galen_52657

THEY ARE ALL WRONG!!!! IMBICILES!!!! PEOPLE WHO RIDE UP AND DOWN A M.U.P. ONCE A WEEK KNOW MORE THAN THOSE QUACKS!!! WHO ARE YOU KIDDING????

(extreme typeface and caps used for dramatic effect per Rando....)

chipcom 

Thanks for breaking down your general statements of earlier into into more specific chunks to increase the odds of productive discussion rather than the perception of rhetoric.

In the context of urban areas, where I have done a LOT of bicycle commuting, I would agree that sidepaths are dangerous...which is perhaps why so few exist. The reason why bike paths in these areas may have a larger incident of accidents are the intersections, IMO - caused by an unwillingness (negligence) to follow the rules of the road by motorists and cyclists alike. I agree that there is little data to indicate whether roads with bike lanes or without have higher accident rates...and I don't think there ever will be because the only real difference is paint.

A cyclist who rides lawfully and competently will probably fare better, I don't think anyone disputes this. Indeed, most of us promote just that and not the opposite, as you tend to accuse us of. I don't agree that any 'bikeway policy' encourages unskilled and unlawful operation - I have never seen any policy or program that encourages breaking the law or incomptence, though I have seen some bikeway 'designs' that might encourage such behavior.

So we can agree that riding lawfully and competently is safer than riding incompetently and unlawfully. Great. I assume you classify vehicular cyclists as lawful and competent, but I'm not sure how you separate a vehicular cyclist from the rest of the cycling population. Certifications? Diplomas? Licenses? 666 tatooed in their wrists? Or is it from actions? I judge a cyclists competence and lawfulness from their riding...and I see little difference between trained or self-proclaimed 'vehicular cyclists' and the rest of the cycling population in the two areas you stress, lawfulness and competence.

Lawfulness:
1. Vehicular cyclists admittedly do NOT always follow the rules of the road for vehicles
2. Vehicular cyclists admittedly do NOT follow the LAWS of the road that other vehicles are required to follow.
3. Some vehicular cyclists actually advance the notion that lawfullness is nothing but doing what the majority of other vehicle operators are doing, no matter what the law is. (monkey-see, monkey-do)
4. Many non-vehicular cyclists are also drivers, fully understanding and following the rules and laws of the road.

Competence: Since vehicular cycling are simply a collection of best practices that were being used by cyclists long before you coined the term, one can hardly claim that a "vehicular cyclist" is the only competent cyclist.

So tell me, John, what criteria did these studies use to determine who was a lawful, competent cyclist and who was a unlawful, incompetent cyclist? What transforms an unlawful, incompetent cyclist into a lawful, competent one? Vehicular cycling training? If that is the case, does that mean there were no lawful, competent cyclists before the advent of vehicular cycling training? How did you and I become lawful and competent without such training?

So these studies and observations were of cyclists who did not have driver's licenses? I guess this might apply in your narrow scope if you assume that all urban transportational cyclists are car free and have never obtained a license to drive, otherwise all it proves is that these populations suck as both drivers and cyclists...hardly headlines. Perhaps we should be a bit more stringent in our driver training, since the vast majority of our population drives, rather than cycles FOR TRANSPORTATION and the competence of both drivers, and thus cyclists, might improve, since I imagine most cyclists are also drivers...unless the assumption I stated above is actually valid.

In the context of the narrower scope, I'd have to agree with most of this.

I'll save my comments on cyclist-inferiority phobia for another post, since this one is long enough and this subject alone could lead to a long debate.

Helmet Head

By saying "I disagree with X", you are implying that others agree with X.

Yet I don't know of anyone, including John Forester, who would agree that "properly designed 'facilities' don't have a place in our transportation infrastructure".

I also don't know of anyone, including John Forester, who would agree that "cyclists' rights to the road can't be preserved at the same time that properly designed 'facilities' are provided". I think he does believe that it already is very difficult to preserve our rights, and that faciliites only make it harder. Therefore those facilities that don't really facilitate safety or transportation for cyclists, as most facilities don't (including some "properly designed" ones), cause more troubles for cyclists overall than they solve. But that hardly has the same meaning as your simplistic blanket statement.

As Stephen pointed out, "So, in terms of facility safety, the devil is in the details, and blanket statements are rarely accurate."

So, again, we're back to where we started. What exactly (not expressed in an inaccurate blanket statement) do you disagree with Forester and or VC advocates about?

bigpedaler

you're right about one thing -- you dunno.

i can only assume that you're referring to JF as having "special knowledge" -- tell me, how did he acquire it? empirical experience, just as i have done. i'm sure he has been riding a bit longer than i have -- but not by much.

and -- BTW -- critical thinking skills are necessary to glean knowledge FROM empirical experience.

the main diff between JF and me is this: i do not hold out my knowledge and experience as 'the way"; it is the way FOR ME, and others who have had similar experiences. i don't object to different experiences and attitudes; what i object to is absolutism.

imi shimi peck poji da, my friend.

Bruce Rosar

FYI from What is CAN-BIKE?:

chipcom 

Comments from those less educated in a particular subject CAN be useful in a discussion (I've been holding my own here, and I'm an idiot). This one is a good example, because it leads to a question. Bigpeddler hardly knows who John Forester is, nor is he likely to have read Effective Cycling or any other cycling book or to have taken any LAB classes. Does this make him one of the 'incompetent, unlawful' cyclists that John often mentions? Although it would be easy to answer simply yes or no, please explain your reasoning that lead you to your answer.

Helmet Head

No, your opinion in the area of cycling education and bicycle transportation engineering is less valuable then that of someone who has studied those fields.
Edit: but it still has value.

Your empirical experience is just as valuable as anyone else's who has had considerable experience cycling in traffic.

randya

This graph was originally posted by Kal to illustrate that sidewalk riding is unsafe, but actually contains other data that show riding in bike lanes on arterial streets is safer than riding on arterials without bike lanes. I'm sure the VC response will be that 'properly trained' cyclists will have a lower crash rate on the arterials than 'untrained' cyclists. In response I have to say that (1) it takes a certain 'steely resolve' to ride in traffic on arterial streets; (2) riding on high traffic speed and volume arterials is at best an unpleasant experience even if done in the 'correct' VC manner; and (3) the older and slower I get, the lower my desire gets to go out and compete for lane space on arterial streets with a bunch of unfriendly, unhappy, improperly trained, crazed and dangerous motorists.

zeytoun

I mean to place the sarcastic face at the end of my sentence, not in front of your quote... I think that changes things quite a bit.. Sorry for the confusion.

galen_52657

I think an honest observation of his riding technique and skills would be in order....

BTW I routinely observe plenty of club cyclist ride incompetently and unlawfully on just about any training ride....

Just this Wednesday I was headed home (about 10 miles) from the group training ride after dusk with three other cyclists. Out of four riders we had one headlight (me) and three rear blinkies.....

kalliergo 

His(?) unfamiliarity with Forester and/or with the published works that make up the body of cycling education literature tell me very little about whether or not he is a competent and lawful cyclist. That lack of familiarity does limit the value of his opinions about cycling education and bicycle transportation engineering in general. Note that I say "limit the value," not "invalidate."

The comments of all who are interested can certainly be useful. And, I repeat, informed opinion is simply more valuable than uninformed. How could it be otherwise?

Helmet Head

I just want to point out that this point is an arguable statement of opinion.

Edit: nor do I mean to say that I disagree, or agree, with it.

chipcom 

Everyone's opinion has value...if anyone tells you otherwise it's usually an indication of their own inadequacies and insecurities. That is our IA lesson for today.

bigpedaler

slightly insulted, yes; to be marginalized is something that nearly everyone will object to. yes, i do disagree -- simply because you assume that your book reading provides more information than my voracious reading of current lit, periodicals, and news, coupled with my own daily experiences. if all i did was ride, your claim of being more informed would accurate; but bicycles are the first thing i focus on in the morning, and the last at night, and i thank God that He allowed such a thing to exist to enhance my life as it has. read, eat, breathe, and sleep bikes -- sure do! in the short time i have been acquainted w/ JF's work, i have read and investigated it, as well. i remain unimpressed.

your personal base of experience parallels my own -- i can add bits of europe to my list is about the only difference.

bigpedaler

sorry, HH -- he's been beating you over the head with a foam rubber ballbat.

Bruce Rosar

Well, judging by the discussions here in A&S, not all cyclists want all of that. Which reminds me of a song:
IIRC, almost everyone that I've heard advocating for such things at our monthly MPO-associated bicycle planning meetings (which I've attended for years) motored there (except for a few meetings, I've always pedaled).

galen_52657

Your graph also shows major roads without bike facilities to be safer than minor roads without bike facilities. What it glaringly fails to show is what type of road had the bike facility and compare apples-to-apples against the same type of road without the bike facility.

chipcom 

In other words, his actions are a better indicator of his lawfulness and competence than books he's read or training that he's received? Dayum, Galen, you and I are agreeing way to often...people might talk!

chipcom 

So you also agree that his actions say more about his competence and lawfulness than any books or training certifications? Thanks, we agree on this. What color is the moon today?

SamHouston

It only lacks value if you don't know where it has it's value. The response the poster received from a VC proponent is typical in the the reaction it generates & very telling.

Forester is well known to everyone that hs studied these fields in any depth, but in all fairness it should be noted that his work is most often taken under advisement and summarily dismissed by policymakers. IMO this is because it is unpopular due to the sentiment demonstrated in your exchange with bigpedaler.

VC as proscribed & promoted by JF & proponents simply has no place for human beings, and most policymakers find themselves tasked with accommodating human beings. Anytime you leave people out of the equation while trying to influence something as fundamental as roads you lose.

You don't see the transportation secretary answering posts on a public forum by posting them on their website do you, or answering the resulting outcry? The only reason John Forester is able to be with us here today is that by & large he has lost his battles. Revel in the novelty of discussing these battles with him, but don't get too upset as there is no need.

No 'fense about losing John, just the way it rolls. Besides, while I've never seen any evidence of it I expect you did do something to make bike lanes or paths or what have you safer long ago. That's something. I've seen some very poorly designed bike lanes & MUP things. Personally they don't have any bearing on my riding, except where fools attempt to restrict me to them and that's never been successfully accomplished anywhere I've ridden yet except Houston, Texas, a city with more obstacles to cycling than the presence or absence of bike facilities. To be fair Memorial City is a small enclave completely surrounded by Houston, and restricting cycling on their main thoroughfare was their doing, not Houston's.

bigpedaler

very definitely "His" -- Frank & the Beans resent your saying that...

as far as informed vs. uninformed, i've already addressed that. now it's time for your credentials, good sir.

(btw, chip -- not in the frisco way, either)

kalliergo 

That's correct.

Further, it should be noted that this graph is based upon a mailed survey of LAB members, not on official crash statistics. Aside from the problems with sample selection, etc. the road types were chosen by the respondents, so there is no way to know whether one rider's major artery is another's minor one, what qualifies as a "bike lane" in the minds of the respondents, etc. This one should be taken with several grains of salt.

BTW, I think I actually posted a link to a discussion of sidepaths that led someone to this chart, not the chart itself. If I posted the chart, it was an error; I don't think this is very meaningful.

chipcom 

Nice to see that I am not the only one who understands political reality.

That is not a slam on anyone either, it's just the way it is. The 'best' solution from a technical standpoint often does not prevail because the experts presenting the options only have a narrow view of the problem, take criticism of their pet solution personally and end up becoming defensive, arrogant and abrasive - ticking off not only the policy makers, but pretty much everyone else too.

zeytoun

Don't you think it's a bit duplicitous to site a survey to support your argument in one post, and then criticize the survey when it is used to support an argument you disagree with?

galen_52657

Didn't somebody post earlier a link to 'Can-Bike' - the cyclist training program adopted by Canada? I guess the entire country to the north of us is inhabited by a bunch of complete losers aye SamHouston....

Or maybe them there Canucks are smarter?? Which country is governed by George W. Bush? Which country has universal health care? Which country has thousands of gun murders each year..which does not???

Which has a national cyclist training program...which does not********** Which country took a Toyota plant away from the other country because the country that lost the plant had prospective employees to stupid to read???

EDIT: here is the link to the Toyota plant story

https://www.cbc.ca/cp/business/050630/b0630102.html