Absoutely. the rutgers study IS well documented and should corroborate your experieces. It jives with mine as well.

Cities that are better accomodated have both more bicyclists as well as more 'vehicular' law abiding bicyclists.

In The city of seattle, only 3.9 percent of streets have bike lanes but we have higher bicycling participation than many (US) cities our size. on over 96 percent of our streets, most bicyclists act as competant, 'vehicular' bicyclists...and we 'vehicular bicyclists' also get to use bike lanes vehicularily, and paths as vehicular cyclists too! Very very few bicyclists subscribe to the prejudices john forestor has about bike specific infrastructure.

I even hypothesise bike facilites can create MORE vehicular cycling activity by bicyclists, and this carries over to greater vehicularity by bicyclists along UN-accomodated roads.

Should many of forestors comments be brought into question? absolutely. many of his ideas about bicycling are incorrect.

I learned to cycle vehiculary when I was a child. Of course that is not what my parents called it though. Interestingly related to what JF said above my parents had recently immigrated from Europe before I was born.
Al

I thought that the study was interesting and told a story. But it is hard for me to pin down what the effect of "X" was in accounting for the difference in cycling in say NYC, London, and Copenhagen. In other words, what was the effect of removing auto parking versus putting in a bike lane? I don't think you can identify the effect from the paper. We can go on with many other claims in the paper. So I have trouble writing that it is evidence that bike lanes have such and such effect.

That written, here in the DC area, local municipalities have made an effort to provide facilities. Some of which -- anecdotally writing -- have made a significant impact on the number of cycle commuters. Here that would be the bridges with cycling accommodations that cross the Potomac.

The roads I rode on as a child simply do not exist anymore. I'm of the same vein as Chip... I've become adaptive.

Interesting.

I voted yes. I'm 51 years old. At some point in the early sixties my grandparents gave my brother and I pamphlets on bicycle safety. I certainly wouldn't claim that it taught vehicular cycling, but what the pamphlet taught was bike safety when riding on the roads. What I remember most was the insistence on acting like a car in the sense of stopping at stop signs and red lights, and signaling turns (and stops.).

By and large the only signaling change I've made since my childhood is to use an extended right arm for a right turn (as opposed to the car centric bent 90 degree left arm).

I can't claim that this was vehicular cycling, but it was in the neighborhood. I didn't grow up with the sense that it was my responsibility to cower at the curb line.

I should note that I was considered to be a dork by my peers for signaling my turns!

Speedo

Yeah. Where's the choice "Life Long Learning"?

Speedo

Your description tallies quite well with the instructions of the time. Stop at stop signs. But you do not mention instruction in how to determine when to start again. Signal your turns. But you do not mention instruction in how to determine if the way is clear, or from what point to start your turn. We have been all through these discussions time after time with people who received these instructions and then proceeded to act without judgement as to when and how. These instructions were written on the assumption that cyclists are unable to exercise traffic judgement and should stay out of traffic as much as possible, and, when it was necessary to "enter" traffic, as for a left turn, to do so without using the judgement that is necessary.

Note the import of the instructions. Stopping at stop signs protects the motorists who have right of way. Signalling your turns alerts motorists that the cyclist is going to do something stupid, like turn in front of them.

One of the objectives of my instructional program for child cyclists was to demonstrate that children have the visual and mental abilities necessary to exercise traffic judgement, in contrast to the societal judgement that cyclists, especially child cyclists, do not have those abilities. As I have often phrased it, any child who can play a reasonable game of soccer has the visual, mental, and physical abilities necessary for riding properly in traffic.

Or, as I stated in the original post, "acting like a car". Acting vehicularly perhaps?

I'm not saying that I was taught the bible according to Forester. I would agree that I received more instruction on sex from my parents than I did about riding a bicycle in traffic, and my sex education consisted of (I'm not kidding) "You know, if you ever have any questions about anything, you can ask me." But I am saying that there was some useful information available, and it was possible for a kid from the suburbs to stumble onto it.

Speedo

Can you please elaborate on that statement?

Are you suggesting cyclists not signal their intentions?

Are you suggesting that cyclists signal but don't look back or confirm that they have indeed been noticed before they turn?

Or are you suggesting that cyclists are just plain stupid- no matter what they do.

What happened to the OP? He was banned?

As a child, I was taught to ride in the street, and my parents encouraged me to do so. I rode several miles with friends between downtown Washington DC and Rockville, Md. at a young age (12,) and there were no bike facilities, then.

But those I talk to here in Georgia, whom I work with, seem to have been raised to believe the sidewalk is the place to ride, that they were taught to do that as children. So I have had an uphill battle explaining to them that a bicycle is an adult's vehicle that is ridden in the lane with motor vehicles, according to the same principles that apply to motor traffic.

So, yes, I still ride in a similar fashion to the way I rode as a child, but since I put many more miles on my bike in urban traffic now, I'm sure my riding style is quite matured. The vehicular cycling principles set forth by John Forester and others have served me well in over a decade of regular bicycle commuting over a 30 mile round-trip route with very little in the way of bicycle facilities.

I love riding my bike and it would be terrible for me to do without my daily commute. But I wonder if I would be riding the way I do now if I had not learned at least the basics as a child.

I've never heard you say that, but it's a very interesting point.

Note that how important a role "situational awareness" plays in being able to play a reasonable game of soccer. Not only do you have to know where the ball is, but where the other players are, both those on your team and those on the opposing team, including those behind you. You also have to be able to update your situational awareness in a constantly changing environment. You also have to be pretty good at predicting what others will do given the set of rules that apply, and what each individual's goal is. Indeed, it's very similar to what you have to do when riding in traffic. Also, just being able to kick a ball is not enough to be able to play a reasonable game of soccer, you need to have the physical skills to control the ball while dribbling, and then launching it precisely enough to get it in the vicinity of where you want it. What a great analogy.

This is what is so confounding. Someone (Forester in this case) writes something that seems totally clear to me, and then someone else replies to it in a manner that indicates they interpreted it completely differently. One sentence producing practically diametrically opposed interpretations. Now fill a book with 600 pages of sentences like that, and it's no wonder some people get a completely different idea of what Forester is saying than what he's actually saying.

Of course he is not suggesting that cyclists not signal their intentions. Why would you or anyone else even think that?

Of course he is not suggesting that cyclists signal but don't look back or confirm that they have indeed been noticed before they turn?

But haven't you ever seen adult cyclists, much less kids, signal (without looking) and go? They seem to think that just signaling gives them the right of way to go. It sounds ridiculous, I know, but it's the only logical conclusion based on their behavior. Also, as you know, and as Robert Hurst notes in his book as well (in a chapter entitled Looking Back), the practice of looking back is not as simple as it sounds. That's why that all needs to be addressed in the instruction. Just telling kids to signal, and nothing else, is not nearly enough if your goal is cyclist safety (but it is if your goal is motorist convenience). That's what Forester means, of course. No reasonably experienced cyclist could have possibly meant anything else with those words, and I find it astounding that someone with the experience that you obviously have could interpret it any other way.

I don't mean to harp on this, but I feel this type of miscommunication lies at the heart of much of the disagreement here. Like Robert's insistence that Forester's depiction of vehicular excludes defensive practices entirely. How anyone could read anything Forester has written and conclude that I find to be totally baffling.

Evidently there are at least two of us who don't know how to interpret what we read as I came to the same conclusion as buzzman.

Must not be smart enough? Okay.

same conclusion here as well, script.

john disengenously and sophistically frames a lot of arguments with his 'childish cycling' beratement.

I'm not surprised, and, again, I honestly think this kind of misunderstanding is at the root of much of the debate here.

I obviously don't know what it is, though I suspect it has to do with learning to understand meaning when written a certain way. There are writers with styles that I have trouble following. But at least I know when I don't understand someone, that there is no point in criticizing what I don't understand.

Anyway, now that you've read my explanation, does it make sense to you? When you go back and read the entire original post in context, does my interpretation make sense? Does yours still make sense? Here's what Forester originally wrote:

Maybe my familiarity with what else he has written makes it easier for me to understand what he means here?

Having said that, I still find it baffling that Buzz, you or anyone else with even a modicum of exposure to Forester could think for a microsecond that he might seriously suggest that cyclists not signal their intentions. I mean, isn't it obvious that he is criticizing the way instructions have been given out in the past?

Out of all that, Buzz pulled out the statement in bold: " Signalling your turns alerts motorists that the cyclist is going to do something stupid, like turn in front of them." Is it really not clear that he is talking from the POV of the providers of the "instructions of the time" that he is obviously criticizing?

Do you ever find yourself thinking, "that makes no sense, he must mean something else"? Does that trigger you to reread and try to understand what else he might mean?

I'm trying to understand how you or anyone else could read that and end up interpreting it the way that you did. What is it about the way that he wrote that cause you to interpret it that way?

Given that you had the "same (wrong) conclusion" about what he meant, that means you don't understand what he wrote. Thus, you have no basis to judge what he writes as being disingenuous, sophistic framing, or anything else, because you obviously are not making the effort to comprehend what he's writing, much less judge it.

The other thing you guys (Buzzman, Script, Bek) seem to have in common is relatively little interest in what someone actually means by the words that they write, and much more interest in your interpretation of their words, regardless of the writer's intent. Such obstinacy makes communication practically impossible.

misunderstanding by WHO?
Some think its you and john, head.

The Rutgers University study is exponentially more supported than any of john's crackpot theories about bicycling.

Judging simply on a prepondernce of data sourced from a great variety of vetted sources supporting the conclusions reached by noted university researchers, your and john's approach towards bicycling transportation engineering is, what can we say, 'wrong.'

now THAT'S a stretch! By that logic, lets change the liscensing requirements & the kids could drive THEMSELVES to school! I'm sure the soccer moms would prefer that to the kids biking in traffic- she knows how violent and disctracted soccer moms in SUVs can be-

what age of kid? 5? 7? 10? 14? and do you mean slow back streets or high speed narrow laned arterials? AT what speed of passing traffic should the kids go from taking a narrow lane of traffic to riding near the edge of narrow lanes, john?

Not hardly... Forester has made some wacky suggestions in the past, such as his earlier admonition against mirrors.

Some feel that his current stand against bike lanes or his "childish cycling" commentary are also equally wacky. Others find his notion of "cyclist inferiority" to be a clear indicator of wayward thinking.

I mean isn't it obvious that perhaps some of his notions might be a bit unusual?

Well, if I'm the one who misunderstood what John meant, he will tell us, that much you can count on.
And if you don't recognize the writer as being the authority on what his own words mean, that too makes communication impossible.

They might seem wacky only if you didn't understand them in the first place.
His early admonitions against mirror use are well reasoned, as are John Franklin's.
Without looking, can you explain them? I can. That's the difference. That's why to you their notions might seem unusual, but to me they don't. Because I have made the effort to understand them.

You can state your opinion that his current stand against bike lanes is wacky, but you probably can't accurately explain the reasons he holds that opinion. Yet you feel justified in referring to it as wacky. What is wacky is judging something to be wacky that you don't understand well enough to explain.

naw, forestor's theories are soundly crackpot, head.

so spoke the master of obfuscation.

:rolleyes: