Square & Compas

genec

+1000

Bekologist

oh, I actually enjoy john's and my discussions. Isn't it just great it when john exposes his curious notions about bicycling?

Like his ideas about the Bicyclist Level of Service algorithms, the Federal Highway Administration and the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials or that report from the National Academy of the Sciences' Cooperative Highway Research Project on reducing collisions involving bicyclists -

it's as if there is absolutely no connection from those opinions he voices to the reality of roadway planning and actual bicycle transportation engineering in this country. its shocking to see the inflammation in those opinions that form johns diatribe against professional guidance and academic research about bicyclist safety.

For example, the BLOS algorithms. BLOS are rather sophisticated calculations of factors to gauge a roadway for bicycle traffic including volume and speeds of traffic, percent of truck traffic, lane width, quality of pavement, frequency of intersections, etc......john's opinion these are nothing more than the sums of 'superstitions' in his words. 'BLOS equations are nothing more than the weighted sum of superstitions'

I guess we should take at face value his opinions that speed and volume of traffic are superstitions to bicyclists. Much more tellingly, that these palpable, real factors, or the percent volume of truck traffic, or annualized daily traffic - as factors in a structured analytical assessment of a roadway - should be considered 'superstitions'.




Federal guidelines regarding roadway safety for bicyclists are rather rigorously developed depsite the postulations of some, and could even be said to built upon those early days of bikeway design, when john forester insisted Caltrans build a better bikeway.


Federal guidelines that explicitly endorse including bicycle traffic as a matter of routine in the development and operation of american roads, and built upon the foundations of planning for bikes, like those better bikeways john insisted upon almost 40 years ago.

i find it quite fascinating. the last page of this thread is incredibly illustrative.

John Forester

It ought to be amazing to see Bek proclaiming so vehemently his faith that the government is telling him the unbiased truth about its management of bicycle traffic. He actually believes that stuff, despite never, to us at any rate, having been able to demonstrate that the government is indeed treating cyclists as drivers and operating a car-bike collision program. Dear Bek is no more than a "true believer" in the words of Eric Hoffer.

Square & Compas

forester is off my ignore list for right now because I have some mroe questions for him and would love to see his answer. I just hope he can keep it under 5 sentances and one paragraph or less. If anyone else wishes to offer their opinion to the questions for john, by all means please share it.

Here goes:
john, what makes you so right and everyone else wrong? How do know your way, or the way of cycling that you attempt to teach etc. is the only way to ride a bike? What makes you so sure? Why do you claim my way of cycling is wrong, by that I mean Adaptive Cycling vs. vehicular cycling? Do you acknowledge there are other methods and styles of cycling? If you do what makes you so sure those other methods are wrong and yours is the right way?

High Roller

Our culture's growing propensity to reduce everything down to the lowest common denominator guarantees mediocrity and explains why the rest of the world is rapidly overtaking us on so many standard-of-living indicators, from education to infant mortality rates.

John Forester

I say that cyclists operating on the roadway ought to obey the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles. If others say that cyclists operating on the roadway ought to do something else, I think that they should specify the difference and present a good argument why their recommendation is better and how to make it lawful.

squirtdad

A lot of this thread, like so many others in VC get hijacked into what I perceive as attacks on John Forester rather than a real discussion of differences of opinion, so if people are going to do that, then it seems fair that they should list their qualifications as compared to JF before they attack

So Bek, Square and Compass: what are your qualifications? What is your degree in? What is your experience in traffic engineering? How many studies on bicycling have you done an published, books and article written and published? Are you certified as a expert witness? How many trials have you testified in? How much legislation have you helped write?

For the record: I am not a 'strict' VC type..... based on my experience I think bikelanes are valuable, and theoretically sharrows (but have no experience). I am not so sure about extensive infratructure beyond that for 2 reasons 1) Risk of restricting cyclist to hard infrastructure like MUPs 2) Many of the designs I see, may make it seem comfortable for new cyclist, but look to have many longterm issues (designs such as bike lanes to the right of parked cars.)


And under fair is fair: My qualifications are based on growing up riding bikes on gravel roads, local streets and Highway 2 in northern montana, cycling in mutiple places world wide between being in the Coast Guard and traveling (NYC extensively, Bermuda, Newfoundland, Sweden, Conneticut, Florida among others) and having a 12 year old boy who has been on bike since he was 2 and teaching him how to ride on streets in San Jose ca, plus a lot of riding and commuting in Ca.

My degree is in Info Systems, I have never published an article, book or study. I have some limited involvement with my local Cycle advisory committee

So bottom line is an opinion based on personal experience.

Square & Compas

My short answer is experience. Real life experience to be exact. Let's see I have ridden bike in Iowa, Nebraska, South Dakota, Wyoming and Hawaii. I have ridden in ubran, suburban, county and open country environments. The other types of traffic have ranged from pedestrians to large full sized 18 wheel semi trucks and everything in between.

I have been involved in cycling advocacy for at least 5 years now. I have contacted and discussed cycling laws and issues with law makers in Iowa. I have offered opinions to the state advocacy organization which helped them decide what they will do to try and get legislation passed to benefit cyclists.

I am the founding member, (father) of a non profit local advocacy organization and was the ride director of the annual bike ride to raise money for the advocacy group in May that has been going on for the past 5 years.

In the 5 states I have ridden in I have had to deal with the infrastructure, law enforcement, driving habits, traffic patterns, drivers attitudes, etc. when I ride. In these states there are too many counties and cities/towns to list. Each one has its own traffic laws and ordinances.

There are 2 kinds of smarts/common sense/intelligence. Street smarts and book smarts. Cyclists like myself, bek and genec are what are called street smart or have street sense. People like john forester are merely book smart. They think because they have a degree in something, etc. they know better than anyone else when in the practical sense it does not work and is a bad idea. I think john has forgotten what cycling is really all about. He can decide for himself how he should go about remembering what is is truly about. But here is a hint it has nothign to do with vc. Hell it don't even have anything to do with AC. The differance between me, bek, genec and john is the 3 of us have not forgotten what cycling is truly about and why we do it.

genec

Just for the sake of full disclosure... I have a BS degree in Industrial Technology. I have book smarts.

I also have vast experience cycling. I also have ridden a bike since age 9, as a commuter, for fun, and as a tourist. I am now 53. I have commuted daily in two states at different times, Texas and California, and have lived car free for 7 years and car light both before and after college. I now own a car. I own several bicycles.

I was a pedi-cab driver and mechanic for a year.

I have ridden bicycles and toured throughout much of the western states and Baja Mexico. I have ridden bikes in France, Finland, and Okinawa. (I am sure I am forgetting somewhere) I have visited and observed cyclists in several other countries, including China. I make it a point to examine and observe cycling practices anywhere I visit for business or otherwise... and in this regard, I recently visited Davis, CA and again Portland, OR. (and of course biked there... Davis was amazing)

I have taken defensive automotive driving courses and motorcycle defensive driving courses, and LAB Road 1 and Road 2. I have read "Effective Cycling," and "The Art of Urban Cycling" and "Traffic." I am a member of the local cycling advocacy group.

I ride VC style, but also see the advantages of certain forms of cycling infrastructure.

The only papers I have written are industrial in nature and do not deal with cycling or traffic.

Bekologist

interesting you would bring up a 'personal attacks' angle, squirtdad. what do you think of john's postings in these last two pages? was there a respectful debate ?

Lets take a look at some real discussion of the issues.

For example, do you think john forester explained BLOS, bicyclist level of service algorithm modeling, clearly?

Who do you think, squirtdad, was able to explain Bicyclist Level of Service more succinctly? Was john foresters' or my explanation more accurate? If you are not familiar with BLOS, you might want to look into it and post back to this thread as to whose definition of BLOS is more accurate.



squirtdad, my autodidactic leanings are irrelevant. This discussion is not a case where the pontificate with a certificate wins the debate, lets' just discuss the facts.

BLOS would be a good place to continue the discussion.

Bekologist

well, let's see. Keep in mind that the federal highway administration already legitimately accepts bicycle traffic and expects 'lawful operation' by bicyclists.

I too, say that cyclists on the road ought to obey the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles, absolutely.

In an even slightly more rigorous look at the issues of bicycle traffic, one can readliy see that there are many other issues regarding bicyclist safety and participation in roadway bicycling than simply bicyclists following the vehicular rules of operation.


Here's a MOST BASIC illustration of just one of the issues surrounding bicycle traffic for you, john forester. not my framing of the issue but fairly succinct, if rudimentary, illustration.

Transportation engineering 101.

John Forester

I offer my long-standing reviews of various BLOS formulae to be found at the following URL:

https://johnforester.com/Articles/Facilities/prefer.htm

Bek asked which evaluation of BLOS was more accurate, mine or his. I stated that BLOS score is the result of a weighted sum of superstitions, while Bek provided no evaluation at all, just a vague description of the calculation process. I stand by my evaluation, and I had long ago provided the analysis to support my opinion.

Bekologist

Disparaging any and all statistical modeling of bicycle traffic as the sums of superstitions makes it abundantly clear who is actually holding onto unfounded superstitions.


Any claims that words like 'sums of superstitions' can be considered a clear description of statistical modeling or as an evaluation of BLOS statistical modeling is a real kneeslapper.

john actually disparages the Transportation Research Board of the National Academy of the Sciences in his missive rallying against vetted statistical analysis of roadway characteristics relating to bicycle traffic.

amazing, simply amazing.

genec

Bek, apparently you need to create your own web page, and cite your own "experts..." then you too can point to yourself as a reference.

sudo bike

This thread reminds me of a Politics subforum in another forum I frequent. Awesome.

squirtdad

Bek,
In reply to your question, it is my opinion that your overall postings are far more over the stop, with tendencies to personal attacks than are JF's.

JF loses it with language like "weighted sum of superstiions" rather than say he doesn't believe BLOS are meaningful, but that is different from your various "Vehikular cylist" permutations or "pontificate with a certificate" which are certainly more personal and which cause people (ok me at least) to not really give credence to your point of view.

And you completely sidestepped the original question, which was what qualifies your opinions other than passion and being a cyclist?

No matter what one thinks of VC or JF personally, JF has spent a lot of time on this subject, is recognized as an expert and his views while rigid are consistent and not just pulled out of hat

genec

But as consistent as his views are, are they the right views looking forward for cycling in America? Perhaps that is a bigger question.

John Forester

All of the formulas for BLOS with which I am familiar are weighted sums of conditions which are felt to have a significant effect on the suitability of a road for cycling. They all ignore the most important measurable features, and the items that they include are, to say the least, of only minor importance. They are all methods of predicting the feelings of some cyclists, and feelings are not really correlated with facts, not in bicycle transportation they aren't. So I shortcut my description by calling them weighed sums of superstitions, which ought to be sufficiently accurate to describe their accuracy.

John Forester

That depends entirely on what meaning is applied to "cycling in America". You yourself, genec, admit to cycling in the manner that I recommend, because that is obviously best for yourself, and, by extension, for any individual cyclist.

However, if one considers the future of cycling in America, that covers a multitude of sins. I am thoroughly opposed to the official governmental program of stupid, unskilled, and therefore dangerous, bicycle use. That certainly is popular, but I consider it to be unethical, even immoral. Therefore, I say that a better policy would be one of properly accommodating lawful, competent cyclists; not that I ever expect that to be adopted. The question, today, is how lawful, competent cyclists can continue to operate in the governmental and social environment that exists and will probably continue.

Bekologist

It's difficult to match those last two posts up with anything realistic in FHWA transportation policy or the field of transportation research.

Rollfast

Oh My God Becky...look at the bicyclist.

He's just so OUT THERE....

(Baby got bike)

Rollfast

Mediocrity is GOOD. You will never starve for wanting it and it is always where you need it. I don't want to hear about you or anybody else ASPIRING, got that?

Bekologist

the original question was a'just the facts' query about bicycling facts and figures....

what qualifies my opinion? why, the official transportation policy of the federal highway administration, the american association of state highway and transportation officials, and the fairly broad approach of a variety of measures to facilitate bicycling in other countries.

I'm pretty much reiterating current federal policies regarding planning for bicycle traffic.

Official, stated Federal policy towards bicycle transportation emphasizes lawful road and highway operation by bicyclists, to retain and build roadway bicycling share while enhancing roadway safety, for example. This official policy mandate is a far cry from other poster's wild superstitions.

If, somehow, all I've said is not convincing enough, please do a little research on YOUR own.

John Forester

In short, Bek reads into the governments' proclamations what he wishes to believe, and what, obviously the government wants the public to believe. That's all too easy, because the public has held that belief for decades, that cyclists are second-class road users. The governments' proclamations are very carefully worded to avoid ever stating that cyclists are drivers of vehicles, which is what they should be. Bek is caught between his knowledge that cyclists, like himself, should ride as drivers of vehicles and the governments' program of appealing to people who don't believe that at all. To put it in other words, Bek is caught between knowledge of how cyclists ride best and what appeals to the public who haven't learned.