I-Like-To-Bike

What is off base is the claim made by Forester and his disciples (including numerous LCI devotees) that VC/EC training will reduce accident risk for the trained by a staggering 80%. All without a lick of evidence of any actual measured results for "trained" students. Or even identifying, let alone measuring any population of cyclists who are vehicular cyclists.

Again, wildly exaggerated claims of positive quantitative results are repeated by VC training proseltyizers as a mantra. Again Genec and crew constantly jabbering about the "need" for this so-called cyclist training to be incorporated into schools or forced on unwilling/unappreciative students without a lick of explanation of the actual value that such training will provide to anyone but the instructors.

tomcryar

www.bikeleague.org/educenter/seminars.htm

Edit: it might say page not found...just click on resources and hit teaching.

RobertHurst

True. The implication that VC/EC training specifically--as opposed to some other type of training or experience, commuting experience, messengering, what have you--leads to the safest riding is not supported by studies, surveys, or analyses thereof. It is true that about half of car-bike accidents are immediately preceded by an incident of blatant law-breaking by the cyclist (the cyclist is 'at fault'). This leads to the conclusion that VC-style cycling could prevent about half of car-bike accidents. Looking at the entirety of cyclists, this may very well be true. But--when you look at the experienced, adult riders we find that they are usually not 'at fault' for their accidents. That is, they still have plenty of accidents even while riding lawfully. For those looking for clues in statistical evidence, it seems that, as a safety measure, VC/EC takes us half the way there and leaves us hangin.

The much happier 80% figure comes from Forester's work, but does not specifically refer to VC-trained cyclists. Forester used the numbers from several available accident surveys (Chlapecka, Schupack, Planek, Klecker, and Driessen, NHTSA, 1975; Cross, 1980; Cross and Fisher, NHTSA?, 1977; Kaplan, 1976; Schupack and Driessen, 1976; Watkins, Cyclists' Touring Club, '84? I may be forgetting some) to make the claim that 10 years of cycling experience (note: not VC experience or training) at a moderate amount of yearly mileage would reduce one's accident rate by 80%. Spotty though these surveys were, the general shape of the curve they describe is further corroborated by more recent surveys such as Moritz' survey of LAB members and Ken Kifer's survey of touring cyclists. At the far end of the curve are riders who have rolled hundreds of thousands of miles on city streets in a decidedly non-VC fashion. The general point is that experience on the bike translates into a drastically lower accident rate--but it sure ain't 'Effective Cycling' that gets em there.

Robert

N_C

Not yet. I'm scheduled to take Road I next Saturday Sept. 23. I do not know when I will take the LCI course yet.

Helmet Head

Many NYC cabbies roll hundreds of thousands of miles on city streets in a decidely contrarian-to-normal-traffic-rules-and-defensive-driving-principles fashion as well. That doesn't mean anyone should be training or recommending anyone else to drive like that.

One of the key points of most training programs is to accelerate the natural learning-from-experience process.

RobertHurst

Gene, good post. These are good points and good questions.

As for myself, I have never taken a course, although I have studied the course materials for all the levels of classes, and have read Effective Cycling several times.

It is my opinion that EC, in its pure form (let's call it "Foresterism") and even in its evolved, some would say softened, form that is the core of today's LAB courses, puts the most important aspects of safe cycling--essentially defensive driving/motorcycling ideology translated to bikes--on the back burner. In its place we get insta-turn to the rescue. I believe this is a grave disservice.

Still, I understand that not every course or LCI is the same and that many are free-thinkers, that the LAB continues to drift from Forester, that the courses are evolving and teach so much more than traffic philosophy, etc. Taking a course might be a great idea, especially for a beginner. You could meet people and have some fun. And, while you're there, make sure that defensive driving ideology stays up front where it belongs.

Robert

Helmet Head

Indeed, what I "preach" here goes far beyond the scope of LAB Road 1 and Road 2 courses.

First, much of my ranting here has to do with the politics of cyclist advocacy and safety, which of course would not be part of the course curriculum.

Second, the main techniques I present here are arguably advanced techniques that are beyond the basics taught in Road 1 and even Road 2. But they are consistent with the underlying principles that are taught in those courses.

Having said that, any decent LCI will emphasize the dangers of bike lanes. And any reasonable person, once aware of all those dangers, and the dearth of any safety benefits, would at least begin to wonder...

Helmet Head

I haven't taught any courses yet, but rest assured that "defensive driving/motorcycling" ideology, including vigilance, would be one of my key themes (as it is consistently in my posts here).

In fact, a handout of the relevant sections of the California motorcycle handbook would probably be very useful.

Rowan

Still at it, Stanley? You are persistent with your philisophies. Yeah, you are right to a degree with what you say here... why spend $50 or $60 to sit in a classroom etc, when you can sit in front of a computer at home infinitum, pay your $20 a month, and read as much ill-informed comment by the incompenent and unskilled on every aspect of cycling until your own misconceptions can be reaffirmed. Like your own about cycling courses.

N_C

ILTB's issues with the LAB, the LAB courses & Forester go far deeper then you think. I know why he feels the way he does about it. A lot of it is personal issues with Forester for things that happened between the 2. I can not disclose what but just know it is personal. ILTB is taking his personal feelings about forester & the LAB out on anyone who indicates they support the LAB, are a member of the LAB or agree with Forester. ILTB pounces on them, berates them & brow beats them with his diatribe as he has shown here with the hope of swaying people to believe as he does. The only thing to do is either agree to disagree or just stop discussing it with him.

Ever hear the term it is useless to argue with a pig, it is a waste of time & annoyes the pig? That could easily apply here.

There are those of us who like the LAB & Forester & what they stand for, there are those of us who like them but not everything about them, there are those that think they have a purpose but do not wish to be members, etc, there are those that think things are fine the way they are & there is no need for the LAB or Forester.

Then there is ILTB who has personal issues with Forester.

rando

If the LCI is doing this, In my opinion....they shouldn't be teaching. more foresterite propaganda. more reason to avoid these classes if it is true.

N_C

You forgot to state he adds his own ill-informed comments as an incompetent & unskilled cyclist himself.

Helmet Head

Simply pointing out the dangers of bike lanes is "foresterite propaganda"?

Rando, are you contending that bike lanes are perfectly safe and pose no dangers?

rando

you have no way of knowing who is or is not an incompetent and/or unskilled cyclist from posts in an internet forum. get off it. I like the fact that ILTB punctures inflated notions, practices, opinions and theories that many on this forum seem to take as gospel without questioning them.

Helmet Head

You don't practice what you preach, Rando.

I, for one, am not taking as gospel your opinion that "If the LCI is [pointing out the dangers of bike lanes], ...they shouldn't be teaching. "
I question it:

Simply pointing out the dangers of bike lanes is "foresterite propaganda"?
Rando, are you contending that bike lanes are perfectly safe and pose no dangers?

Do you answer my questioning?

rando

to the extent that any LCI is teaching that bike lanes are any more dangerous than any other lane on the road, that teaching veers into the realm of propaganda and theory, where many like to reside and call it fact. to me, teaching the facts of traffic laws and riding technique do not include this type of indoctrination. and I'm not saying it is happening. I'm just relying on one post by HH saying that any good LCI will "emphasize" the dangers of bike lanes. I'm willing to bet many LCIs do not do this. But people like HH wish they would.

Helmet Head

Do you know of any LCIs who teach that bike lanes are more dangerous than other lanes? If so, who? If not, why are you saying this?

rando

... So I guess that would be my problem with the classes, IF they are teaching theory and propaganda rather than basic laws and facts. But I'm not sure they are. I would love to see what their course materials look like. It is a beautiful day here. maybe I can squeeze in a ride. have a good one!

Helmet Head

Do you have any reason whatsover to believe that they are? If so, what is it? If not, WHY are you saying all this?

N_C

Tell you what when I complete the Road I course I'll tell everyone what is taught. Then there will be no question.

I-Like-To-Bike

Is that so? Send me a PM and let me read what you think you know, you dang fool.

N_C

Ohh testy, testy. My, my so defensive. Dude relax a little huh. PM is on it's way.

I-Like-To-Bike

And answered. As expected, the secret message was repeating the wacky words from another clueless donkey.

I-Like-To-Bike

And an even more key point is that there is no evidence that EC/VC training programs has had any effect on changing the trainees after-training behavior, accident results or any other measurable metric. Zero as in NONE as in NADA. 20+ years and zero recorded results.

I-Like-To-Bike

Forester makes the allegedly brilliant observation that mature adult men with many years of cycling may have better accident records than 8 year old children and a cyclist population dominated by teenage young men. Of course Forester'sdata is so loosely and sloppily gathered/fabricated and risk and accidents are are so poorly defined, and with zero measurement of ANY cycling behavior that not even that observation is obvious from this goofy meta analysis of dissimilar cycling populations.

Even more preposterous is the conclusion that the alleged differences in accident rates are solely due to compliance with the principles of VC doctrine allegedly followed by his population of middle aged club riders. All without a shred of any data or measurement.

And the even MORE preposterous wacky assumption, that those trained in formal EC/VC training to include children and teenage boys will instantly discard whatever they did in the past and adapt the behavior of middle aged club riders who allegedly comply with Forester doctrinal edicts.