N_C

ILTB, since you have serious issues with Forester & asking for proof from others why don't you prove your findings to us. Practice what you preach bubba. I'm calling you on this, prove to us you're right & Forester is wrong. Where did you get & what is your proof?

Oh & so we don't have to read a freaking novel here, please web links to your diatribe of proof.

-=(8)=-

After seeing someone who I know to be a very accomplished bicycler attacked in
another thread for the way he handles his commute I would say what makes 'experts'
lose credibility with me is thier steadfast refusal to believe different areas and
situations require different styles of riding. Anyone who has lived and ridden in
more than one type of environment knows that one philosophy simply cannot be
applicable to all situations. My commuting methodology in rural Vermont would
get me killed in South Carolina, for instance.
If you ride a bicycle daily and have figured out what it takes to survive from
point A to B in the sphere of your existance, you are an expert.

genec

Even I wouldn't contend that... Bike lanes are little more than a convenience, much like an escalator... frought with potential harm, yet offering a service to those that understand their use.

I-Like-To-Bike

"Practice what you preach bubba. I'm calling you on this, prove to us you're right" My My! Diatribe? Freaking novel? You really are on a quest for knowledge aren't you Jack.

First brush up on the fallacy of demanding negative proof. https://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Proving_a_Negative
This will start you on the answer to your (and other logically deprived fellas) assumption that quantitative claims about risk reduction/changed cycling behavior as a result of formal training/VC indoctrination are true until proven otherwise. The VC proselytizers and promoters cry "we need education (read: VC) classes implemented as some sort of mandatory program in schools" yet are unable to provide any reason why. What problem will their program fix, solve or mitigate and what makes them think so?

Then reread:
https://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.p...4&postcount=51
https://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.p...1&postcount=53
https://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.p...1&postcount=75

Then learn that any risk analysis of bicycle accidents (or any other accidents) that ignores considering severity of the accidents is no better than worthless, and is more likely agenda driven drivel. All of Forester's "studies" of bicycling risk to include bike facilities risk and insignificance of traffic to rear risk fit that category due to that fatal flaw.

In addition to the above, the notorious claim of 80% accident reduction for both Vehicular Cyclists and VC trained cyclists ( made by Forester, Allen, Schubert, the LAB-reform gang, et al.) is based on fabrication of data for a mystery population of unidentified vehicular cyclists. This mystery population uses undefined vehicular cycling characteristics, and there is zero accident data for this Forester fabricated population of cyclists. This is the so-called safety record of VC training promoted by the Foresterite LCI's. and LCI wannabes.

Bottom line: There is no evidence of any safety record, good or bad, associated with defined vehicular cycling/cyclists, and there is no record of accomplishment, improved safety, or changed behavior for students of formal VC based training.

N_C

So you're calling Forester a creationist. Has it ever occured to you that the statements made by Forester & his group are theories? What is wrong with that? Has Forester claimed they are facts backed up by statistical evidence? Has it also occured to you there is not yet enough statistical evidence to put together a factual statement about how effective these classes are?

I am not sure but I do not think there is any follow up or follow through to collect the needed facts to document the effectiveness of the LAB courses or if what is taught is effective in making people better cyclists. One way to collect the needed facts is if there are survey's done in certain intervals after the participants complete the courses that can be filled out & turned into the LAB so they can put together some kind of documented facts & statistical evidence to back up the claims of the effectivness of the courses.

I understand if you have issues with Forester & what his group stands for Stanley. But instead of fighting against them & spouting off about your disagreement about them why don't you offer some suggestions to them to improve things. Then maybe things will get done they way they should. In other words step down off of your damn soap box & take action to help improve things rather then spout of about them. If it is one thing I can not stand it is someone who *****es & moans & spouts off about their disagreement about **** but don't do anything to help change things for the better. Basically what I'm trying to say is **** or get off the toilet bud, there are others who need to use it. Put up or shut up. You get the idea?

I was the same way about the trail system & bike route system for the longest time in my community. I would ***** & preach about it. One day someone suggested I stop *****ing about it & start taking action. Well I did. I helped creat the Siouxland Trails Foundation. Now we are making change for the better. It hasn't been easy but it is working.

What I'm telling you is if you're sick & tired of not having the statistical proof you so desire from Forester & the LAB about the courses or anything they stand for & if you don't like their theories then do something to help create & change it. I'm calling you out to do this. So what do you say? You gonna step off of the soap box & take action or are you going to continue to bith, moan & whine about it? What's it gonna be?

Does anyone else agree with me? Or does anyone else have any other suggestions about this & how ILTB should handle it?

N_C

ILTB, if you need help with how to start here is what I would use as step 1.

Contact the LAB & simply ask if there is any statistical evidence that these courses & what the LAB stands for has done anything to help make people better & safer cyclists & if what they do has in any way improved cycling over all.

If they do not have the proof then that would lead you to step 2. That is to offer to help them obtain it by recommending they conduct surveys amongts their members & those that have taken the courses.

Step 3 would be to conduct the survey's & collect the data. Step 4 compiling the data & step 5 is releasing the data to the public.

If they have the proof ask how you & anyone else who wishes to can read it. If it is not compiled then suggest they do so for easy reading & understanding. In other words if the data exists you may be able to jump ahead in the steps I recommend above.

I have a hunch some of the data already exists. Especially what they have done in Washington DC with legislation & the transportation bill, etc.

So are you going to do as I suggest or continue to *****, moan & whine from your soap box?

genec

Forget all the statistics, and especially forget all the VC proselytizing... the latter which does not occur at the LAB classes (and why Forester acutually removed his endorsement of them).

Now is it possible that experienced cyclists tend to have better success on the roads than less experienced cyclists? If we agree that this is the case, is it possible to gain experience faster by taking a training course or is the school of hard knocks the only way. (gee, this gives pause as to whether any form of training has any benefit what so ever...)

If we can agree that some form of training may benefit those who are trained, and that those that have some form of training or experience have better success on the roads than cyclists without training or experience... then the training HAS benefits.

Bear in mind we are NOT talking VC training in the LAB classes... we are talking cyclist "basic training." Simple common sense stuff that anyone can learn... given enough time. But like any other situation.... training simply offers the knowledge in a easy to digest manner. Just like learning to read, or write, or drive.

That's all there is to this.

rando

thank you, genec.

I-Like-To-Bike

Sober up.

R-Wells

Wow.
Do you have any stats to back that statement up

Helmet Head

I know you wouldn't contend that. You would say...

But Rando said:

Thus rando, as far as I can tell, is contending that bike lanes pose no dangers. Otherwise, what would be wrong with pointing out those dangers (which "even you" admit are "frought with potential harm")?

Are you agreeing with Gene, that bike lanes are "frought with potential harm", yet still contend that LCIs who point out those dangers should not be teaching?

I'm sorry, but I can't make any sense out of your position.

N_C

Figures. I should not have expected anything more. Guess you'll stay perched up on your soap box then. Guess I'll just have to tune you out & ignore you evertime you ***** & moan about the LAB or Forester & their so called lack of proof that you so desire.

Keep in mind there is nothing wrong with stating theories. Get used to it, shut up about it & find another forum to ***** & moan about it in. Because frankly myself & I'm sure others are getting tired of it here.

I'm not saying you have no right to your opinions or you can not state them here. I am saying you keep spouting the same thing over & over again & are not doing anything to change things for the better. Even after I provided you with helpful suggestions on how to do so you won't. Why? Is it because the suggestion came from me? So I'm telling you to shut the hell up about it here. Go find somewhere else to spout off with more like minded individuals who will agree with & listen to you then you find here.

Actions speak louder then words. So take action, either stop spouting off the diatribe you do, find somewhere else other then here to spout off or help improve the situation for the LAB & cyclists by doing what I've suggested.

I-Like-To-Bike

Maybe I was wrong. Maybe you need a drink, tuff guy. Or is your belligerance the result of some other problem? Anyhow, your suggestion to "improve the "situation" for promoters of VC/LAB education programs will get all the attention it warrants.

N_C

And what will that attention be? What are you going to do to take action? Please keep us aprised of the situation. If there is anything I can do to help let me know.

genec

Opps... just for the record, the word is "Fraught."

Bear in mind that just riding with cars is also "fraught" with potential harm... it all comes down to knowing how to handle motor traffic, stripes on the road, and obviously, your bike... all of which takes experience... or some training... to get you off in the right direction.

IMHO, an LCI should point out the potential dangers of all of these things... but demanding that BL be completely erased, due to some overwhelming sense of their "danger" over their usefulness, is about as over the top as someone saying the LAB classes are some sort of VC indoctrination ritual.

Now whether an LCI has to actually say the words "stay away, this is dangerous..." is another matter altogether. In the classes I took, the "potential dangers" were downplayed... and a positive approach was reinforced.

N_C

genec,

Is it part of the class curriculum for an LCI to recommend against riding in he travel lane if a BL exists & vice versa? I would think the LCI would advise for cyclists to find out what the laws & ordinances state & follow those instead of saying you should only ride in the travel lane or BL no matter what.

I think once I receive my LCI certification one of the things I will teach is adherance to the law & if a cyclist does not agree with the law work to change it.

genec

I don't believe this is part of the curriculum at all... unless I had an exceptional instructor. The instructor did play down bike lanes as not being "the ultimate solution they might appear to be." But that was about it... it was all geared toward common sense... some bike lanes work well, others don't. We rode in many streets that did not have bike lanes (which really is often the case) and a couple of high speed boulevards that did have BL... the BL were treated just like any other lane on the road. There was a comment made that some motorists don't believe we should ever leave BL... but that comment was made just prior to us practicing left turns on a 45MPH road with a BL and how one may have to signal longer to get a motorist's attention...

But believe me, there was no insidious conspiracy to paint BL as some evil trap... (sigh).

Extort

Genec's experience closely matches mine. The classes present information to the students and allows them to make their own judgements based on their experiences.

N_C: you might want to rethink your desire to teach a strict adherance to the law. Knowledge of the law is very good for cyclists, but laws do not cover all situations and the students need to make decisions that will keep them safe even if that means not following the exact letter of the law. Personally, I think that a vague set of laws works better than a strict code of conduct because we are all (supposedly) mature enough to make our own decisions.

As for the statistical evidence about accident reduction and trained cyclists being more consistent on the road, who cares. If numbers are needed to back up the fact that education by experienced people is better than someone just winging it on their own, then there is a more serious problem going on.

The world is not always black and white.

Recycle

+1 for the class my wife and I took.

We had 2 instructors. One was a long time cycling advocate with ties to LAB and LIB. He has been active lobbying local and state legislators for MUPs. The other worked for the Chicagoland Bicycle Federation ( https://www.biketraffic.org/ ), an advocacy organization which, among other things, consults with communities to establish bike friendly enviroments, including assistance with laying out marked bike routes, bike lanes, and MUPs.

L

N_C

Understood. I think I should have worded it differantly. I should have said I'll advise people to find out what the laws are, know whatr they are, maybe even cite some myself & advise to use their best judgement to keep them selves safe & the law may not apply in all situations there are gray areas. Every situation is differant use your best judegment when riding.

Extort

That is what I figured, I just wanted to give you the chance to better explain your position.

I hope that you enjoy teaching students more about cycling and building their interest in the sport, and until you have a defined curriculum I'd suggest working with an other LCI's (and other knowledgable people) so that you can develop something in your own style. Remember that the class should not be taught directly from the book, but put your own personality in there and the students will pay attention and learn more. The class that I took (Road 1) was specifically geared towards very experienced riders so they condensed some of the basics and discussed not only the law, but the current intrepretation of the law.

Helmet Head

I-Like-To-Bike

What "book" is used directly or indirectly in the course?

Helmet Head

The LAB provides a training manual to all LCIs, and student guides to all students.

N_C

Let me guess you need proof the book exists.

Does anyonw have a scanned copy of any of the pages from the book or a web link so it can be proven to ILTB it exists.