Debunking Forester
02-23-07 | 02:33 PM
#201
Infamous Member
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 24,360
Likes: 7
From: Ohio
Bikes: Surly Big Dummy, Fuji World, 80ish Bianchi
Originally Posted by Brian Ratliff
The experiment simply validates that one cannot ride a sidepath in the same way as on the road.
So the answer to end the great debate is simple: just as one operates like a vehicle when on the road and operates as a ped while the sidewalk, they should operate as a bicycle while on a sidepath or bicycle specific facility - which means operating as a combination of ped and vehicle, combined with common sense!
There, debate over - unless someone has a problem with simply using different riding styles/tactics for different riding environments or feel they don't have the skills to adapt their riding to different conditions, as is apparently Mr. Forester's problem.
__________________
"Let us hope our weapons are never needed --but do not forget what the common people knew when they demanded the Bill of Rights: An armed citizenry is the first defense, the best defense, and the final defense against tyranny. If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns. Only the police, the secret police, the military, the hired servants of our rulers. Only the government -- and a few outlaws. I intend to be among the outlaws" - Edward Abbey
"Let us hope our weapons are never needed --but do not forget what the common people knew when they demanded the Bill of Rights: An armed citizenry is the first defense, the best defense, and the final defense against tyranny. If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns. Only the police, the secret police, the military, the hired servants of our rulers. Only the government -- and a few outlaws. I intend to be among the outlaws" - Edward Abbey
02-23-07 | 02:37 PM
#202
Senior Member
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 1,914
Likes: 1
From: Beaverton, Oregon
Bikes: Rans Stratus, Trek 1420, Rivendell Rambouillet
I have yet to read John Forester's study on bike paths verses street cycling, but I have ridden quite a lot on the paths in my area of Beaverton-Hillsboro, Oregon. I think there are big differences in these paths in different parts of the country. Here, very few cyclists are on these paths, perhaps because there are not a lot of cyclists compared to other areas (although this is a cycling area). Most cyclists are not on the paths, and there are very few people on either these paths or the sidewalks. Maybe this is weather-related too, as especially on rainy days, there usually is no one on these paths or sidewalks. Here, the paths do not come directly out onto a roadway, and so riding the sidewalks is necessary to get back to a read. We also have elevated areas of paths that go over marsh land, and these are wooden structures with a wooden surface. This wooden surface is quite slippery on days that dip below freezing and there has been precipitation.
When I ride on the paths, I commonly go between 12-18 mph with no problems, slowing down for bridges, and slowing down especially on the wood surface to 8-10 mph. I find the wooden surface easier to ride on than to walk on, as the bicycle I ride is a better than walking on the slick surface (I ride a Rans Stratus LWB recumbant bike). I have had very few safety problems on these paths. I did have one accident, which cannot now be repeated, when my front wheel caught in a groove between parallel boards (I was riding a Trek 1450 upright bike at the time). This cannot be repeated because I reported it to the City of Hillsboro, and they installed a flush metal piece between the boards to preclude this from ever happening again (it helped that City of Hillsboro workers observed this crash). This was a slow-motion crash from about 8 mph, and I almost did not go over--on my recumbant bike, it would not have happened as a crash, and this event was what finally caused me to buy a recumbant. I had said that if I had another incident attributable to the design of the upright bicycle, I would switch. The week after this crash, I put money down on my Rans Stratus, and also got the City of Hillsboro to pay for my front wheel, where the rim was significantly bent.
I will look at the "study," and may try to replicate it, depending on what I see. Realize that any study, to be valid, has to be validated by people replicating it; in other words, in needs to be repeated to ensure that all the variables have been taken into account. It sounds like this study by John Forester was a one-time ride. If that's the case, then it needs to be repeated a number of times (more trails) to validate the conclusions. But this is before I have ever read what he has to say, and based only on the posts I have seen in this thread. So, I'll take a look.
John
When I ride on the paths, I commonly go between 12-18 mph with no problems, slowing down for bridges, and slowing down especially on the wood surface to 8-10 mph. I find the wooden surface easier to ride on than to walk on, as the bicycle I ride is a better than walking on the slick surface (I ride a Rans Stratus LWB recumbant bike). I have had very few safety problems on these paths. I did have one accident, which cannot now be repeated, when my front wheel caught in a groove between parallel boards (I was riding a Trek 1450 upright bike at the time). This cannot be repeated because I reported it to the City of Hillsboro, and they installed a flush metal piece between the boards to preclude this from ever happening again (it helped that City of Hillsboro workers observed this crash). This was a slow-motion crash from about 8 mph, and I almost did not go over--on my recumbant bike, it would not have happened as a crash, and this event was what finally caused me to buy a recumbant. I had said that if I had another incident attributable to the design of the upright bicycle, I would switch. The week after this crash, I put money down on my Rans Stratus, and also got the City of Hillsboro to pay for my front wheel, where the rim was significantly bent.
I will look at the "study," and may try to replicate it, depending on what I see. Realize that any study, to be valid, has to be validated by people replicating it; in other words, in needs to be repeated to ensure that all the variables have been taken into account. It sounds like this study by John Forester was a one-time ride. If that's the case, then it needs to be repeated a number of times (more trails) to validate the conclusions. But this is before I have ever read what he has to say, and based only on the posts I have seen in this thread. So, I'll take a look.
John
02-23-07 | 02:38 PM
#203
Senior Member
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 12,103
Likes: 96
From: Wilmington, DE
Bikes: 2016 Hong Fu FM-079-F, 1984 Trek 660, 2005 Iron Horse Warrior Expert, 2009 Pedal Force CX1, 2016 Islabikes Beinn 20 (son's)
Originally Posted by Brian Ratliff
I think the term "vehicularly" is not applicable when refering to a sidepath. One can ride a sidepath without regard for speed or yielding at intersections (which I'd define as "recklessly"), but one cannot ride a sidepath "vehicularly." The term has no meaning in the sidepath context.
02-23-07 | 02:40 PM
#204
Part-time epistemologist
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 5,870
Likes: 3
From: Washington, DC
Bikes: Jamis Nova, Bike Friday triplet, Bike Friday NWT, STRIDA, Austro Daimler Vent Noir, Hollands Tourer
Originally Posted by I-Like-To-Bike
When the accident data gives no indication of the injury severities (or if there even was an injury) and just totals up the number of collisions, falls, and boo-boos as if they were identical I am saying any conclusions drawn about relative danger/risk are of NO value. And in fact, are reason to suspect either the intelligence or honesty of the person who attempts to make such conclusions.
More generally, I think that using more suspect data is tolerated for questions where the data is limited. If we had access to "golden data" with little error and biases, then I would be more likely to agree with you. However, we are discussing an issue where many strong opinions are formed by our individual anecdotal experiences and the data is quite limited. My suggestion is that we use what is out there to make some inferences about reality but then be "real" about the strength of our evidence.
In this sense, I think Forester fails at times to put his results in the proper context or overstate the results.
02-23-07 | 02:41 PM
#205
Banned.
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 13,075
Likes: 0
From: San Diego
Originally Posted by Brian Ratliff
Originally Posted by Helmet Head
Are you contending that Forester drew any conclusions about relative safety from his experiment? If so, what were they?
From: John Forester <forester@j...>
Date: Fri Sep 8, 2000 5:14 pm
Subject: Re: [CG] HELP! (required sidewalk use)
...
5: Forester's test. I know of no test by bikeway advocates in which they have tested such bikeways for safety when used at normal road speeds in the vehicular manner.
....
On the basis of comparing the collisions on the bikeway avoided only by extreme skill or dumb luck against the absence of any events even faintly similar while regularly using the same roads at the same time of day for several years, I estimated the risk ratio as 1,000:1.
...
I repeat: no bicycle advocate has had either the courage or the foolishness to repeat this test, which is why such results have never been published to demonstrate the safety of the facilities that he or she recommends. The fact that such a test has not been repeated demonstrates, not the anecdotal nature of my test (which is what the bikeway advocates claim), but the sheer danger of this type of facility when used at normal roadway speeds.
Date: Fri Sep 8, 2000 5:14 pm
Subject: Re: [CG] HELP! (required sidewalk use)
...
5: Forester's test. I know of no test by bikeway advocates in which they have tested such bikeways for safety when used at normal road speeds in the vehicular manner.
....
On the basis of comparing the collisions on the bikeway avoided only by extreme skill or dumb luck against the absence of any events even faintly similar while regularly using the same roads at the same time of day for several years, I estimated the risk ratio as 1,000:1.
...
I repeat: no bicycle advocate has had either the courage or the foolishness to repeat this test, which is why such results have never been published to demonstrate the safety of the facilities that he or she recommends. The fact that such a test has not been repeated demonstrates, not the anecdotal nature of my test (which is what the bikeway advocates claim), but the sheer danger of this type of facility when used at normal roadway speeds.
So, your claim that Forester's 1,000:1 risk ratio is somehow a wrongly reached conclusion about the relative safety between riding on roads and riding on sidepaths in general is hereby debunked.
Got anything else? What specific conclusion do you think Forester reached from this experiment, using his actual words and a genuine effort to understand what he meant in the context in which they were written, that you think is not supported by the experiment?
02-23-07 | 02:43 PM
#206
Part-time epistemologist
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 5,870
Likes: 3
From: Washington, DC
Bikes: Jamis Nova, Bike Friday triplet, Bike Friday NWT, STRIDA, Austro Daimler Vent Noir, Hollands Tourer
Originally Posted by chipcom
Thank God, somebody finally gets it! Kudos for hitting the nail on the head, Brian! Now we get to the root of the debate - that Forester, HH and others believe that their brand of vc is the only acceptable form of cycling. Of course HH has already provided us with the answer here long ago, when he got into talking about operating as a ped when on the sidewalks.
So the answer to end the great debate is simple: just as one operates like a vehicle when on the road and operates as a ped while the sidewalk, they should operate as a bicycle while on a sidepath or bicycle specific facility - which means operating as a combination of ped and vehicle, combined with common sense!
There, debate over - unless someone has a problem with simply using different riding styles/tactics for different riding environments or feel they don't have the skills to adapt their riding to different conditions, as is apparently Mr. Forester's problem.
So the answer to end the great debate is simple: just as one operates like a vehicle when on the road and operates as a ped while the sidewalk, they should operate as a bicycle while on a sidepath or bicycle specific facility - which means operating as a combination of ped and vehicle, combined with common sense!
There, debate over - unless someone has a problem with simply using different riding styles/tactics for different riding environments or feel they don't have the skills to adapt their riding to different conditions, as is apparently Mr. Forester's problem.
02-23-07 | 02:47 PM
#207
Thread Starter
Dominatrikes
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,920
Likes: 0
From: Still in Santa Barbara
Bikes: Catrike Pocket, Lightning Thunderbold recumbent, Trek 3000 MTB.
And I would add to chip's comments that a lot of people DO want to operate AS A BICYCLE when they ride bicycles. I certainly do.
02-23-07 | 02:49 PM
#208
Senior Member
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 10,123
Likes: 4
From: Near Portland, OR
Bikes: Three road bikes. Two track bikes.
Originally Posted by joejack951
I agree that in the context of a sidepath, riding vehicularly is riding recklessly. So would you agree to any degree that any implementation of sidepaths (not to be confused with completely seperated bke paths/MUPs, etc.) intended for cycling would be akin to giving up cyclists' rights to the road as vehicle drivers since one cannot even ride like a vehicle on one?
Complex answer: In Seattle, sidewalk riding is permitted and transitioned from the road to the sidewalk is a common way to avoid one way streets. When I rode on the road, I followed vehicular rules. When I rode the same street on the sidewalk, I followed pedestrian rules. When driving on the road, cars follow vehicular rules. When in the parking lot, they follow parking lot rules.
There is no "akin" to anything here. The only way a cyclist can be banned from the road is if it is done explicitly; which is something which can be fought. This is not a zero sum equation here that some people make it out to be. If there is a sidepath on a road, well, there will always be fast and slow riders; confident and timid riders. The fast riders will use the road, the slow will use the path. If the slow riders want to become fast and vehicular, they can read a book, take a class, look online... whatever, and try the road, using their breatheren vehicular cyclists as examples.
__________________
Cat 2 Track, Cat 3 Road.
"If you’re new enough [to racing] that you would ask such question, then i would hazard a guess that if you just made up a workout that sounded hard to do, and did it, you’d probably get faster." --the tiniest sprinter
Cat 2 Track, Cat 3 Road.
"If you’re new enough [to racing] that you would ask such question, then i would hazard a guess that if you just made up a workout that sounded hard to do, and did it, you’d probably get faster." --the tiniest sprinter
02-23-07 | 02:55 PM
#209
Senior Member
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 10,123
Likes: 4
From: Near Portland, OR
Bikes: Three road bikes. Two track bikes.
HH:
How can a risk ratio be anything other than a measure of relative risk?
What is the "vehicularly" you speak of when talking about riding on a sidepath?
Why would you even think of riding recklessly on a sidepath to bolster a point of relative risk?
How can a risk ratio be anything other than a measure of relative risk?
What is the "vehicularly" you speak of when talking about riding on a sidepath?
Why would you even think of riding recklessly on a sidepath to bolster a point of relative risk?
__________________
Cat 2 Track, Cat 3 Road.
"If you’re new enough [to racing] that you would ask such question, then i would hazard a guess that if you just made up a workout that sounded hard to do, and did it, you’d probably get faster." --the tiniest sprinter
Cat 2 Track, Cat 3 Road.
"If you’re new enough [to racing] that you would ask such question, then i would hazard a guess that if you just made up a workout that sounded hard to do, and did it, you’d probably get faster." --the tiniest sprinter
02-23-07 | 02:56 PM
#210
Infamous Member
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 24,360
Likes: 7
From: Ohio
Bikes: Surly Big Dummy, Fuji World, 80ish Bianchi
I sometimes wonder if Bek ever realized how close he was to the truly identifying the key to this entire debate when he began the old 'bicycular cycling' schtick some time back.
The problem with Forester and is followers is that they rigidly cling to an old paradigm where you either operated your bicycle like a vehicle or as a pedestrian (and they obviously don't want to advocate that at all). Thing is the world has changed, cycling-specific facilities are much more widespread than they were in the 70s and indeed a reality that is not going away soon. So rather than trying to pigeonhole every cyclist into one paradigm - vehicular cycling, which EVERYONE admits might not be well suited to side paths, bike lanes and such, how about coming up with a new paradigm and teaching it to those cyclists who do not prefer to ride the roadways and adopt vehicular cycling - a paradigm that fits the realities of those cycling facilities and includes not only vehicular and pedestrian rules, but also those that are specific and unique for those facilities.
How about thinking outside the box for a change and adapting, improvising and overcoming to ensure that all cyclists can ride in a safe manner in the environment of their choosing? Which of the zealots on either side of the debate has a problem with this? If the Forester supporters are really concerned with all cyclists and their ability to use a bike as transportation or recreation safely, I 'm sure they would jump at the chance to help define this paradigm, rather than ignore its reality and try to turn back the clock.
The problem with Forester and is followers is that they rigidly cling to an old paradigm where you either operated your bicycle like a vehicle or as a pedestrian (and they obviously don't want to advocate that at all). Thing is the world has changed, cycling-specific facilities are much more widespread than they were in the 70s and indeed a reality that is not going away soon. So rather than trying to pigeonhole every cyclist into one paradigm - vehicular cycling, which EVERYONE admits might not be well suited to side paths, bike lanes and such, how about coming up with a new paradigm and teaching it to those cyclists who do not prefer to ride the roadways and adopt vehicular cycling - a paradigm that fits the realities of those cycling facilities and includes not only vehicular and pedestrian rules, but also those that are specific and unique for those facilities.
How about thinking outside the box for a change and adapting, improvising and overcoming to ensure that all cyclists can ride in a safe manner in the environment of their choosing? Which of the zealots on either side of the debate has a problem with this? If the Forester supporters are really concerned with all cyclists and their ability to use a bike as transportation or recreation safely, I 'm sure they would jump at the chance to help define this paradigm, rather than ignore its reality and try to turn back the clock.
__________________
"Let us hope our weapons are never needed --but do not forget what the common people knew when they demanded the Bill of Rights: An armed citizenry is the first defense, the best defense, and the final defense against tyranny. If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns. Only the police, the secret police, the military, the hired servants of our rulers. Only the government -- and a few outlaws. I intend to be among the outlaws" - Edward Abbey
"Let us hope our weapons are never needed --but do not forget what the common people knew when they demanded the Bill of Rights: An armed citizenry is the first defense, the best defense, and the final defense against tyranny. If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns. Only the police, the secret police, the military, the hired servants of our rulers. Only the government -- and a few outlaws. I intend to be among the outlaws" - Edward Abbey
02-23-07 | 02:59 PM
#211
Part-time epistemologist
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 5,870
Likes: 3
From: Washington, DC
Bikes: Jamis Nova, Bike Friday triplet, Bike Friday NWT, STRIDA, Austro Daimler Vent Noir, Hollands Tourer
Hey HH,
I do think that there are instances where Forester is not entirely clear about the meaning of his results. Personally, I see stuff like this all of the time. So I do not think that this is an intentional act.
I just look the time to look online--which appears to be the latest source of information--and found this
https://www.johnforester.com/Articles...ansQuart01.htm
Here it looks like he sets up his sidepath experiment in the right context with, "Therefore, I decided to ride that system using the same speeds and right-of-way that I had enjoyed on the roadway."
But when he reports the results in the following paragraph, he states, "Since I had had no such incipient collisions in several hundred days of use of those roadways, and had seven in the first attempt to use the sidepaths, I concluded that the risk rate was at least 1,000 times greater on the sidepath than on the roadway."
Anyway, whether this is misleading or not is a matter of opinion. He should have written, "... the risk rate of riding vehicularly was at least 1,000 ..." but he did not. He did state what the experiment was about the prior paragraph.
... hopefully there were few posts while I was typing!
I do think that there are instances where Forester is not entirely clear about the meaning of his results. Personally, I see stuff like this all of the time. So I do not think that this is an intentional act.
I just look the time to look online--which appears to be the latest source of information--and found this
https://www.johnforester.com/Articles...ansQuart01.htm
Here it looks like he sets up his sidepath experiment in the right context with, "Therefore, I decided to ride that system using the same speeds and right-of-way that I had enjoyed on the roadway."
But when he reports the results in the following paragraph, he states, "Since I had had no such incipient collisions in several hundred days of use of those roadways, and had seven in the first attempt to use the sidepaths, I concluded that the risk rate was at least 1,000 times greater on the sidepath than on the roadway."
Anyway, whether this is misleading or not is a matter of opinion. He should have written, "... the risk rate of riding vehicularly was at least 1,000 ..." but he did not. He did state what the experiment was about the prior paragraph.
... hopefully there were few posts while I was typing!
02-23-07 | 03:00 PM
#212
Part-time epistemologist
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 5,870
Likes: 3
From: Washington, DC
Bikes: Jamis Nova, Bike Friday triplet, Bike Friday NWT, STRIDA, Austro Daimler Vent Noir, Hollands Tourer
Originally Posted by sbhikes
And I would add to chip's comments that a lot of people DO want to operate AS A BICYCLE when they ride bicycles.
02-23-07 | 03:20 PM
#213
Banned.
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 13,075
Likes: 0
From: San Diego
Originally Posted by Brian Ratliff
HH:
How can a risk ratio be anything other than a measure of relative risk?
What is the "vehicularly" you speak of when talking about riding on a sidepath?
Why would you even think of riding recklessly on a sidepath to bolster a point of relative risk?
How can a risk ratio be anything other than a measure of relative risk?
What is the "vehicularly" you speak of when talking about riding on a sidepath?
Why would you even think of riding recklessly on a sidepath to bolster a point of relative risk?
From yesterday (post #140), copied here with some additional context:
Originally Posted by Helmet Head
Originally Posted by Brian Ratliff
Originally Posted by Helmet Head
...
The only posts I've seen that are analysis of Forester's writings in this thread are those from invisiblehand.
The only posts I've seen that are analysis of Forester's writings in this thread are those from invisiblehand.
(and I've seen good stuff from ILTB, Chipcom, sbhikes, as well as invisiblehand and Speedo - and others, of course. Just because you don't agree doesn't make it invalid. You're just some guy...)
Also, note that I did "do SOMETHING besides complain", in post #143, to which you never responded either.
From today:
What specific conclusion do you think Forester reached from this experiment, using his actual words and a genuine effort to understand what he meant in the context in which they were written, that you think is not supported by the experiment?
Maybe you just didn't see them. Anyway, please answer those questions (in red) honestly and genuinely, then I'll be happy to get to yours. Fair enough?
02-23-07 | 03:26 PM
#214
Banned.
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 13,075
Likes: 0
From: San Diego
Chipcom, when you refer to "the great debate" and "this entire debate" in your last few posts in this thread today, what exactly are you talking about? What do you think are the central questions or issues being debated that you feel are resolved by Brian's observation that "one cannot ride a sidepath in the same way as on the road", and that Bek's "cyclicular vehicling" schtick came close to identify the key of?
02-23-07 | 03:32 PM
#215
Originally Posted by Infamous Member
Thank God, somebody finally gets it! Kudos for hitting the nail on the head, Brian!
Chip, what are you going to do with all these evil clones?
__________________
No worries
No worries
02-23-07 | 03:33 PM
#216
Senior Member
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 10,123
Likes: 4
From: Near Portland, OR
Bikes: Three road bikes. Two track bikes.
HH: I really don't give a flying rip. My questions are retorical and your not answering them directly only bolsters my argument. Your questions are accusatory and a side issue besides and cannot be answered in good faith.
So, whatever...
PS, your last question I've already answered. At least twice. I am truly sorry I don't come to the same conclusion you did. I am saddened that you cannot support your point of view with any sort of rational discussion and have to resort to silly ultimatums fit only for a grade school schoolyard. Our discussion really can go on without you. Please, if you have nothing to contribute beyond a schoolboy's pout, just go away.
So, whatever...
PS, your last question I've already answered. At least twice. I am truly sorry I don't come to the same conclusion you did. I am saddened that you cannot support your point of view with any sort of rational discussion and have to resort to silly ultimatums fit only for a grade school schoolyard. Our discussion really can go on without you. Please, if you have nothing to contribute beyond a schoolboy's pout, just go away.
__________________
Cat 2 Track, Cat 3 Road.
"If you’re new enough [to racing] that you would ask such question, then i would hazard a guess that if you just made up a workout that sounded hard to do, and did it, you’d probably get faster." --the tiniest sprinter
Cat 2 Track, Cat 3 Road.
"If you’re new enough [to racing] that you would ask such question, then i would hazard a guess that if you just made up a workout that sounded hard to do, and did it, you’d probably get faster." --the tiniest sprinter
02-23-07 | 03:42 PM
#217
Infamous Member
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 24,360
Likes: 7
From: Ohio
Bikes: Surly Big Dummy, Fuji World, 80ish Bianchi
Originally Posted by Helmet Head
Chipcom, when you refer to "the great debate" and "this entire debate" in your last few posts in this thread today, what exactly are you talking about? What do you think are the central questions or issues being debated that you feel are resolved by Brian's observation that "one cannot ride a sidepath in the same way as on the road", and that Bek's "cyclicular vehicling" schtick came close to identify the key of?
It's only for those serious about contributing to benefit cyclists as a whole, not those who think everyone should be a 'professional' or 'serious' cyclist. Its for those who wish to help cyclists that DO use facilities to do so safely. Join in if you wish, if not, we'll understand - not everyone can think out of the box and work to define something new, rather than just parroting things that others come up with and publish.
I'm done with these pointless threads...time to do something constructive.
__________________
"Let us hope our weapons are never needed --but do not forget what the common people knew when they demanded the Bill of Rights: An armed citizenry is the first defense, the best defense, and the final defense against tyranny. If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns. Only the police, the secret police, the military, the hired servants of our rulers. Only the government -- and a few outlaws. I intend to be among the outlaws" - Edward Abbey
"Let us hope our weapons are never needed --but do not forget what the common people knew when they demanded the Bill of Rights: An armed citizenry is the first defense, the best defense, and the final defense against tyranny. If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns. Only the police, the secret police, the military, the hired servants of our rulers. Only the government -- and a few outlaws. I intend to be among the outlaws" - Edward Abbey
Last edited by chipcom; 02-23-07 at 03:48 PM.
02-23-07 | 04:03 PM
#218
Senior Member
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 10,123
Likes: 4
From: Near Portland, OR
Bikes: Three road bikes. Two track bikes.
Originally Posted by chipcom
I sometimes wonder if Bek ever realized how close he was to the truly identifying the key to this entire debate when he began the old 'bicycular cycling' schtick some time back.
.
__________________
Cat 2 Track, Cat 3 Road.
"If you’re new enough [to racing] that you would ask such question, then i would hazard a guess that if you just made up a workout that sounded hard to do, and did it, you’d probably get faster." --the tiniest sprinter
Cat 2 Track, Cat 3 Road.
"If you’re new enough [to racing] that you would ask such question, then i would hazard a guess that if you just made up a workout that sounded hard to do, and did it, you’d probably get faster." --the tiniest sprinter
02-23-07 | 04:06 PM
#219
Banned.
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 13,075
Likes: 0
From: San Diego
Originally Posted by invisiblehand
Hey HH,
I do think that there are instances where Forester is not entirely clear about the meaning of his results. Personally, I see stuff like this all of the time. So I do not think that this is an intentional act.
I just look the time to look online--which appears to be the latest source of information--and found this
https://www.johnforester.com/Articles...ansQuart01.htm
Here it looks like he sets up his sidepath experiment in the right context with, "Therefore, I decided to ride that system using the same speeds and right-of-way that I had enjoyed on the roadway."
But when he reports the results in the following paragraph, he states, "Since I had had no such incipient collisions in several hundred days of use of those roadways, and had seven in the first attempt to use the sidepaths, I concluded that the risk rate was at least 1,000 times greater on the sidepath than on the roadway."
Anyway, whether this is misleading or not is a matter of opinion. He should have written, "... the risk rate of riding vehicularly was at least 1,000 ..." but he did not. He did state what the experiment was about the prior paragraph.
... hopefully there were few posts while I was typing!
I do think that there are instances where Forester is not entirely clear about the meaning of his results. Personally, I see stuff like this all of the time. So I do not think that this is an intentional act.
I just look the time to look online--which appears to be the latest source of information--and found this
https://www.johnforester.com/Articles...ansQuart01.htm
Here it looks like he sets up his sidepath experiment in the right context with, "Therefore, I decided to ride that system using the same speeds and right-of-way that I had enjoyed on the roadway."
But when he reports the results in the following paragraph, he states, "Since I had had no such incipient collisions in several hundred days of use of those roadways, and had seven in the first attempt to use the sidepaths, I concluded that the risk rate was at least 1,000 times greater on the sidepath than on the roadway."
Anyway, whether this is misleading or not is a matter of opinion. He should have written, "... the risk rate of riding vehicularly was at least 1,000 ..." but he did not. He did state what the experiment was about the prior paragraph.
... hopefully there were few posts while I was typing!
However, that is completely different from Brian's implication that Forester has claimed certain conclusions to have been proven that were not supported by the evidence.
I should note that Brian has yet to confirm that this is what he is claiming, despite my asking him abou this several times. If it is not, that makes his claim totally vague, and amounts to nothing more than yet another attempt at Forester vilification.
02-23-07 | 04:17 PM
#220
I wonder if the experiment was reversed (riding on the roadway like you would safely traveling on a sidepath) if Forester could affirm that safety actually increased. As way of analogy; it seems to me that you can’t drive safely on residential street if drive like you do on an expressway and you can’t drive safely on expressway if you drive like you do on a residential street. How I ride/drive safely is very dependent on what type of road/path I am on.
02-23-07 | 04:24 PM
#221
Senior Member
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 10,123
Likes: 4
From: Near Portland, OR
Bikes: Three road bikes. Two track bikes.
HH: I am honestly not sure what you want. If you want my total capitulation about my analysis, you won't get it this way.
Yes! Forester makes claims which are unsupported by his experiment. He comes up with his "danger ratio" using an experiment which cannot be used to evaluate relative danger because he is operating outside the operational parameters of the sidepath intentionally. His experiment proves that one cannot ride a sidepath the same way as the road. His experiment does not make any conclusions about relative safety of the sidepath vs. the road.
The best you can say is that he showed that it is dangerous to ride a sidepath at full speed and without yielding at intersections, i.e. recklessly. This result is of minor importance as it is self evident for most people. Again, there is nothing here to evaluate a "danger ratio."
(That make three times explaining this to you HH. I've made my point. Unless you have anything else to add, I'm done here.)
Yes! Forester makes claims which are unsupported by his experiment. He comes up with his "danger ratio" using an experiment which cannot be used to evaluate relative danger because he is operating outside the operational parameters of the sidepath intentionally. His experiment proves that one cannot ride a sidepath the same way as the road. His experiment does not make any conclusions about relative safety of the sidepath vs. the road.
The best you can say is that he showed that it is dangerous to ride a sidepath at full speed and without yielding at intersections, i.e. recklessly. This result is of minor importance as it is self evident for most people. Again, there is nothing here to evaluate a "danger ratio."
(That make three times explaining this to you HH. I've made my point. Unless you have anything else to add, I'm done here.)
__________________
Cat 2 Track, Cat 3 Road.
"If you’re new enough [to racing] that you would ask such question, then i would hazard a guess that if you just made up a workout that sounded hard to do, and did it, you’d probably get faster." --the tiniest sprinter
Cat 2 Track, Cat 3 Road.
"If you’re new enough [to racing] that you would ask such question, then i would hazard a guess that if you just made up a workout that sounded hard to do, and did it, you’d probably get faster." --the tiniest sprinter
02-23-07 | 04:29 PM
#222
Banned.
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 13,075
Likes: 0
From: San Diego
Originally Posted by Brian Ratliff
HH: I really don't give a flying rip. My questions are retorical and your not answering them directly only bolsters my argument. Your questions are accusatory and a side issue besides and cannot be answered in good faith.
In an attempt to counter my claim that no critical analysis has been offered in this thread and that its purpose is simply to vilify Forester, you claimed that certain people have provided "good stuff". Is out of line for me to ask you which specific posts contain this "good stuff"? What prevents you from being able to provide these posts numbers in good faith?
PS, your last question I've already answered. At least twice.
In what post have you identified a specific conclusion that you think Forester reached from this experiment, using his actual words and a genuine effort to understand what he meant in the context in which they were written, that you think is not supported by the experiment?
Better yet, just tell me what you think that conclusion is.
All you have to do is complete the following sentence. The specific conclusion reached by Forester based on this experiment, though not actually supported by the experiment, is ...
Is that so out of line to ask of someone who strongly implies such a conclusion exists?
The fact that these pointed questions get you to be testy, and claim they've already been answered (without being able to cite where), only bolster my argument that all you're really interested in doing is vilifying Forester.
I am truly sorry I don't come to the same conclusion you did.
I am saddened that you cannot support your point of view with any sort of rational discussion and have to resort to silly ultimatums fit only for a grade school schoolyard.
Our discussion really can go on without you. Please, if you have nothing to contribute beyond a schoolboy's pout, just go away.
02-23-07 | 04:29 PM
#223
Part-time epistemologist
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 5,870
Likes: 3
From: Washington, DC
Bikes: Jamis Nova, Bike Friday triplet, Bike Friday NWT, STRIDA, Austro Daimler Vent Noir, Hollands Tourer
Originally Posted by The Human Car
I wonder if the experiment was reversed (riding on the roadway like you would safely traveling on a sidepath) if Forester could affirm that safety actually increased. As way of analogy; it seems to me that you can’t drive safely on residential street if drive like you do on an expressway and you can’t drive safely on expressway if you drive like you do on a residential street. How I ride/drive safely is very dependent on what type of road/path I am on.
02-23-07 | 04:41 PM
#224
Banned.
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 13,075
Likes: 0
From: San Diego
Originally Posted by Brian Ratliff
HH: I am honestly not sure what you want. If you want my total capitulation about my analysis, you won't get it this way.
Yes! Forester makes claims which are unsupported by his experiment. He comes up with his "danger ratio" using an experiment which cannot be used to evaluate relative danger because he is operating outside the operational parameters of the sidepath intentionally. His experiment proves that one cannot ride a sidepath the same way as the road. His experiment does not make any conclusions about relative safety of the sidepath vs. the road.
The best you can say is that he showed that it is dangerous to ride a sidepath at full speed and without yielding at intersections, i.e. recklessly. This result is of minor importance as it is self evident for most people. Again, there is nothing here to evaluate a "danger ratio."
(That make three times explaining this to you HH. I've made my point. Unless you have anything else to add, I'm done here.)
Yes! Forester makes claims which are unsupported by his experiment. He comes up with his "danger ratio" using an experiment which cannot be used to evaluate relative danger because he is operating outside the operational parameters of the sidepath intentionally. His experiment proves that one cannot ride a sidepath the same way as the road. His experiment does not make any conclusions about relative safety of the sidepath vs. the road.
The best you can say is that he showed that it is dangerous to ride a sidepath at full speed and without yielding at intersections, i.e. recklessly. This result is of minor importance as it is self evident for most people. Again, there is nothing here to evaluate a "danger ratio."
(That make three times explaining this to you HH. I've made my point. Unless you have anything else to add, I'm done here.)
In particular, you appear to be unable to state the conclusion that he did reach: The risk ratio of riding on a sidepath at road speeds in a vehicular manner to riding on the street is estimated to be at least 1,000:1.
Hopefully this won't make you testy again, but these are the challenging specific questions I have for you:
Do you agree the above is a fair summary of a conclusion Forester reached from the experiment? Why or why not?
Do you feel the experiment does not support this conclusion? Why?
Is there any other conclusion you feel he did reach from the experiment that is not supported by it? If so, what specifically is it?
Last edited by Helmet Head; 02-23-07 at 04:50 PM.
02-23-07 | 04:49 PM
#225
Banned.
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 13,075
Likes: 0
From: San Diego
Originally Posted by The Human Car
I wonder if the experiment was reversed (riding on the roadway like you would safely traveling on a sidepath) if Forester could affirm that safety actually increased. As way of analogy; it seems to me that you can’t drive safely on residential street if drive like you do on an expressway and you can’t drive safely on expressway if you drive like you do on a residential street. How I ride/drive safely is very dependent on what type of road/path I am on.
Consider a 10 mile section of freeway with a 65 mph speed limit and an adjacent frontage road with frequent intersection, traffic signals, and a 35 mph speed limit.
Now imagine that a law is proposed to ban motorcyclists from using the freeway and requires them to use the frontage road by a city council who does not seem to understand that doing so will cause motorcyclists to have to take almost 3 times as long to travel the same distance. I realize this is a stretch, but for the analogy to work, you have to assume that the city councilmen are unable to understand why the motorcyclist cannot travel as fast on the frontage road as he can on the freeway.
Furthermore, claims that the frontage road take longer are rebuked on the grounds that the motorcyclist intentionally went slower than he could on the frontage just to prove a point.
In that context, can you at least begin to see why someone might have to try to operate a motorcycle in an unsafe manner at 65 mph on the frontage road in order to prove to them why it's unsafe, and why their proposed law is unfair?