John Forester

Bek has been adding apples to oranges to come up with bolts or wrenches or similar. I state that negotiating for a lane change gets difficult when the speed differential is more than 15 mph. So Bek adds maximum differential speed for easy negotiation to cyclist's speed and then announces that this arithmetic sum, which he often specifies as 30 mph, defines the speed of high speed traffic. Any person with much knowledge of American surface-street urban traffic would consider that the high-speed realm begins somewhere about 45 mph, which has always been my assumption when writing. Yet Bek persists in publishing the same lie time after time, so desperate is he to find some stick to beat vehicular cycling with.

Bekologist

not 'becomes difficult', john. effective cycling says it 'becomes impossible' to negotiate with traffic moving 15mph faster. This advice headlines the section entitled "changing lanes in high speed traffic". somehow, your 15mph differential leads into your discussion of when to also ride at the edges in 'high speed' traffic as well as previously mentioned riding at the edge in 'medium speed' traffic. At these speeds your recommend riding like a road sneak at the edges of the lanes.

Forego signalling, can't negotiate, simply pick a gap and SWERVE! Ride like a road sneak at the edges of the lanes.

for a 15mph bicyclist, that's 30mile an hour traffic. Can't endorse the riding technique of negotiating to control a lane of 30 mph traffic? seriously? gack. Like i mentioned last page, your stop sharing the lane speed is even more restrictive than the Federal Highway Administrations guidelines about speed limits and shared lane bikeways.


30 mph, 45 mph, what difference does it make anyway?

At both those speeds the effective (sic) cyclist is recommended to ride at the edges of the lanes changing lanes in traffic. The savvy effective (sic) cyclist published technique is to forego hand signals for fear of losing control of your bike, not get in the way of traffic and ride obsequiously at the edges of the lanes when making left turns in traffic at those speeds.

swooping across the lanes from one edge to the other so as to not get in the way of faster traffic, to give the cars room to pass you on both sides.

"The rider swerved without signaling"


Road sneak behaviors as exemplified in effective cycling may lead to greatly increased odds of collision and being overlooked in traffic. This submissive traffic behavior by bicyclists has never been studied. A videotape study of effective (sic) cycling lane changes would be a disaster.

John Forester

Now that Bek has discovered that his former absurd criticisms of the lane changing chapter of Effective Cycling haven't cut much ice, he now repeats all the earlier absurdities with the additional claim that this technique is very dangerous. And there have been video and film depictions of this technique working properly, although that is not a scientifically based randomized study. However, among the many thankful letters that I have received from cyclists who have used this technique, there has not been one that stated that using this technique involved the cyclist in a car-bike collision. Surely, if the technique were as dangerous as Bek claims, using cyclists would have submitted criticisms. There have been none such.

Bekologist

the assesment of the submissive, inferiority laden riding advice given in Effective (sic) cycling hasn't failed! The advice in EC about how to abjectly fail at controlling a lane of traffic is what fails to convince.

Even the FHWA recommends more assertive lane control than john in effective cycling.

Besides, John has impinged his integrity by repeatedly denying and misrepresenting his own published advice on how bicyclists abjectly fail at lane control when changing lanes in traffic.

for example, john's misled with claims his book talks about traffic negotiation becomming 'difficult' for riders at a 15mph speed differential.

the book doesn't say 'difficult' it says 'impossible' and recommends riding at the lane edges like a road sneak. And forget about hand signals! you could lose control of your bike, and you can't negotiate anyway..

egads. "The cyclist swerved, and didn't signal" indeed. maybe those cyclists that want to write a complaint to john about his bad advice may be unable to anymore?
it's not difficult for an effective cyclist moving 14mph to control a lane of 30mph traffic, it's "Impossible" according to EC for effective cyclists to control that lane. EC recommends this effective cyclist should ride at the lane edge, and if faster traffic comes up behind, to get on lane line to let traffic pass by on both sides.


I'm sure John noticed Digger ALSO observes the complete lack of mention of riding at the center of the lane while changing lanes in effective cycling? actually, digger mentioned he saw it once- in a statement about the lack of lane control in high speed traffic. the only time john mentions riding in the lane is when he's cautioning cyclists not to do it!



The advice given in EC about changing lanes in traffic is appalling, a systematic methodology for submissive, fear laden cycling.

remember folks: EC sez Don't use hand signals when changing lanes, you might lose control of the bike!

and stay at the edges of the lanes for the benefit of faster traffic.

hagen2456

I (almost) can't believe my eyes. Is that really true? That makes any Danish cyclist a good deal more competent than Foresters's pupils...

Bekologist

yes, it's staggeringly, tragically true.


Effective cycling explicitly recommends NOT using hand signals. suggesting instead cyclistshould use non-standardized body language combined with furtive/miniscule lateral movements with the bike partially out of the fear of losing control of the bike.

the advice in effective (sic) cycling is appalling. Seems John should have covered use of hand signals and riding one handed, so a rider he's educated could at least stand a fighting chance of controlling a lane of 25mph traffic -if they DARE - instead of having to flit around incessantly at the edges of the lanes waiting for traffic to clear while trying to make a left turn.

John Forester

Bek is getting more and more flustered in expressing his ideological opposition to vehicular cycling. Now he has just claimed that cyclists cannot control a lane unless they use hand signals. On multi-lane streets, the location for this discussion, simply occupying the lane controls it, because the lanes are too narrow to share. Earlier he claimed that cycling according to my instruction was very dangerous, and earlier still he was arguing that 25 mph traffic (or 30) was fast traffic. Each additional absurd claim simply adds to the pile and appears to be less reasonable than those before.

gcottay

True or false, John?

Bekologist

That's not what I'm claiming.

Your book instructs cyclists to not use hand signals when changing lanes in traffic. page 308. Fear of losing control of the bike is part of your reasoning. page 309.

Bekologist

....apparantly, john doesn't want to own up and take responsibility for his catastrophic traffic cycling advice to not use hand signals out of fear of losing control of the bike that hallmarks the effective (sic) cyclists methods of changing lanes.

It, sadly, makes me wonder : Are cyclist tragedies where the cyclist is reported as experienced by many who knew them, yet tragically killed in collisions where the motorists report the bicyclists as having 'suddenly swerved in front of the vehicle without signalling' victims of being effective (sic) cyclists?

I predict nothing accurate forthcoming from the author about what he's written.

delcrossv

I never got to pg 308- I choked on the demagoguery about page 100 and got Franklin's Cyclecraft instead.

John Forester

Originally Posted by Bekologist
. . . . Effective cycling explicitly recommends NOT using hand signals . . . .


George has asked a reasonable question. I do not "explicitly recommend[s] NOT using hand signals." I have nothing against hand signals. I accept that some cycling activities require that one hand be off the bars: eating, drinking, some kinds of gearshifting, rinsing the salt out of your eyes, turning the pages of route sheets, even scratching where it itches. I do recommend the use of the head-turning signal when changing lanes because it works just as well nearly every time with less trouble, remembering that in any case the cyclist has to turn his head to see whether or not the motorist being signaled to has opened a gap for the cyclist. If the head turn enables the cyclist to see that that motorist has not opened a gap, which can only be determined by turning the head, then the cyclist has the choice of letting that motorist go ahead and trying the next motorist behind, or of extending his arm as an extra persuasion. I do point out that when cycling in close fast traffic two hands on the bars is advantageous: braking might be required on short notice, and one-handed braking is very conducive to swerving.

John Forester

Bek gets further into absurdity in his ideologically-driven effort to discredit Effective Cycling. The crucial point about the head-turning method of signaling is that it provides the only way for the cyclist to determine whether or not the motorist being signaled to has chosen to open a gap for the cyclist. These supposed examples of cyclists swerving into the path of a same-direction motor vehicle (if that is what actually occurred) are quite clearly examples of cyclists who did not look. And, whatever Bek writes, making a hand signal without looking would have not have affected either the physical or the legal outcome of that collision.

CharlesZ

Find a way to signal intent. Removing a hand from the bars could be catastrophic.

genec

Or they did look, and thought the car was slowing down, having signaled by "Forester head turn," only to discover too late that the message sent was not properly interpreted.

Bekologist

More dodge from John Forester....the books' advice is worse than John states.

John's book instructs cyclists changing lanes in slow traffic speeds to use head nods and quick turns of the head (remember, once traffic gets moving 15mph faster the effective (sic) cyclist gives up the head waggles altogether and simply swerves thru the gaps) then notice they have

.

That bears repeating.

Now, john may think he wrote something different, but advice to notice a cyclist isn't using a hand signal is an explicit recommendation to not use hand signals.

John's also endorsing disregarding the legal responsibility to signal. the effective cyclist breaks the law while riding.


he goes on about how head nods, not hand signals, are lifsavers. Effective cycling then outlines the reasons cyclists should disobey the law and not use hand signals. Reason number two is fear of losing control of the bike. Now, these are his recommendations for riding in "low speed traffic" traffic moving at the same speed as a bicyclist.

I expected nothing accurate forthcoming about what's written in effective cycling by the author of the book, and i wasn't dissapointed.

John, you should be proud of the suggestions you've made for cyclists to break the law, not signal, and to ride at the lane lines under many traffic conditions for the benefit of faster traffic. You wrote all this advice -however catastrophic things have turned out for cyclists that took this advice to heart.

This thread is appalling on many levels. The methods, the hubris, the denial.

hagen2456

If one can't remove a hand from the bars to signal, one should, as I've said before, not bike on public roads.

Pedaleur

Don't forget obsession.

Bekologist

oh, if the effective (sic) cyclist would simply be more forthcoming about the catastrophic advice contained inside the book, it would be less necessary to have to keep correcting the author about misrepresenting his own riding advice.

the section "changing lanes in traffic" in the book 'effective cycling' (sic) is one of, if not THE, most appalling pieces of cycling method ever written.