zeytoun

Emo Philips is my hero.

forgetmeknot

Yet these same folks, who you acknowledge have most likely already passed their standard driving examination (based upon your observations) are also nowhere near able to pass the standard driving examination (based upon your observations).

That's quite a contradiction.

John Forester

Your comparison is not based on this particular situation. I agree entirely that comparing the German language test results of a random sample of the American population against those who had taken classes in German would be entirely inappropriate. All that it might show would be how much German had been learned in the German class.

However, we are here comparing performances on an activity with critical safety concerns. The electrician is not more likely to turn off the power of a high-voltage line before working on it if he knows he is being observed. If he is a competent electrician, he will turn off the power whether or not he is being observed. I think that we can conclude that any person who undertakes to work on a high voltage line without taking the proper precautions does not possess the skills required for an electrician.

In the same way, we can say with confidence that any cyclist riding in traffic who moves laterally without first looking behind does not possess the skills that should be required for drivers of bicycles. And I observed so many of these persons!

The complaint that tests all too often degrade teaching into teaching to the test, as is now common in educational circles, might apply. Suppose that my test for making a left turn required that the cyclist pedal backwards for two revolutions, and the students knew it. Certainly, they would pedal backwards just before turning left, and nobody else in the world would do it. However, I have described and explained my standards as being those that are necessary for safe traffic cycling. As long as that is correct, then whether or not a cyclist is being observed should make no difference in determining whether he is using the proper skill, and there is little chance that he has the skill but is not using it, because part of the skill is knowing that correct performance makes for safe operation and failing to operate properly leads to otherwise avoidable dangers.

Bruce Rosar

Looking at some quotes in a criminology article, it may not be the light that you're being invited to:

John Forester

Whether or not this is a contradiction is immaterial. It happens to be fact. Americans with motor-vehicle driving licenses who then get on a bicycle ride the bicycle without using the driving skills that they know. That is one result of the cyclist-inferiority phobia, that tells them that they can't, or shouldn't, or it's too dangerous, ride their bicycle using the same skills that they use when driving a car.

I recognize that the cyclist-inferiority phobia is an unpopular explanation, but when the evidence, such as this, keeps piling up, one comes to realize that this is the most reasonable explanation for so many things in bicycle transportation.

alanbikehouston

No one has a monopoly on the truth. But, Mr. Forester ought to be able to inform of his beliefs without being attacked by guys who don't know which end of a bike is the front and which is the back.

Most of the members of this Forum were not even born during the time period when Mr. Forester began his work in transportaton cycling. When forum members pretend to know more about Mr. Forester's research and philosophy than Mr. Forester, it reminds me of the scene in "Amadeus" when the half-witted prince informed Mozart "your music has too many notes".

cooker

I have a problem with the vehemence and nastiness of some of the attacks, but not with the notion that experts can (and should) be challenged.

zeytoun

There, I fixed that for you.

Helmet Head

Sorry this is long, but I believe it gets to the heart of the matter here.

Okay, let's say for sake of discussion that bigpedaler and John Forester have this much in common:

• Relatively high intelligence.
• Critical thinking skills.
• Knowledge about cycling gleaned from empirical experience.
• Love of bicycling.

Bigpedaler contends that the main difference between them is that Forester holds out his knowledge and experience as "the way". If so, then why the difference? Why does Forester believe that his way is "the way", but bigpedaler does not? This is the question I want to examine.

Before we start, I want to clarify what I believe to be "the way": I believe it is the same as "the way" to drive a motor vehicle is "the way". When we are taught how to drive a car, do we scoff at it because the instructor is holding out his knowledge and experience as "the way"? What is wrong with contending that there is a "the way" when it comes to how to ride a bike on roads?

But now let's focus on what I believe to be the main fundamental difference between Forester and bigpedaler. It is this: John Forester grew up and gathered knowledge about cycling gleaned from empirical experience in England, a society/culture where, at least at that time, cyclists act and treated as vehicle drivers, while bigpedaler, so far as I know, grew up and gathered knowledge about cycling gleaned from empirical experience in the United States, a society/culture where cyclists mostly act and are treated as second class users of the roadway.

Further, JF took this knowledge along with him when he moved to the United States in the 1960s. He chose not to accept the norm here: bicyclists stay out of the way. Instead, he rode the way he always did in a culture where vehicular cycling is accepted, and got harassed and ticketed for it here. He felt this was not right. The rest is history, as he devoted the rest of his life to righting this wrong, and we should all be grateful for this, even if he insults us along the way (nobody is perfect).

In order to understand better the difference between JF and bigpedaler, it is probably useful to sojourn over to the Cycle View videos thread started by Bruce Rosar. In the OP are three links to three video clips demonstrating standard vehicular cycling on 6-lane 45 mph arterials with narrow outside lanes.

"VC" advocates, including myself, recognize this riding as normal. Others, including bigpedaler, are not so sure. His comments in that thread are very revealing:

No vehicular cyclist that I know would say, I "love the idea of taking the lane like that". I love the idea of owning a villa on the coast of France which I would share with Cameron Diaz. But I don't love the idea of living on the coast of California with my wife: I love the reality of that.

Similarly, I don't love the "idea" of taking the lane like that, as bigpedaler apparently can only dream about, I love actually doing it, which I do almost on a daily basis. This is the concept that is so difficult to convey in this forum. Maybe the video clips will help, I don't know.

Further evidence that the vehicular cycling depicted in those clips is not normal for bigpedaler is that he chose to note: "hearing NO horns honking, no cussing, etc.", as if that is unusual. Anyone who regularly rides like that knows that it happens, but not often enough to be a concern. I ride that way, for days and weeks at a time "hearing NO horns honking, no cussing, etc.". Sure it happens once in a while, but the vast, vast majority of motorists treat me exactly the way motorists are show to be treating Dan and Brian in their video clips, which depicts typical treatment for vehicular cycling. To me, saying "hearing NO horns honking, .... etc" is about as relevant as saying "seeing no green Rolls Royces" (for I see a green Rolls Royce about as often as I get honked at).

Finally, note his reluctance to "get behind it". " if this is going to be promoted, it will need .... when this happens, and begins to spread, [then (and only then?)] i will get behind it, as i see the obvious benefits."

And what is his excuse? The law. Never mind that the law states no cyclist is required to ride "as far right as practicable" if the lane "is too narrow for a bicycle and a vehicle to travel safely side by side within the lane". Never mind that we can thank John Forester himself for getting that and most of the other critical exceptions into the law.

And I don't mean to pick on bigpedaler. Look at the comments of Genec, who I know has taken Road 1 and Road 2, and I believe has also read at least parts of Effective Cycling:

He is looking for an excuse to explain why "their cycling techniques work so well then". Why? Why is he so reluctant to accept it? Why does he not notice that the longest clip, the third one, involves only one cyclist, Brian, on his daily commute, riding exactly in the same manner that he rides every day, getting the same treatment he normally gets. Why the reluctance?

How the heck is vehicular cycling going to get promoted and begin to spread if intelligent, experienced cyclists with critical thinking skills who "see the obvious benefits" are this reluctant to "get behind it"?

Why the excuses? Why the reluctance? Is it the American cyclist-inferiority phobia at work, or what?

All I can tell you is that if you showed me those clips five years ago I would have very similar responses to what genec and bigpedaler said in that thread. I realize now that that's because internally I did not accept the vehicular cycling principle. At that time, I certainly was not aware of the concept by name. But when I used my critical thinking skills to glean knowledge from empirical experience cycling on the roads in the U.S. for over 3 decades, I also did not glean knowledge of the concept. Sure, I heard "same rights, same rules, same roads", but I didn't understand it meant: same rights, same rules, same roads. I certainly didn't understand that I could and should ride on 45 mph arterials the way Dan and Brian demonstrate in those videos. It was only after I read and studied Effective Cycling, researched the laws myself, and started applying those concepts in my own riding, that I finally gleaned knowledge about vehicular cycling, and its benefits, from empirical experience.

And only after I finally gleaned knowledge about vehicular cycling, and its benefits, from empirical experience, was I able to understand Forester's points and arguments about cycling facilities.

Edit: So if you look at those video clips, and the riding depicted there doesn't look normal to you, it will probably be very difficult, if not impossible, to understand what Forester is trying to convey to you. But in a nutshell it is: you can and should ride like that, because it works great, it's about as safe as cycling can be, and it's very fun.

Bruce Rosar

Maybe it's America's Taboo against Bicycle Driving:

bigpedaler

Thank you for asking all this -- i'm wanting those answers myself.

(part 2 of the Quest)

randya

Most reasonable people, when considering the idea of bicycling, don't want to mix it up with traffic on 6-lane 45 MPH arterials, and if you told them you could train them to do it 'correctly' they'd just think you were nuts, because even if there is a 'correct way' of doing it, they still wouldn't want to.

I think the heart of the VC falacy, and the strawman that JF invents, only to shoot down with circular logic, is this: that 'facilities' are demanded by motorists to keep the cyclists out of their (the motorists') way.

In fact, I have never heard any self-identifying motorist demand a bike lane for this or any other reason. The engineers may be designing bike lanes for this reason, but motorists absolutely do not recognize the benefits to themselves that the engineers are intending, even when they are explicitly and repeately pointed out. Most motorists deem bike lanes to be road space that once was theirs being abrogated to, or appropriated by, bicyclists. OTOH, given the choice of bike lanes vs. bikes in the lane, the motorists might pick bike lanes as the lesser of two evils. edit - most motorists would, I believe, prefer to simply ban bicyclists from arterial streets.

In any event, the majority of bicyclists who demand bike lanes do not do so because of some supposed 'cyclist inferiority complex', but rather, because it is unpleasant and stressful to cycle in heavy, fast traffic - even if you know and use the proper techniques for taking the lane, destination positioning, etc. Most reasonable adults that are inclined towards bicycling simply don't find this appealing, and no amount of persuasion or training is going to change their minds.

If John Forester really wants to have a lasting impact on bicycling in the USA, and a legacy to leave behind, I think he would do best to stop with his silly posturing and proselytizing, and go back his engineering office to work on improving the designs used for bicycle 'facilities'. The biggest complaint I hear is not that facilities are unwanted by bicyclists; but rather, that the existing facilities as designed and built don't work as well as they could and should for cyclists. I think that's mostly because the engineers that are designing these facilities are probably not cyclists in the first place, and the bicycle 'facilities' are included as an afterthought in the bigger motorist-oriented design. Someone with John's engineering background and cycling experience could probably make a big difference in the quality and safety of bicycle-specific infrastructure designs if he wanted to.

Bruce Rosar

Without minimizing the magnitude of John's success in minimizing the negative aspects of the original law, I would like to point out to readers that the cited law only exists in California. There are others states which don't have (or need) such exceptions because no such discriminatory (i.e., class of individuals specific) rule of the road exists in the first place.

Helmet Head

Randya,

Did you watch all three of the video clips?

I don't see your comments or vote in that thread.

Anyway, here's the thing, in many situations there is simply no room for extra space for regular WOLs, much less WOLs with demarcated bike lanes (which require even more space than regular WOLs). So in order to use bicyclists for transportation you have to learn to ride on roads like that, and once you do, it becomes pleasant and not stressful at all (again, do the guys in the video clips looked stressed? do they appear to have any reason to be stressed?)

Bruce Rosar

I have! (I haven't been to nearly as many bicycle planning meetings as someone like John, but I've been to more than I can remember)

You think?

I find it's no more those things than traveling in a convertible (in a sense, the bicycle is sort of the ultimate convertible!) because cycling itself is just, well, fun!

If the primary cause was an engineering one, then working on facilities would make sense. But the primary cause is social and economic. That's why education (and, I would argue, encouragement) is the best approach to improving the situation.

zeytoun

HH, those are nice videos, and the guys are doing a nice job. I take the lane, ride assertively, and love riding through the clogged traffic of Hillcrest at rush hour. That being said, I avoid roads like the ones in the video. If the traffic is above 40, i prefer a wide shoulder or bike lane. For example, I would not ride Friars Road in San Diego if it did not have a bike lane. Would you? If yes, good for you. However, just because you can do it, and not be stressed, doesn't mean everyone should.

I guess I see riding on roads like that as a right that a cyclist should have, but not an obligation. If there is a route that novice cyclists can ride safely instead, then everyone wins.

randya

This is semantic BS.

Is this or is this not the VC position?:

1. Bicycle-specific 'facilities' or infrastructure, even if properly designed, don't have a place in our transportation infrastructure.

2. Cyclists' rights to the road are more difficult or impossible to preserve whenever bicycle-specific 'facilities' or infrastructure are provided.

Helmet Head

Fine, I'll bite.

• Why does he believe the way & what he does? As best as I can tell, because he grew up in a culture where a way of cycling on roads that he now refers to as vehicular cycling was generally accepted and respected, and came to a culture where it is accepted and respected in concept only, but often not in actuality, and often not even in concept.
  
• Why is he trying to get people or sway people to his line of thinking? Because he loves bicycling, including bicycling on roadways, and it pains him to see bicycling in our culture be so unnecessarily more difficult, less safe and less fun simply because people are taught to believe, mostly indirectly by example, that bicyclists are second-class citizens on the road.
  
• Why does he think others are wrong & only he is right? Because he has lived in a culture where he has seen vehicular cycling work, and he has seen it work here. He has every reason to believe he is right, and no reason to believe he is wrong. And, he is a man of reason.
  
• Why does he not have statistical proof of his so called findings? He has the same studies that anyone else in the field has - not much. He makes do with what he's got, but much of his findings are based on knowledge gleaned from a lot of empirical experience, including experience gained in cultures that do and do not generally accept and respect cyclists acting as vehicle drivers.
  
• Why does he just spout off diatribe & expect people to take it in as the gospel? He doesn't. It just seems that way to those who refuse to give him the benefit of the doubt and really pay attention and think about what he is saying, and learn how to apply it in their own riding.

randya

Actually, I believe it is you who claims that bicycle traffic skills are something exotic, practicable only by those who have taken an Effective Cycling course.

kalliergo 

Well, I've certainly heard motorists demand bike lanes, precisely for this reason, but I would agree that most do not recognize the benefits to them. That doesn't mean that planners, engineers and officials don't have the goal of getting bikes out of the way of motorists. It is not now as politically correct to proclaim that goal openly as it was not too long ago, but that it is, in fact, an important goal, is unmistakable in the communications and actions of those parties.

In my view, one of the most insightful of Forester's assertions is that bicycle facilities are intended to enhance the convenience of motorists, much more than to enhance the safety or convenience of cyclists.

Helmet Head

1. No. For example, I know that JF and I both are supporters of some bicycle-specific facilities and infrastructure, including certain bike paths that provide useful shorts cuts.

2. Yes, as long as we're referring to bicycle-specific 'facilities' or infrastructure that appear to be a reasonable alternative to cycling in the road (in other words, we're talking about most bike lanes and sidepaths, not bike lockers or waterfront bike paths that meander far away from parallel roads). And "whenever" is a bit harsh. Personally, I don't think even a few bike lanes here and there are harmful in this respect. The real problem is when the proliferation of them exceeds a certain threshold where they and their use becomes "expected" - that's when the make Cyclists' rights to the road more difficult or impossible to preserve. Of course, identifing where exactly that threshold is is all but impossible. But, in short, the more bike lanes there are, the more difficult it is to preserve our rights to the road.

kalliergo 

Could you point out where Forester has said that (or either portion of it), please?

chipcom 

I've observed the same with drivers who are new to motorcycles and moped's John, but I don't see any evidence of a phobia, it's just the normal hesitancy and blanl-mindedness that comes from doing something you are unfamiliar with, even if the environment is familiar. It's also evident in when the opposite is true - the means are familiar but the environment is not. The only way that your phobia theory holds any validity is if you apply it across the board as 'unfamiliar activity and/or environment phobia. Indeed, when I first read of your theory I ran it past some psychologists - their opinions ran the spectrum from normal to lack of love from their mothers, but the bulk dimissed your theory on it's face, saying one could not make such a diagnosis without long-term observation of each INDIVIDUAL in a variety of environments.

From another angle, a bicycle is not a motor vehicle. When one has been driving, the sheer repetition serves to create muscle memory that allows us to do things without thinking. Put that driver on a bicycle or motorcycle and they do not have the reps, and therefore not the muscle memory, to keep mind and body coordinated, thus they make stupid mistakes. Take away the physical part of the excercise and they can tell you quite easily what they SHOULD be doing, but when it comes to their brains sending the proper signals to the body, the reps are not there to allow smooth operation.

I'll use a police officer as an example. They learn everything there is to know about their firearm and how to use it effectively and practice those skills every now and then, usually in a static, non-stress situation. Take that officer and put him into a practical shooting situation that makes him have to move and make snap decisions and places some stress on his mind, and he usually fails badly. Is this because he has a phobia concerning the weapon or the situation? No, it means he has not trained with enough frequency in a wide range of environments and tactical situations.

I contend...that what you call cyclist phobia is merely normal behavior when one is put into a situation where the equipment, environment or situation is unfamiliar to them. Given time to practice and train, they overcome their uncomfortableness and their mind and bodies begin to work as one.

You will probably say that this only reinforces your contention that training is required...and I will agree to a point...but it must be practical training with a lot of repetition in multiple environments and situations, something one cannot get from any class - it can only come from practical experience. So I will agree that training and education are a desireable baseline, but the most important factor is practical experience and repetition in multiple environments and situations. Indeed, that experience can be had WITHOUT formal training...which is indeed how you, I and most of the world have been learning how to ride a bicycle since it was first invented.

So I can agree that new riders are uncomfortable, but I cannot agree that they have a phobia. I also agree that formal education is helpful, but in the end practical experience is far more valuable.

randya

If what is shown in those videos is your idea of a 'pleasant cycling environment', then you and John and Bruce are also right that cycling will NEVER be practiced by more than a miniscule percentage of the American population. If you want to get more people on bikes - which is 'advocacy' in my book - this model will absolutely NEVER WORK. I don't think you guys have even half a clue how a 99% majority of the US population would react when asked whether they would want to bike on a road like that - even with proper training.

I, for example, don't want to have to (1) ride a light-weight road bike, (2) dress in biker kit, (3) pedal 15 to 20 mph, (4) breath the exhaust, and (5) constantly monitor for passing 45 mph motor vehicles, and I'm a cyclist with 45 years of experience who is capable of riding in these situations when necessary.

John Forester

Originally Posted by N_C, but I don't have the original before me

"I have some questions for anyone who can answer them, but most of all JF. First is why? Why does he believe the way & what he does? Why is he trying to get people or sway people to his line of thinking? Why does he think others are wrong & only he is right? Why does he not have statistical proof of his so called findings? Why does he just spout off diatribe & expect people to take it in as the gospel? BTW, why is often the most difficult question to answer."

"Why does he believe the way & what he does?"
I believe that the proper way to operate on the roadway is according to the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles. Why? Well, that's what gets everybody home again in reasonable safety in reasonable speed. That's what makes traffic flow smoothly with few accidents and as few delays as can be managed, considering the traffic volume. The rules of the road were worked out by the experience of drivers of vehicles and were then formalized into traffic laws. From time to time, improvements were made based on experience. For example, the first version of the traffic laws required turning left from the right side of the roadway, on the theory that that is where the left-turning driver should wait until traffic became clear. But that was quickly changed with experience. Furthermore, this is the standard recognized by traffic engineers and is incorporated in the design of the highway system.

"Why is he trying to get people or sway people to his line of thinking?"
Well, it's obviously the proper way to operate, and it provides, even for cyclists, the best blend between safety, convenience, and travel time that we have been able to work out.

"Why does he think others are wrong & only he is right?"
I don't think that I am the only one who is right. I am advocating standard traffic engineering principles that have been proven over almost a century. It's you people who have peculiar and unusual ideas that are contrary to the best engineering knowledge.

"Why does he not have statistical proof of his so called findings?"
Quite obviously because there is not such thing as statistical proof. I have taught statistical decision theory at the graduate level and written one of the few books on the subject. I know what I am talking about.

But there is plenty of statistical evidence, some of which has been quoted here already. Here's a bit more. 30% of the car-bike collisions in Cross's study occurred because the cyclist was doing what cyclist-inferiority bike-safety instruction encouraged him to do. That doesn't prove anything, but it is a damned strong suggestion that cyclist-inferiority bike-safety instruction, the same system that's the basis for bikeways, is unduly dangerous and should be reformed. Here's another that has been quoted here. The group of American cyclists, indeed almost the only group, most likely to ride in the vehicular manner have a car-bike collision rate only 25% that of the general cycling public. Prove anything? No, but it's another damned strong suggestion that vehicular cycling is much safer than what the general public does. Now here's another, in which the measured behavior of American general public cyclists shows that they score somewhere about 55% on a performance scale with 70% minimum passing, and where club cyclists of the old school (I suspect that club cycling has gone to hell in the last few decades) earned practically perfect scores.

In any scientific issue, the choice of views has to be made by weighing the evidence on each side. There is a plethora of evidence such as I have quoted above that supports the vehicular cycling side, and there is no relevant evidence whatever to support the cyclist-inferiority bikeways side. I cannot make it any plainer than that.

"Why does he just spout off diatribe & expect people to take it in as the gospel?"
The current discussion has disproved that red herring.

"BTW, why is often the most difficult question to answer."
I agree that motivation is often difficult to answer. In my case it is pretty obvious: my motivation is the welfare of cyclists. In the case of typical bicycle advocates, the answer is much more complicated. So far as I can see, the motivation of typical bicycle advocates is a mixture of anti-motoring emotions with the motorist created cyclist-inferiority & bikeways propaganda. Nothing else provides a reasonably credible explanation for the emotional complexities of this field.