me run much less, typically below the failing 70% score. There does not appear to be much difference in cyclist behavior, as far as the rules of the road go, from coast to coast.

    As I said, Bicycle Transportation was first published in 1977, and is available in many libraries.

    Bicycle Transportation has been reviewed by many, and no substantive scientific errors have been published. One does not submit books to journals.

    Have my theories been tested by any other group? Which theory? That obeying the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles is safer than cycling in the typical American manner? While that appears to be a reasonable question for scientific issues in general, it is not reasonable for many social science issues, simply because one cannot subject humans to such tests. Such a study would have to be done through survey techniques, but that is precisely what has been done by several investigators in ways that their data can be compared. Better surveys can quite possibly be devised, but creating a better survey would then entail doing a longitudinal study after the survey method had been devised. No one has done it.

    However, please note that obeying the rules of the road ought to be the accepted hypothesis for roadway behavior, while not obeying the rules of the road ought to be the challenging hypothesis. Those who advocate cyclist-inferiority cycling have had thirty years of little effort followed by forty years of intense effort to demonstrate the superiority of cyclist-inferiority cycling, whether on bikeways or not, and all their efforts have failed to demonstrate such superiority. There has been no definitive test either way; vehicular cyclists haven't had the money, while those with the money, and the scientific need to make such tests, have failed to demonstrate support for their views.

  22. #72
    Been Around Awhile I-Like-To-Bike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Burlington Iowa
    My Bikes
    Vaterland and Ragazzi
    Posts
    19,822
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by genec View Post
    How has this 25% crash rate of "vehicular cyclists" verses "the typically incompetent" cyclist determined?

    Was the data compared to similar age cyclists? Was the data compared to similar experienced cyclists (cycling years)?

    Who or what determined who was a vehicular cyclist? Who or what determined who was a "typically incompetent" cyclist?

    Where is this data located so that the scientific community may use it as a metric when comparing other data such as that used for the aforementioned Environmental Health paper may examine it?

    Has the data or paper been reviewed for statistical errors or anomalies or biases?

    Has the data or paper been submitted to any scientific journals?

    Have these theories been tested by any independent group?
    Note that Forester's reply is the same old, same old references to his bogus meta analysis and grotesque comparison's of studies of grossly different populations of cyclists, with almost zero similarities, zero measurement of vehicular cycling metrics, zero measurement of injury severity, and numerous other gross (and laughable) misrepresentations of the original study findings; and 100% Forester assumption that any and all differences between alleged accident rates is a result of some undefined and unmeasured vehicular cycling characteristic possessed by the mystical vehicular cyclists that were never identified in the original studies.

  23. #73
    genec genec's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    san diego
    My Bikes
    custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2
    Posts
    22,571
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by John Forester View Post
    Start out by reading my book Bicycle Transportation, which will provide the sources and comparisons used.

    However, here's a bit. The crash rate comparisons were two. Kaplan's study of club cyclists and National Safety Council's study of university associated cyclists. Watkins's study of CTC cyclists comparing new members with members of four or more years standing. Both gave similar ratios.

    Club cyclists probably had older average age than university associated cyclists. If incoming CTC members did not change in age range, then those with four or more years standing must be at least four years older.

    Club cyclists in the years of Kaplan's study were largely vehicular cyclists, based on my hundreds of hours of experience with them, and many discussions among them. The one time that I scored such a group the group average cycling behavior score was 98%. Typical California cyclist populations have been measured by me run much less, typically below the failing 70% score. There does not appear to be much difference in cyclist behavior, as far as the rules of the road go, from coast to coast.

    As I said, Bicycle Transportation was first published in 1977, and is available in many libraries.

    Bicycle Transportation has been reviewed by many, and no substantive scientific errors have been published. One does not submit books to journals.

    Have my theories been tested by any other group? Which theory? That obeying the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles is safer than cycling in the typical American manner? While that appears to be a reasonable question for scientific issues in general, it is not reasonable for many social science issues, simply because one cannot subject humans to such tests. Such a study would have to be done through survey techniques, but that is precisely what has been done by several investigators in ways that their data can be compared. Better surveys can quite possibly be devised, but creating a better survey would then entail doing a longitudinal study after the survey method had been devised. No one has done it.

    However, please note that obeying the rules of the road ought to be the accepted hypothesis for roadway behavior, while not obeying the rules of the road ought to be the challenging hypothesis. Those who advocate cyclist-inferiority cycling have had thirty years of little effort followed by forty years of intense effort to demonstrate the superiority of cyclist-inferiority cycling, whether on bikeways or not, and all their efforts have failed to demonstrate such superiority. There has been no definitive test either way; vehicular cyclists haven't had the money, while those with the money, and the scientific need to make such tests, have failed to demonstrate support for their views.
    How are vehicular cyclists created today... in your reply above you essentially created the control group and then determined that they were correct by your metrics alone.

    Are vehicular cyclists created today? and by whom?

  24. #74
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    4,069
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by genec View Post
    How are vehicular cyclists created today... in your reply above you essentially created the control group and then determined that they were correct by your metrics alone.

    Are vehicular cyclists created today? and by whom?
    Don't be such a blatant liar. Me, creating American club cycling? That group had to exist for me to observe it.

    Yes, there is no present program for creating vehicular cyclists, because people with the absurd beliefs in popular, and hence cyclist-inferiority, cycling on bikeways, opposed it and hijacked it, with the assistance, of course, of the motoring establishment that designed the system.

  25. #75
    totally louche Bekologist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    A land that time forgot
    My Bikes
    the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes
    Posts
    18,026
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    why are we talking about john's lousy study anyway?


    the researchers obviously flunked his data collection methods or analysis or something to have not included his purportedly all-knowing, only true cycling document extant.

    can we get off johns' lousy excuse for critical analysis and move back to the topic of the original post? they didn't care about johns studies, and i suggest we don't either, as far as discussions of this study is concerned.
    "Evidence, anecdote and methodology all support planning for roadway bike traffic."

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •