I-Like-To-Bike

No, even if you put sugar on top and ask it again a hundred different ways. It is a stupid idea and doesn't get any better no matter how many times you ask anybody to endorse it.

WPeabody 

What is up with motorists and this "fairness" nonsense? If you elect to drive, you get in the car, turn the key, put it in drive and press on the gas pedal. Hills are not that big a deal. Is it cold? Turn on the heat. Is it raining? Put on the windshield wipers. How long does it take to go 20 miles? About 20 minutes, more or less? They already have a road to themselves, it's called the freeway. The rest are public roads that belong to everybody.
Like ILTB has said, I just think of them as chuckleheads and ignore them.
Or if I have an earbud in one ear I can't hear what they are saying so I just smile and wave and say, "Thank you very much, love you too. Now get going, since you're in such a dad-gummed hurry."

John Forester

The motivation for ILTB's endless denigration of the Effective Cycling Program appears to be his hatred of any program that demonstrates that most people on bicycles can be taught to obey the standard rules of the road for drivers of vehicles. The demonstrated practicality of a system that expects cyclists to obey the rules of the road, and should be trained to do so, jeopardizes ILTB's ideological goal of a system in which cyclists can operate incompetently, unrestrained by the rules of the road.

I-Like-To-Bike

Ad hominem and straw man arguments; the usual response from Mr. Forester. Anything but any evidence that his so-called Effective Cycling Program actually is, or has ever been, effective at producing measurable improvement in safety results (or any results) for anybody.

genec

No, as I read the responses, ILTB seems to question your methodology, not that "people on bicycles can be taught to obey the standard rules of the road."

There is a difference there. If you don't understand that difference then it is clear you have a comprehension problem.

atbman

[QUOTE=John Forester;14760792]John, please take into account that we are talking about 9 and 10 year olds for the Bikeability 1&2 courses, with up to a dozen betwen two trainers. The children need to learn to recognise what kind of traffic and road conditions pose problems and they, and their trainers, need to get feedback. Pausing to answer and ask questions is a necesary part of the course. They also use the pauses to observe traffic behaviour in typical circumstances, such as t-junctions, cross-roads, dealing with parked cars and working out when to change positions in order to turn right, overtake parked cars, look out for poor sightlines and so on.

You should also bear in mind that these routes are based round their schools, with road layouts common to the kind of areas such primary schools are found in. The roads will not be straight, will be narrow, will have cars parked all over the place and have, I suspect, far more junctions within a short length of road than is probably common in the US. For example, on one test route that I'm familiar with, there may be, within about 500 feet, half a dozen junctions, either cross-roads, dog-legs, or T-, with lane widths of 10' to 14', terraced housing with little or no parking, so cars parked along many of the streets and these are the streets round their homes, that these children will eventually have to learn to navigate.

The situation you describe below, with children of this age group, is simply not feasible in today's traffic conditions.

The level 3 course, with groups 3 of older children of, say 13+, will have final test rides taking in a variety of junctons, roundabouts and other traffic conditions will be observed in something like the manner you describe, but I'm far less familiar with the details.

QUOTE]

John Forester

[QUOTE=atbman;14762912]Atbman appears to have ignored the difference between instructing and testing. When instructing, stops are made to explain the situation, the correct movement is demonstrated, and then each student, in turn, is expected to operate through that area and then return to the start of that movement, getting at the tail of the queue. For each student who reaches the head of the queue, the instructor then informs the student of the good points of his prior performance and its bad points, so that the student knows what to do to better his performance. When the group shows good performance, then the group is ready for the next more difficult traffic task.

For the elementary school students, we used a teacher/student ratio of 1:7. For the middle school students, we used a ratio of 1:10.

By the time the students were ready for riding the test ride, they knew how to handle all the situations that were likely to occur along the test route, varied though this was (and variable, according to the needs demonstrated by the students). For testing purposes, no more than four students were in any test group. The observer could separate each student's performance as he recorded the results in the voice-recorder record, and shifted the sequence of students within the group to eliminate any follow-the-leader effect.

Actually, the kids enjoyed the testing process. Each student wore a numbered placard, the same number for each session of testing. We accustomed the kids to having their behavior recorded by recording some instructional rides in the same manner we would record the test rides. At the close of the ride, we would play back the recorded comments so all could hear and realize that the recordings were fair and just. Even, in some cases, the students were more critical than the instructor. As we said, we recorded all the mistakes we saw, but of course some we missed, and we never made unfair criticisms. So one kid would call out, as the comments were being played, "Hey, Number 54, that's where you messed up but the teacher didn't catch you!"

atbman

[QUOTE=John Forester;14763146][QUOTE=atbman;14762912]

Thank you for explaining the difference between instructing and testing, John. If only I'd known it before retiring as a further Education lecturer in local government, economics, finance, marketing and business organisation. I'll certainly try to remember it while I'm coaching over the next few Saturdays.

However, I think we were at cross purposes. I was simply trying to explain that Bikeability trainers didn't just observe youngsters from a stationary position as you seemed to believe, but took part in a dynamic process of riding with them as well as the process you describe above. If I ever manage to find the funding and the time to qualify as one of those trainers, I'll report back on how it goes in more detail - including the testing section of the course.

However, the method you describe in the second part of your post is pretty similar to that I used when training Police Community Support Officers (sort of police-lite officers) in safe patrol riding, tho' I wouldn't describe it as any more than the basics, since it didn't include things like pursuit and arrest tactics, these not being a part of their duties, still less a part of whatever expertise I possess.

What I did find interesting in Effective Cycling and John Franklin's Cyclecraft is that I was following the same general principles in my own riding, having returned to cycling after 20+ years on motor scooters and motorbikes. After I was knocked off on a roundabout a couple of years after returning from the Dark Side and working out why the numpty did it, I analysed pretty much everything I did on the bike and rejigged some of it - which led to virtually no incidents with drivers over the next 20 years, let alone any collisions.

Which is why ILTB's arguments about a lack of rigorous statistical evidence in faovur of EF don't convince me. My experience may be one of personal anecdote, but it is an anecdote of sufficently length that it has a kind of longitudinal evidence as to the value of that general approach.

I remain a proponent of the value of training, but still regard making it compulsory, along with bike registration, as unworkable and pointless overkill.

But we seem to have got rather far afield from the original them of this thread

I-Like-To-Bike

Hmmm, I have had NO incidents with drivers, over the last 35 years, let alone any collisions, and have never taken the EF class. What conclusion about EF should I or would you draw from that personal anecdote?

John Forester branded EF training may have positive safety value for participants, it may not; no one has ever provided a shred of credible evidence either way.

Bekologist

reminiscing about a long-defunct training program is moot. During the EC reign of american cyclist training -ancient history, approaching 40 years ago now - cyclist training nearly ground to a halt. too much pedantism among the pedaling.

the person in charge of the training program was implicated in its dismal failings, and was effectively discharged from their duties as national director of a bike ed program.


pathetic, and moot.



current training for cyclists undergone in canada, the US and england all include instruction and testing.

Licensing of bicyclists in the US is a non-starter, except among bicyclist haters driving in the gaseous exhaust cloud of the currrent transportation paradigm.

mconlonx

Who said I was looking for any kind of endorsement? Just putting it out there as a possible sane avenue for implementation. I don't think bicycle registration is a good idea, but if we had to have it, if it was rammed down our throats by a majority non-cycling public, there are ways to implement without the same kind of bureaucracy associated with automobile and light truck registration.

Daves_Not_Here

Getting back to the theme of the OP, are there currently any locations in the US or Canada where licensing and registration is being contemplated and close to being implemented?

John Forester

Bek, your account is inaccurate. I terminated the right of LAB to use the Effective Cycling name because LAB insisted on running a different program than I had created. LAB management wanted popular cycling through bikeways. EC was not a popular program; it was a program for cyclists. EC's philosophy of vehicular cycling challenged LAB management's advocacy of bikeways. LAB management didn't want it.

So who failed? LAB failed to represent competent, lawful cyclists in its goal of popular cycling on bikeways, just as it has continued to fail right up to the present.

atbman

Assuming that you've commuted regularly in reasonably heavy traffic and ridden a lot of miles aside from that, I'd draw the conclusion that you have ridden intelligently to have your experience of minimal risk from other's behaviour. Apart from that, I don't have any information as to how you ride safely. And, given the fact that, as far as I can remember, your interventions on this forum seem to consist of attacking others but rarely, if ever, putting forward any description of how you ride in order to achieve this excellent safety record, it is unlikely that I ever will.

Perhaps you would consider supporting your apparent views by showing how your riding differs in approach from that of EF and how you think that it has led to your safety success.

All I can tell is that having worked out, from my own experience and analysis, a style of riding in traffic which seemed to accord pretty well with the views I later read about in EF and Cyclecraft, the reduction, from an already low level, in the number of incidents I experienced provided me with the justification to continue riding in that way.

As for your fairly frequent demands for statistical evidence from John Forester, I'm not sure how such a study would be carried out or who would do it. And, of course, there's no statistical evidence to the contrary, either.

mconlonx

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't LAB lean heavily on EC philosophy for their Traffic Skills classes and especially their instructor training modules? I know they still cite Effective Cycling as a bibliographical source, and the term vehicular cycling is definitely part of their curriculum.

mconlonx

No idea. Here in the US, I think financial hurdles -- bike registration would cost more than it's worth for states to implement -- outweighs the bike hate (cycling registration schemes) coming from the same kind of people who would balk at the cost...

I-Like-To-Bike

Not just statistical evidence is lacking, but ANY evidence is lacking to support specious claims made that Effective Cycling programs can reduce cycling risk for its students by 80%.

My method for reducing risk while I ride? Evaluate each road situation and adapt to the method that works for me in that situation. With 60 years of experience cycling it doesn't take long to figure out. It also doesn't take long for anyone who is at least somewhat intelligent.

I have no devotion to strict compliance with traffic law or any specific cycling "program" dogma. I specifically determine when it is safe to proceed at intersections by observing the traffic first and foremost, not the traffic signals. I choose where I ride on any specific street or road on a case by case basis based on traffic behavior.

I don't claim to look like a safety poster boy to those who attach great importance to dressing up for safety or looking like being safe by waiting at empty intersections for a traffic signal to inform them when to proceed, or looking for guidance/support from an Internet opinion poll to tell them how ride a bike.

John Forester

There have been studies of the crash rates of various cycling groups, made in the 1970s, some done by the National Safety Council for school and university-associated groups, some done by club cyclists for other club cyclists. The data show that the crash rates for club cyclists were about 25% to 20% of the crash rates for the other groups, depending on the type of crash (for example, all crashes, or just car-bike collisions).

There were distinct differences in behavior between the two general groups.The general bicycle commuting populations of several N. Calif. Bay Area cities with large (compared to the US in general) bicycle mode proportions, and hence most likely to be better than the US average, scored only a flunking 55% when measured against conformity with the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles. In contrast, the better club cyclists scored around 98% when measured by the same scale.

The Effective Cycling Program taught its students, and tested their accomplishment, in the traffic skills employed by the better club cyclists that were in accordance with the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles. In the absence of other evidence, which has proved to be very difficult to obtain, it is reasonable to assume that the skills learned in Effective Cycling are most likely able to reduce the crash rate of its graduates to about 20% to 25% of that of the general bicycle-riding population.

That is the only claim that I have ever made on this subject.

I-Like-To-Bike

John Forester considers it "reasonable to assume" about the incredible effectiveness of his course in reducing cycling risk for the students based on his own WAGs and bogus extrapolations from studies unrelated to Effective Cycling instruction. Perhaps that is good enough for the less discriminating who want a "safety class, any class"; IMO his "claim" equals a big fat zero as validation, confirmation or evidence of anything about the effectiveness of Effective Cycling Training in producing results, beyond the awarding of a certificate of no value.

John Forester

As near as I can figure out ILTB's motive, he is absolutely opposed to training cyclists to operate in accordance with the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles for two combined reasons. His first reason is that such operation is unpopular, and hence does not significantly increase the number of cyclists using the roads. His second reason is that such operation is so reasonable that it might attain governmental support, thus adding to the governmental power to suppress the popular and incompetent cycling that ILBT, along with many other bicycle advocates, so much desires.

I'll leave it to the readers of this group to decide for themselves their evaluations of ILBT's criticisms of the Effective Cycling Program in the light of the descriptions provided to this group. For further information, consider the material on my website, johnforester.com.

genec

Was this double blind testing or did the club cyclists know they were being monitored while the "other cyclists" had no idea of being monitored.

genec

I said it before and I'll say it again... ILTB seems to question your testing and statistical methodology, not that "people on bicycles can be taught to obey the standard rules of the road."

There is a difference there. If you don't understand that difference then it is clear you have a comprehension problem.

You attribute all your statistics to "studies of the crash rates of various cycling groups, made in the 1970s, some done by the National Safety Council for school and university-associated groups, some done by club cyclists for other club cyclists."

Do we know the methodologies used for those studies? Do we have access to said data, or is this some mythical "study" that only you have access to? And why have the studies not been repeated or open to peer review?

The basic problem John is that we have only your word for all these tests, studies and supposed results. You stand out as a self proclaimed "expert" that generally declares all others "wrong."

John Forester

I do not have a comprehension problem. ILTB ought to have seen the lists of references several times, for they have been published as long ago as the 1980s. He has never questioned their results, but only pretends ignorance in his desire to do away with programs for teaching cyclists to operate according to the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles. That's his motivation, and his method is pretense of ignorance (or, of course, he actually could be so ignorant).

Here are studies referenced in "The Bicycle Transportation Quarterly", Transportation Quarterly, Vol 55 No 2, pgs 7-17
Chlapecka, T.W., Schupack, S.A., Planek, T.W., Klecka, H. and Driessen, J.G.; 1975 Bicycle Accidents and Usage Among Elementary School Children in the United States; Chicago, National Safety Council

The Cross study should also be included for its survey of types and frequencies of car-bike collisions

Forester, John; 1982; The Effect of Bikeway System Design Upon Cyclists' Traffic Errors (available at www.johnforester.com)

Kaplan, J.A.; 1976; Characteristics of the Regular Adult Bicycle User; Master's Thesis, University of Maryland; FHWA, National Technical Information Service, Springfield Virginia

Moritz, William E. 1998 Adult Bicyclists in the United States: Characteristics and Riding Experience in 1996; Bicycling Committee, Transportation Research Board, Washington DC

Schupack, S.A. and Driessen, G.J.; 1976; Bicycle Accidents and Usage Among Young Adults: Preliminary Study; Chicago, National Safety Council

Watkins, S.M. 1984; Cycling Accidents; Cyclists' Touring Club, Godalming, UK.

Genec asks why more such studies have not been done. The reason ought to be pretty damn obvious: those people and organizations with money to spend on such studies are not at all interested in further studies demonstrating that operating according to the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles results in low crash rates. That's contrary to the ideology of those who are willing to spend money on bicycle transportation affairs.

asmac

Back to the original post...
I recall needing a bike license in the mid-60s when I was 10 years old. Our neighbour was the traffic sargeant on our small suburban police force and my friend always got plate #1. I don't recall paying anything, just visiting the local police station and giving them my serial # in exchange for a plate. It worked fine in that environment (though I don't know what the point was) but it would be expensive and utterly un-doable in a larger jurisdiction. I just can't imagine this ever happening.
Also recall learning basic bike rules when I was six (hand signals, stop signs, look both ways & such) at a bike course taught by the local RCMP detachment in our northern mining town. The idea was that we didn't want to be caught riding before we'd taken the course and been given our 'license'. Anyhow, it was useful, basic and a pleasant experience.
The world was a simpler place...

Blinkie

When I was *very* young, my parents told me that in order to ride in the street, I had to do something similar. I'd assume that it was either in effect in the early 80s, or at least had been at some point in my parents' recollection. It seems the intention was firstly, not only an on-one's-honor promise to ride safely, but also an anti-theft measure in the sense that if someone steals a bike, they're not likely to go register it, but may keep the tag visible on the back to keep from being harassed ... and therefore be visible as a stolen bike to any officer who passed.

I'm not saying it sounds practical (the tags were about the size of the ones still sold at some toy stores I've seen ... larger than an index card, but 3x5 inches may be a bit on the large side so not really visible at any appreciable distance), even at a small-ish town level.