Go Back  Bike Forums > Bike Forums > Advocacy & Safety
Reload this Page >

Bicycle licensing panned as impractical and punitive

Notices
Advocacy & Safety Cyclists should expect and demand safe accommodation on every public road, just as do all other users. Discuss your bicycle advocacy and safety concerns here.

Bicycle licensing panned as impractical and punitive

Old 09-23-12, 11:24 PM
  #176  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Denver
Posts: 1,621
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 12 Times in 12 Posts
Originally Posted by 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.
The claim is false.

All that is shown by the studies is that more cycling experience corresponds to lower accident rates.

Forester would have us believe that club cycling and greater cycling experience in general corresponds to vehicular cycling. That's a bogus assumption. Not only is this assumption not supported, there is evidence to the contrary, in the Dennerlein study of Boston messengers.
RobertHurst is offline  
Old 09-23-12, 11:49 PM
  #177  
Cycle Year Round
 
CB HI's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Honolulu, HI
Posts: 13,644
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1316 Post(s)
Liked 92 Times in 59 Posts
Originally Posted by RobertHurst
The claim is false.

All that is shown by the studies is that more cycling experience corresponds to lower accident rates.

Forester would have us believe that club cycling and greater cycling experience in general corresponds to vehicular cycling. That's a bogus assumption. Not only is this assumption not supported, there is evidence to the contrary, in the Dennerlein study of Boston messengers.
You are really trying to consider Boston Bike messengers as normal cyclist. That is like considering ice road truckers as normal motorist.
__________________
Land of the Free, Because of the Brave.
CB HI is offline  
Old 09-24-12, 12:12 AM
  #178  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 317
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked 5 Times in 2 Posts
Originally Posted by John Forester
The program that wsbob thinks might be possible to create was created more than thirty years ago in the form of the Effective Cycling Program... .

Wsbob suggests that government should operate such a program; well, American governments don't want it. ... ... Raising the competence level of American cyclists has to be done by competent cyclists themselves, because nobody else wants competent cyclists.
As I noted in earlier posts, I haven't read Mr. Forrester's books or much about the Effective Cycling Program, but what I gather from comments on weblogs about their content, is that in contrast, what I would tend to have in mind would likely be something that's bike specific, effective, but simple as possible to understand, learn and use.

As to whether government would want such a program, it's just a sense I have, but in Oregon, I think government officials would at least be interested in proposals. Budgets are a big problem here as well as elsewhere; nobody wants any more big expensive bureaucracy. On the other hand, there does definitely seem to be growing interest in biking...not just in the Willamette Valley, but in Oregon's expanses outside of the metro areas as well. With more bikes on the road amongst motor vehicles, an interest in better, safe biking practices more consistently present amongst people biking, is something I tend to think is increasing. Seems very likely in Oregon, there would be plenty of competent cyclists to staff such a program.


Originally Posted by mconlonx
State runs the scheme at State expense. ... snip.
Yes, the state, as in the 'Dept of Motor Vehicles' should, for the seriousness that association with that type department would give it, probably be the entity that would administer a program for educating and testing people for basic competence in traveling on a bike in traffic...at public expense; rather than individual expense to the person seeking certification, and possibly to people obliged to go through the procedure of learning the material and testing for it after having received a violation. Program's content and accessibility should be of a quality that it would be recognized by the public as sufficiently beneficial to road user safety that public expense of underwriting it would be justified. I believe it's a Portland Bureau of Transportation figure periodically used in local news referring to in-city traffic, estimating that of the total number of vehicles on the road, the percent that are bikes is eight to ten percent. A figure in that area would probably be a starting point for estimating costs of a program to provide bike specific knowledge to, and administer written and on the road tests.


Originally Posted by atbman
Not entirely true John. The old Cycling Proficiency test used to take place in school playgrounds and would use cones and model road signs to teach year 5 and 6 kids what the rules were. There were a very few councils who added a road module to this.

Bikeability, its replacement, has level 1 which is off-road and is broadly equivalent to the old CP test, followed by small group teaching on the road. As for the "supposedly critical points", in Level 2, the instructors always ride round with them, stopping at junctions and other points to discuss them and observe them and get feedback to ensure understanding, repeating where necessary. Every single route at a new school is risk assessed, for what you describe as "supposedly critical points". These are still usually years 5 and 6.

Level 3 is for older children and adults, the former having to do levels 1 and 2, first and this time with groups of 3 maximum. To quote the website:

"During Bikeability Level 3 training you will learn the skills to tackle a wider variety of traffic conditions than on Level 2. When you reach Level 3 standard you will be able to deal with all types of road conditions and more challenging traffic situations. The course covers dealing with hazards, making ‘on-the-move’ risk assessments and planning routes for safer cycling. Normally you will do this once you have started secondary school. You will be trained in smaller groups of up to three cyclists, although individual training may also be available in your area.

Once you’ve completed your Bikeability Level 3 and been awarded your green badge, you’ll be able to cycle almost anywhere and:

Make a trip safely to school, work or elsewhere on any roads
Use complex junctions and road features such as roundabouts, multi-lane roads and traffic lights
‘Filter’, to keep moving through stationary traffic
Plan your route
Interpret road signs"


Since, in levels 2 & 3 the trainers accompany the trainees along every part of the chosen routes, your characterisation of them as "observers standing beside the road" understates their role more than somewhat. However, when you have groups of children taking the course, stationary observation is a necessary part of the programme, so that each participant's understanding of what they have been taught can be assessed and, if necessary, corrected.

As a former trainer on the old Cycling Proficiency programme (and critical of its shortcomings), and a cycling officer with my city's Highways dept. who, as part of my duties surveyed potential routes on the proposed strategic cycling network, I took it on myself to buy both EF and Bicycle Transportation and found them extremely useful, even where I came across views I didn't always agree with.

As for the Huckaby proposals which kicked this whole thread off, I remain convinced that enforcement of cycle training via a licence/certificate is an unenforceable solution in search of a problem. Amongst other things, it would require the creation of new offences, such as riding while unlicenced, points on such a licence and so forth.

atbman...I appreciate your description of Britain's cycling programs of past. Some of that could be a resource for consideration of ideas for new programs. Re; Huckaby and his proposals for cyclist licensing/bike registration in Oregon: That I know of from the news, he's absolutely not yet got anything set in stone...no terms in formal proposals in writing. At any rate, Huckaby is not the only person in Portland allowed to conceive of ideas for raising the knowledge and skill level, through some form of program that would be commonly recognized and well known by the public...of people that must bike in traffic. Whatever may eventually be created, by whomever, does not necessarily have to carry with it an appreciable amount of enforcement over that which currently exists to achieve improvement in the use of better in-traffic.


Whatever may eventually be created, by whomever, shouldn't be something designed to rely heavily on an increase in law enforcement in order to get people to use it and support it. To the public, appealing to and offering relatively simple means to the safety of vulnerable road users, reduction of traffic mode conflicts, and improvement in the ability of roadways to work well, is a better way.

Last edited by wsbob; 09-24-12 at 12:40 AM.
wsbob is offline  
Old 09-24-12, 06:16 AM
  #179  
Been Around Awhile
 
I-Like-To-Bike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Burlington Iowa
Posts: 29,951

Bikes: Vaterland and Ragazzi

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked 1,517 Times in 1,031 Posts
Originally Posted by RobertHurst
The claim is false.

All that is shown by the studies is that more cycling experience corresponds to lower accident rates.

Forester would have us believe that club cycling and greater cycling experience in general corresponds to vehicular cycling. That's a bogus assumption.
Exactly. Forester has compared accident data from 3rd graders with middle aged men, and similar bogus comparisons of dissimilar populations of cyclists, none of whom have ever taken an Effective Cycling class or shown to have ever been "vehicular cyclists," (by any definition) and concluded that Effective Cycling training is validated at reducing accidents for the students by 80%. Forester's only method of supporting his false "claims" of 80% reduction in accidents for Effective Cyclist students (or vehicular cyclists) is ad hominem and straw man attacks at the motives at anyone who states the obvious about the lack of credible evidence to support his bogus claim.

Effective or Vehicular Cycling training is not necessarily "effective" at reducing cycling risk just because John Forester and a few true believers wish it were so.
I-Like-To-Bike is offline  
Old 09-24-12, 09:21 AM
  #180  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Denver
Posts: 1,621
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 12 Times in 12 Posts
Originally Posted by CB HI
You are really trying to consider Boston Bike messengers as normal cyclist. That is like considering ice road truckers as normal motorist.
Veteran messengers are the most experienced bicyclists in the world, and achieve accident rates far lower than those recorded for "club cyclists." How is that possible. Messengers may not be "normal" but you can and should learn from their experience.
RobertHurst is offline  
Old 09-24-12, 09:34 AM
  #181  
Been Around Awhile
 
I-Like-To-Bike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Burlington Iowa
Posts: 29,951

Bikes: Vaterland and Ragazzi

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked 1,517 Times in 1,031 Posts
Originally Posted by RobertHurst
Veteran messengers are the most experienced bicyclists in the world, and achieve accident rates far lower than those recorded for "club cyclists." How is that possible. Messengers may not be "normal" but you can and should learn from their experience.
Claims about the "safety record" of vehicular cyclists, or cyclists who have been trained in so-called vehicular cycling techniques, are fabricated from whole cloth. No one has figured out if messengers, club riders or any other group of cyclists are any more or less so-called "vehicular cyclists." There are no safety studies of any kind of cyclists who can be identified as "vehicular cyclists."

For some schemers all cyclists are vehicular cyclists, until they have an accident, then they are not, since a "vehicular cyclist" would never be involved in such accidents.
I-Like-To-Bike is offline  
Old 09-24-12, 09:37 AM
  #182  
Senior Member
 
dougmc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 3,040

Bikes: Bacchetta Giro, Strada

Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
Originally Posted by RobertHurst
Veteran messengers are the most experienced bicyclists in the world, and achieve accident rates far lower than those recorded for "club cyclists."
Do you have a citation for this claim?

The first part seems fairly straightforward, almost a tautology ("folk who have been doing something long enough to be called "veterans" are experienced"), but the part about accident rates requires some evidence.
dougmc is offline  
Old 09-24-12, 12:18 PM
  #183  
Senior Member
 
hotbike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Long Island, New York
Posts: 3,749

Bikes: a lowrider BMX, a mountain bike, a faired recumbent, and a loaded touring bike

Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 256 Post(s)
Liked 89 Times in 74 Posts
Cycling should be taught in Elementary School, and Cyclists should practice Defensive Driving.

Teach everyone the rules of the road at a young age.

Situational Awareness is important, Cyclists MUST look both ways, and check behind themselves.

Vehicular Cycling? I believe Vehicular Cycling is when the Cyclist has a 'Human Powered Vehicle" like a Velomobile, and it should have lights on it. If your bike has no lights, I don't see how you could be practicing "Vehicular Cycling".

But my main point is that students should be taught the rules of the road at a young age.
hotbike is offline  
Old 09-24-12, 03:10 PM
  #184  
Been Around Awhile
 
I-Like-To-Bike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Burlington Iowa
Posts: 29,951

Bikes: Vaterland and Ragazzi

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked 1,517 Times in 1,031 Posts
Originally Posted by hotbike
Cycling should be taught in Elementary School, and Cyclists should practice Defensive Driving.

Teach everyone the rules of the road at a young age.

Situational Awareness is important, Cyclists MUST look both ways, and check behind themselves.
Vehicular Cycling? I believe Vehicular Cycling is when the Cyclist has a 'Human Powered Vehicle" like a Velomobile, and it should have lights on it. If your bike has no lights, I don't see how you could be practicing "Vehicular Cycling".
At least your program makes sense and is not wrapped up in mumbo jumbo "safety comparisons" of mystery vehicular cyclists.

Your definition of "vehicular cyclists" is as good as anybody else's. Nobody who discuses vehicular cyclists' safety record has ever defined what makes any population of cyclists be considered a population of vehicular cyclists.

The bottom line is that some promoters/schemers claim that cyclists should be encouraged or compelled (through licensing schemes) to take formal cyclist education courses without a shred of evidence that they produce results. When various individuals call for implementation of formal cyclist education programs, they seldom state what the programs should teach and for what reason. Proponents for vehicular cyclist education programs are probably the most notorious for making bogus claims about the risk reduction power of their education program.
I-Like-To-Bike is offline  
Old 09-24-12, 03:25 PM
  #185  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 4,071
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by I-Like-To-Bike
Exactly. Forester has compared accident data from 3rd graders with middle aged men, and similar bogus comparisons of dissimilar populations of cyclists, none of whom have ever taken an Effective Cycling class or shown to have ever been "vehicular cyclists," (by any definition) and concluded that Effective Cycling training is validated at reducing accidents for the students by 80%. Forester's only method of supporting his false "claims" of 80% reduction in accidents for Effective Cyclist students (or vehicular cyclists) is ad hominem and straw man attacks at the motives at anyone who states the obvious about the lack of credible evidence to support his bogus claim.

Effective or Vehicular Cycling training is not necessarily "effective" at reducing cycling risk just because John Forester and a few true believers wish it were so.
You, ILTB, should be more careful about your statements. The only defense that I offer for my analysis of likely crash reduction comes from the data themselves. I have used the best data that is available. My ad hominem criticism is not about defending my thesis, but it results from replying to ILTB's venomous and inaccurate attacks that he has made for decades.

And, if all would note, ILTB's thesis is that there is no evidence that obeying the rules of the road is safer than disobeying those rules.
John Forester is offline  
Old 09-24-12, 03:34 PM
  #186  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 4,071
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by I-Like-To-Bike
At least your program makes sense and is not wrapped up in mumbo jumbo "safety comparisons" of mystery vehicular cyclists.

Your definition of "vehicular cyclists" is as good as anybody else's. Nobody who discuses vehicular cyclists' safety record has ever defined what makes any population of cyclists be considered a population of vehicular cyclists.

The bottom line is that some promoters/schemers claim that cyclists should be encouraged or compelled (through licensing schemes) to take formal cyclist education courses without a shred of evidence that they produce results. When various individuals call for implementation of formal cyclist education programs, they seldom state what the programs should teach and for what reason. Proponents for vehicular cyclist education programs are probably the most notorious for making bogus claims about the risk reduction power of their education program.
The degree to which a population of cyclists can be considered vehicular is quite easy to measure by observing their behavior and rating it against the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles. I use the data that come from such observations.

I have always been very clear about the traffic-cycling goal of the Effective Cycling Program (there are other interesting parts as well). The traffic-cycling goal is to teach the skills of obeying the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles, and then demonstrating through testing that these skills have been learned.

I have never suggested that government should either train cyclists or license cyclists, for the very simple reason that government has a perverted view of how cyclists should operate.
John Forester is offline  
Old 09-24-12, 03:56 PM
  #187  
Senior Member
 
bandit1990's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 122
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by John Forester
The degree to which a population of cyclists can be considered vehicular is quite easy to measure by observing their behavior and rating it against the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles. I use the data that come from such observations.

I have always been very clear about the traffic-cycling goal of the Effective Cycling Program (there are other interesting parts as well). The traffic-cycling goal is to teach the skills of obeying the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles, and then demonstrating through testing that these skills have been learned.

I have never suggested that government should either train cyclists or license cyclists, for the very simple reason that government has a perverted view of how cyclists should operate.
Ok Mr. Forester. Point taken. But at which point do we need to enforce the concept of "competitive" road compliance? I'm not going to teach my 7 year old that it is appropriate to "take the lane". I agree that bikes should be treated as equals on the road, but I have a tipping-point. There is no way I'm going to ask her to "take the lane" at this point. I'm doing it for her, but that has no reflectioin on your point of view. It's done for safety. All bike riding needs to take that into accout -- safety. If you want to ride in the lane, your call. But don't tell everyone how to ride. I will do what is best for my family, and at times that calls for riding the fog line, or right of that. I'm new here, but your assumption that all "vehicles" are equal doesn't mesh. Riders with appropriate skills can ride in the lane, and assume the risks. But not children that don't know better. Don't even go to the "you need to teach your children" card --I'll crush you.
bandit1990 is offline  
Old 09-24-12, 05:30 PM
  #188  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 4,071
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by bandit1990
Ok Mr. Forester. Point taken. But at which point do we need to enforce the concept of "competitive" road compliance? I'm not going to teach my 7 year old that it is appropriate to "take the lane". I agree that bikes should be treated as equals on the road, but I have a tipping-point. There is no way I'm going to ask her to "take the lane" at this point. I'm doing it for her, but that has no reflectioin on your point of view. It's done for safety. All bike riding needs to take that into accout -- safety. If you want to ride in the lane, your call. But don't tell everyone how to ride. I will do what is best for my family, and at times that calls for riding the fog line, or right of that. I'm new here, but your assumption that all "vehicles" are equal doesn't mesh. Riders with appropriate skills can ride in the lane, and assume the risks. But not children that don't know better. Don't even go to the "you need to teach your children" card --I'll crush you.
You'll crush me? With what? And what are you worried about? What is this thought of ""competitive" road compliance"? I have never heard of such a thought. And what are you worried about? Nobody has ever suggested that cycling in the curb-hugging style should be prohibited. Indeed, as your rather belligerent statement puts it, that would be politically impossible. Go right ahead and hug the curb, provided that you assume the risks of that placement.
John Forester is offline  
Old 09-24-12, 10:04 PM
  #189  
Been Around Awhile
 
I-Like-To-Bike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Burlington Iowa
Posts: 29,951

Bikes: Vaterland and Ragazzi

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked 1,517 Times in 1,031 Posts
Originally Posted by John Forester
I have used the best data that is available. My ad hominem criticism is not about defending my thesis, but it results from replying to ILTB's venomous and inaccurate attacks that he has made for decades.
And, if all would note, ILTB's thesis is that there is no evidence that obeying the rules of the road is safer than disobeying those rules.
Same old, same old Mr. Forester putting his own spin and words into creating a straw man (my "thesis") to knock down, as well as defending his use of ad hominem criticism as a response to pointed criticism.

"The best data" available for determining a safety record for vehicular cyclists is the same as the worst, non existent.

Mr. Forester's manipulation of data from various studies, none of which identified any study subject cyclist as meeting any definition of being vehicular, and his guessing which cyclists might have been vehicular cyclists in order to make claims about their safety record is a joke. That he also bases his claims about the effectiveness of his proprietary training program from the same studies "data" when none of the study subjects were identified as ever VC "trained" is an even bigger joke.
I-Like-To-Bike is offline  
Old 09-25-12, 10:04 AM
  #190  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 4,071
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by I-Like-To-Bike
Same old, same old Mr. Forester putting his own spin and words into creating a straw man (my "thesis") to knock down, as well as defending his use of ad hominem criticism as a response to pointed criticism.

"The best data" available for determining a safety record for vehicular cyclists is the same as the worst, non existent.

Mr. Forester's manipulation of data from various studies, none of which identified any study subject cyclist as meeting any definition of being vehicular, and his guessing which cyclists might have been vehicular cyclists in order to make claims about their safety record is a joke. That he also bases his claims about the effectiveness of his proprietary training program from the same studies "data" when none of the study subjects were identified as ever VC "trained" is an even bigger joke.
More of ILTB's typically nasty objections. Road traffic operates under the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles. Collisions typically result from violation(s) of those rules of the road by either or both parties. Typical American cyclists, even the adult ones, do not operate according to those rules. Some groups of American cyclists have operated much closer to those rules than have the typical American cyclists. Those groups who operated more closely to the rules of the road have a much lower collision rate than the typical American bicycle riding population. The traffic portion of the Effective Cycling Program trains cyclists in the skills of obeying the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles. It is reasonable to conclude that cyclists so trained will acquire the lower collision rate associated with rules of the road cycling.

And ILBT considers the whole program some kind of big joke. It is clear that ILBT has some ideological opposition to training cyclists to obey the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles, which ideology produces his stream of rather nasty criticisms.
John Forester is offline  
Old 09-25-12, 10:24 AM
  #191  
totally louche
 
Bekologist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: A land that time forgot
Posts: 18,023

Bikes: the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 9 Times in 8 Posts
Originally Posted by John Forester
...... The traffic portion of the Effective Cycling Program trains cyclists in the skills of obeying the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles..........

And ILBT considers the whole program some kind of big joke.........
Since the effective cycling program isn't being taught anywhere, suggesting it as a factor - even if massive selection bias in a four decade old, non-peer reviewed study is ignored - in reducing cyclist crashes is purely a semantic fantasy.

It's certainly accurate to consider "the whole program some kind of big joke" - Especially in regards to a discussion about the ill-considered bicycle licensing schemes.
Bekologist is offline  
Old 09-25-12, 10:44 AM
  #192  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 4,071
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Bekologist
Since the effective cycling program isn't being taught anywhere, suggesting it as a factor - even if massive selection bias in a four decade old, non-peer reviewed study is ignored - in reducing cyclist crashes is purely a semantic fantasy.

It's certainly accurate to consider "the whole program some kind of big joke" - Especially in regards to a discussion about the ill-considered bicycle licensing schemes.
You assert "massive selection bias". Where is it?

Effective Cycling has never been associated with any bicycle licensing scheme, or any cyclist licensing scheme.
John Forester is offline  
Old 09-25-12, 11:41 AM
  #193  
Been Around Awhile
 
I-Like-To-Bike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Burlington Iowa
Posts: 29,951

Bikes: Vaterland and Ragazzi

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked 1,517 Times in 1,031 Posts
Originally Posted by John Forester
Some groups of American cyclists have operated much closer to those rules than have the typical American cyclists. Those groups who operated more closely to the rules of the road have a much lower collision rate than the typical American bicycle riding population.

The traffic portion of the Effective Cycling Program trains cyclists in the skills of obeying the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles. It is reasonable to conclude that cyclists so trained will acquire the lower collision rate associated with rules of the road cycling.
What "groups"? Who sez that any specific population of cyclists/groups operates closer to those rules than any other group of American cyclists? Who did the measuring? With what criteria? Who measured this mysterious law abiding population's safety record vice the safety record of any other population of cyclists?

Short answer to the above: Nobody, only Mr. Forester and his trick bag of assumptions, bogus extrapolations, and WAGs.

What does any of Mr. Forester's "explanations" have to do with any evidence that implementation (whether by coercion of a licensing program or voluntarily) of an Effective/Vehicular Cycling Education Program would produce more law abiding OR safer cyclists?

Short answer: A promoter's wishful thinking and an assumption that whatever he claims to be "reasonable" IS reasonable.
I-Like-To-Bike is offline  
Old 09-25-12, 01:29 PM
  #194  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 4,071
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by RobertHurst
The claim is false.

All that is shown by the studies is that more cycling experience corresponds to lower accident rates.

Forester would have us believe that club cycling and greater cycling experience in general corresponds to vehicular cycling. That's a bogus assumption. Not only is this assumption not supported, there is evidence to the contrary, in the Dennerlein study of Boston messengers.
For the times in which I, and others, developed the data that I have used, cyclists who cycled with clubs behaved much more in the vehicular manner than did the general cycling population. That difference had been measured. About the very different population of current bicycling enthusiasts, some being bicycle advocates and others being racer wannabes, I have no such data, but external evidence suggests a great difference from times past. And at no time have I ever considered the characteristics of bicycle messengers as a source of data.
John Forester is offline  
Old 09-25-12, 01:35 PM
  #195  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 317
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked 5 Times in 2 Posts
Originally Posted by I-Like-To-Bike
... When various individuals call for implementation of formal cyclist education programs, they seldom state what the programs should teach and for what reason. ....
Broader discussion of details new programs might teach can occur where the basic idea of a cyclist knowledge and skills for in-traffic road use program passes beyond reactionary rejection. Not many people seem to want to think outside the box that presumes new programs for improvements in cyclist road user knowledge and skills must oblige oppressive enforcement and/or exorbitant fees.

Demands made that even consideration of ideas for a new program offering cyclist knowledge and skills for in-traffic road use programs be supported by statistical proof that past cyclist education programs have increased cyclists, or vehicular cyclists safety, signals unwillingness to even conceive of or consider details related to a new program.
wsbob is offline  
Old 09-25-12, 01:46 PM
  #196  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 4,071
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by I-Like-To-Bike
What "groups"? Who sez that any specific population of cyclists/groups operates closer to those rules than any other group of American cyclists? Who did the measuring? With what criteria? Who measured this mysterious law abiding population's safety record vice the safety record of any other population of cyclists?

Short answer to the above: Nobody, only Mr. Forester and his trick bag of assumptions, bogus extrapolations, and WAGs.

What does any of Mr. Forester's "explanations" have to do with any evidence that implementation (whether by coercion of a licensing program or voluntarily) of an Effective/Vehicular Cycling Education Program would produce more law abiding OR safer cyclists?

Short answer: A promoter's wishful thinking and an assumption that whatever he claims to be "reasonable" IS reasonable.
I have published my list of sources many times. ILTB is perfectly entitled to review those sources and provide reasonable criticism, but to proclaim them bogus without providing such detailed criticism rather demonstrates that ILTB's opposition is not to the data and reasoning, but because he dislikes the result. It has become obvious, over these years of rather nasty comments, that ILTB has an ideological reason, which he has never disclosed, for opposing the training of cyclists to obey the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles.
John Forester is offline  
Old 09-25-12, 01:53 PM
  #197  
On your right
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Southern California
Posts: 735

Bikes: Specialized Roubaix Elite

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 21 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Bekologist
Since the effective cycling program isn't being taught anywhere, suggesting it as a factor - even if massive selection bias in a four decade old, non-peer reviewed study is ignored - in reducing cyclist crashes is purely a semantic fantasy.

It's certainly accurate to consider "the whole program some kind of big joke" - Especially in regards to a discussion about the ill-considered bicycle licensing schemes.
Hey guys, FWIW and as long as you're on the subject of Effective Cycling programs, I did notice that BikeLongBeach.org has provided some educational resources that seems to come from a decidedly "vehicular" bent. The term "Effective Cycling" is used, but I don't know if it is in the generic sense versus having been derived from Forester's work.

This doesn't address the effectiveness of Effective Cycling techniques -- it may however suggest that reports of EC's overall demise may be exaggerated. BTW, I don't have a dog in this hunt so go easy on me.

CYCLISTS VIEW: DRIVING YOUR BIKE IN TRAFFIC | In this video, cycling Instructor Christopher Quint shares valuable information about safely navigating your bike through traffic. Presented by the Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and the City of Long Beach.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZFjCza5e1kw
Daves_Not_Here is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
GTryder
Western Canada
3
02-21-19 11:05 AM
GTryder
Eastern Canada
2
11-23-18 08:03 AM
JoeyBike
Advocacy & Safety
3
10-18-16 07:59 PM
mattgates
General Cycling Discussion
23
02-16-15 09:54 PM
Neil_B
Adaptive Cycling: Handcycles, Amputee Adaptation, Visual Impairment, and Other Needs
0
02-05-12 07:01 PM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.