|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Jym Dyer wrote:
=v= Oh, and as far as Effective[TM] Cycling(R) is concerned, just be aware that it has a zealous ideological aspect to it. I found it useful ninety-something percent of the time when I lived elsewhere (amongst Effective(C) acolytes who insist, NO! IT'S 100% OR NOTHING!)... So far, I've met only one guy who has that extreme attitude. That's the guy who literally wrote the book. Forester _is_ amazingly uncompromising. But if you use his ideas 90+% of the time, you'll do better than you would with any alternative plan. -- --------------------+ Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com, replace with cc.ysu dot edu] |
Ads |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Forester _is_ amazingly uncompromising. But if you use his
ideas 90+% of the time, you'll do better than you would with any alternative plan. =v= I agree with that. Though in NYC it might go down to 80+%. Basically the idea to "behave as traffic" still applies, but the extent to which such behavior resembles NYC traffic law isn't something that Forester addresses very much. =v= On this point it should be noted that the city itself isn't all that aware of its own traffic laws. Last month in federal court, the city's legal team admitted that a law the NYPD was puporting to enforce doesn't apply in the city! _Jym_ |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Frank Krygowski wrote in part:
Forester _is_ amazingly uncompromising. But if you use his ideas 90+% of the time, you'll do better than you would with any alternative plan. Unfortunately, it's how you deal with that remaining 10% --actually I would say about 1% of interactions--which is most important, by far. Robert |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|