bmike

Sorry. I posted this elsewhere but thought it would work here: Not Hubbard, but sci-fi nonetheless.



Feel the Dark Side. Succumb to my statistics.
Yes, yes. The Forester is strong in you, young Padawan.

The only way to save your friends is to join me. If they keep riding as they do they will be dead before the day is through. You are superior to them. Do not succumb to your emotions. Do not succumb to the inferiority of the cyclist.



I didn't change it all that much...

LittleBigMan

I love it when you whip me.

Do it again...Oh, that feels good...

Oop, sorry. Family Channel.

sbhikes

It ain't no different from the driver's seat of your car.

noisebeam

What do you mean? I am only halfway thru my AM coffee.
al

randya

she means they don't let you in no matter what your vehicle is.

joejack951

But the point is that someone did let him in, but it was not a standard hand signal that got their attention. He had to use a lookback in order to get the response he was looking for, you know, that "ambiguous" signal that we had a long thread about. I find a hand signal alone completely useless for merging. If I do not lookback along with issuing the hand signal, no one would ever let me over. I've tried. Lookbacks alone have worked more often for me than signals alone, not that that is saying much.

noisebeam

That was my point. The hand signal was ineffective, the look back achieved the desired result.

It happens all the time. As I am begining a left merge and there is a long string of traffic, I will stick out left arm and ride along checking mirror if anyone slows. Hardly anyone does. It is only when I start looking back that I can get a good response.

Al

randya

I hardly ever look. It hurts my neck and I've got a good mirror and know how to use it, and hand signals.

noisebeam

I can confidently merge left based only what I see in mirror. But when driving any vehicle that is considered a bad habit - so I always try and give a look back, so far I've never seen anything that I hadn't already seen in mirror.

I do think my bicycle mirror covers a far wider range than my automotive one, resulting in minimal if no blind spot vs. in a car.

Al

Tom Stormcrowe

My take on this:

I don't agree with all of JF's conclusions, but have read his book and seen the material he has referenced. I have to give him the following:

1. He has done a valid set of scientific observations based on valid scientific method
2. He uses valid forms of argument to advance his views, I disagree with some of his initial premises,thus I disagree with some of his conclusions based off of those premises

My basic disagreement is with "Cyclist Inferiority Phobia"; I have issues with use of psychological jargon used to present a personal opinion disguised as a "valid psychological principle", as there is no specific diagnosis of this disorder in the DSMIV. Using this tactic smacks of intellectual dishonesty(** although I do understand what you're driving at John.... ).

A suggestion to John:
Perhaps using the term overperception of risk, rather than trying to come up with a specific phobia might be a better tactic, just my thought. This would take the drama out of it and remove the perception advanced that people who were more risk aversive ref/ Traffic riding are individuals with a mental disorder. I'm not accusing you of intellectual dishonesty, by the way, so don't think that I am. Rather, I am pointing out a semantical and tactical error in advancing your viewpoint that does you a disservice, in my opinion. Bear in mind, my field of study is behavioral sciences and specifically, social learning theory/emotional intelligence theory and perception.

LittleBigMan

Sorry, ILTB, I guess I got a little hot, didn't I?

Helmet Head

I have to agree that "phobia" is not quite right for many reasons. But I think more and more that "cyclist inferiority" is spot on.

I-Like-To-Bike

My field in the past has been risk analysis and risk management. And I have a very different view than you about the "validity" of John Forester's "scientific method" and "form of argument." In every respect his specific methods of data collection, measurements, comparisons, evaluations and arguments are shamefully bogus when they deal with the fundamental issue of evaluating cycling risk and/or evaluating the effect or results of risk countermeasures. Since almost all his conclusions and "arguments are based on just those invalid premises and/or Forester Brand Reasonable Assumptions I can only wonder what you think constitutes a "valid scientific method."

I-Like-To-Bike

I don't even remember; did you say something hot? Got pictures?

Tom Stormcrowe

Tell ya what, we'll just agree to disagree then, ILBT, as I don't have any desire to get into a comparison of volume, distance and duration of the stream.

I-Like-To-Bike

I wouldn't think you would. Disagree it shall be.

sbhikes

I disagree with this assessment.

His methods are shamelessly bogus.

I-Like-To-Bike

I stand corrected.

Falkon 

but... but... I LOVE YOU

John Forester

Talk about bogus science! ILTB propounds far more bogus science than I do, because he has no evidence at all to support his agenda regarding bicycle transportation. ILTB fails to consider the problems of making decisions under uncertainty and of weighing the weight of the scientific evidence on each side. The issue is whether the vehicular-cycling view or the cyclist-inferiority view is more likely to be correct.

In a purely scientific context, a conclusion about this controversy might be held back until more evidence is collected. But even in the purely scientific context, concern about professional advancement suggests what lines of research would be most likely to produce professional advancement. In other words, if hypothesis A is considered most unlikely while hypothesis B is considered to be likely, then it would be better to direct one's research to disproving A (disproof is possible in science) or of supporting B (support, not proof, because proof is not possible in science) than research in the other directions.

However, we do not have the luxury of delay until all criticisms are settled. We have been acting according to the cyclist-inferiority view for decades, and all signs are that we will continue to do so unless corrected. Therefore, the evaluation of the controversy has to lie on two factors, the weight of the evidence now available, and the probability of obtaining new evidence on each side.

The bikeway system was invented, designed, and enacted by motorists for the convenience of motorists, with little regard for the safety of cyclists. We now have claims that this bikeway system produces several unintended effects that are desired by others than its designers. These are that bikeways reduce the car-bike collision rate, that bikeways reduce the level of skill that is required for safe cycling, that bikeways reduce motoring.

Consider the research that has been done. Before modern bikeways were invented, there was standard traffic engineering, a discipline of comparatively long standing. Bikeways contradict standard traffic engineering principles. At the start of the bikeway controversy, government paid for research into car-bike collisions, evidently in the belief that this information would support the cyclist-inferiority view. Government was appalled when those statistics (the initial Cross statistics) disproved the cyclist-inferiority view and supported the vehicular-cycling view; government then suppressed the report of that study. The second set of Cross statistics, the national sample, produced the same conclusion, but the report was published by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, which has responsibility for providing accurate information about traffic safety. Since then, government, most frequently in the form of the Federal Highway Administration, has conducted many studies (maybe 30?) and prototype programs attempting to provide support for the cyclist-inferiority bikeway hypothesis, at costs considerably exceeding ten million dollars. However, these studies have uniformly failed in this attempt.

The research on the vehicular-cycling hypothesis has used some information produced by government: largely standard traffic-engineering knowledge and car-bike collision statistics, and, of course, the governmental studies that failed to support the bikeway hypothesis. It has added information from research conducted by cyclists and cycling organizations, and analysis to a greater depth than before concerning traffic movements. Much of this has been amateur and the total cost has been small. This research has demonstrated both support for the vehicular-cycling hypothesis and distrust for the cyclist-inferiority bikeway hypothesis.

Therefore, considering the weight of the evidence on each side, there is much evidence for the vehicular-cycling hypothesis and none for the cyclist-inferiority bikeway hypothesis. The balance of the weights is overwhelmingly on the side of the vehicular-cycling hypothesis. Now, consider the probability that there exists information, not yet discovered, that will be sufficient to reverse the balance to favoring the cyclist-inferiority hypothesis. Considering both the efforts on each side and the evidence so discovered, the probability that there exists information so conclusive as to change the balance to favor the cyclist-inferiority hypothesis is effectively zero.

Therefore, we should operate according to the vehicular-cycling hypothesis, which means stopping our current actions that are based on the cyclist-inferiority bikeway hypothesis and implement a policy and program that aims to advance vehicular cycling.

To return to ILTB's comments. ILTB is just another of those who promote the cyclist-inferiority bikeway agenda without any evidence to support it and regardless of the evidence against it. But ILTB is smart enough to attempt to conceal the fact that there is no evidence supporting his agenda, concentrating his attacks on the fact that the evidence against it is not perfect.

The Human Car

+1 The only reason why I look over this junk is to see how Diane responds.

BTW How does one put some one on the ignore list? All I see is an option to put them on a buddy list when I click on the name.

I-Like-To-Bike

Bottom line:
"We" (AKA Forester and his acolytes) have determined that Forester's theories (relying on his version of evidence - conjuring, sophomoric risk analysis and statistical manipulations/fabrications) is more likely correct than the cyclist-inferiority bikeway agenda straw man argument fabricated by Forester and assigned by Forester to all who are skeptical of his various theories.

And "We" will continue to be obnoxious obstructionists until all the ignorant, incompetent members of the public come around to see things as "We" do.

donnamb 

Go to your User Control Panel. Go to Buddy/Ignore Lists. Type in the member name. Click on "update".

SingingSabre 

How can he promote an agenda which you fabricated out of nothingness? "Fabricated" may be a bit of a strong word, as your pseudoagenda doesn't even have a proverbial polyp of a developing leg to stand on.

Cyclist inferiority is fake, hot air, hubris, false, bull$hit, etc. You made it up. It's nonexistant.

sbhikes

I just received an email that says:
You can find his keynote from the summit in pdf form at this URL. Seems there are some real data out there for anyone who cares about reality anymore. Perhaps you would be interested in reading some of it firsthand:
https://www.policy.rutgers.edu/faculty/pucher.html


P.S. I love where he says in his keynote, "Only when cycling attracts women is it really a success!" Got that right!