Dan reads (gasp!) a book

On Friday, February 28, 2014 6:29:33 AM UTC-5, Duane wrote:

Wouldn't put Hawking in the same paragraph as Forester. The former wants
to educate while the latter wants to show his superlative understanding.

Forester doesn't want to educate? Was it entirely accidental that
Forester founded the education program then instituted by the League of
American Bicyclists? Was his "Effective Cycling Instructor Manual" (sitting
on the shelf behind me) a similar accident? If he didn't want to educate,
he accidentally wasted a LOT of his time.

Sheesh.

One long anti facility rant without many facts to back up his claims. He
should at least get an editor to fix the sexist macho stuff.

Is "the sexist macho stuff" the "Cycling with love" chapter, that gives advice
on how to gently encourage a wife or child into cycling?

Or are you one of those people who think we should never acknowledge
any difference at all between the sexes?

Tedious read. Never got through more than a few chapters.

I do agree, _Effective Cycling_ is a tedious read. Forester himself says
it's not intended for a read-through. Instead he recommends reading the
parts the person needs.

One problem, though, is that it's often hard for a person to gauge what
knowledge he needs. While I think few would pick up _EC_ without intending
to read the parts on riding in traffic, there might be many (Duane?) who
would skip the parts describing data on cycling crashes, or theory of
traffic laws. Those folks might then say Forester had "not many facts to
back up his claims," or words to that effect.

There are
better cycling handbooks out there. Even Franklin if you need a book.

I do think Franklin's _Cyclecraft_ is a better choice for most. But even
his book gets a bit exhaustive on detail. I think John Allen's _Street Smarts_ is better for novices http://www.bikexprt.com/streetsmarts/usa/index.htm
although it needs some improvement. One simple and blatant example is the bit about 3 feet from a parked car; that's far too close. (I'm told that J.A. is
working on a revision.)

After _Street Smarts_, read _Cyclecraft_ but be prepared to skim many parts.
Read _Effective Cycling_ if you want a lot more depth, and can handle
Forester's admittedly contentious style.

Of course I'm not sure one needs a book to learn how to ride a bike.

There are other ways to learn, of course. But the predominant method in our
society - if you can call it a method - is trial and error, using only
personal judgement to recognize errors. I'd guess that over 80% of cyclists
think they must never be more than three feet from the road's edge if there's
a motorist wishing to pass. They don't consider that they may be in error.
And as we've seen, some will argue vociferously if told they may be in error.

That "don't tell me I'm wrong" attitude can appear in other aspects of
learn-on-your-own cycling. Many years ago, my wife entered her only road
race ever. Not many women entered, but the favorite was a member of a
local college's cross-country team. She was quite a bit younger than my
wife and had outstanding endurance. But she came in second, behind my wife.

Why? Because nobody could convince that XC chick that it ever made sense to
shift down out of her highest gear. (My friends who ran the best local bike shop had tried & tried to convince her.) I suppose I should mention that
Forester does explain the benefits of spinning, in detail.

Having said that, I do think _Effective Cycling_ would have benefited from
a strong-willed editor. However, its value is that in it, Forester broke
new ground for North America at the time. At a time when lots of bike-boom
newbies were skulking along in the gutter, he was able to explain - based
on the mechanics of traffic interactions - a much better way to ride. As
he clearly explains, he didn't invent the methods. But he did teach them
to people who might never have encountered them otherwise. The book
certainly qualifies as seminal.

He and his writing are not without fault. But I doubt anyone here has
accomplished as much for cycling.

- Frank Krygowski

On Friday, February 28, 2014 10:19:13 AM UTC-5, jbeattie wrote:

No, but locally we're having an up-tic in injuries and deaths due to facility-related conflicts, primarily "hooks" -- right and left, and often because bicyclists overtake moving traffic and assume that they will be seen or that legal right of way gives them magical protection.

Hmm. Seems like some people were predicting problems like that. "Some people"
like AASHTO, like Forester, like Franklin, like vehicular cyclists...


We're in the middle of learning curve with bicycle facilities, and motorists are just starting to look over their right shoulders for cyclists, and even then, the tiny windows and huge pillars in modern cars can make it hard to see a bike even when the driver is diligent.

It seems like Portland's BTA is never going to realize the difficulty with
expecting motorists to yield to cyclists they can't see. BTA retains hope
that motorists will eventually learn - perhaps after a few near-misses each?

But even after every motorist in PDX (hah!) learns that invisible bikes have
the right-of-way, there's the problem of out-of-towners facing weird new
traffic rules. Will the Oregon Bicyclist Manual begin advising to read
the license plate of every car, with special rules for riding around
non-PDX vehicles? Will BTA demand a moat around the PDX region, with
motorists permitted to enter and drive only after passing a special "weird
driving rules" test?

It's just so much simpler to have bicyclists ride by the normal rules of
the road. Yes, it requires a little learning. But less, I think, than
some of the weirdness in that Oregon Bicyclist Manual. (Separate rules
for three different types of bike boxes??)

- Frank Krygowski

On 2/28/2014 10:19 AM, jbeattie wrote:
On Friday, February 28, 2014 3:29:33 AM UTC-8, Duane wrote:
John B. wrote:

On Thu, 27 Feb 2014 08:01:50 -0800 (PST), Dan O

wrote:







Just scored my copy of "Effective Cycling" (6th Edition). Have only

read the "new" edition Preface and the Introduction so far, but...



Impressions:



Forester's ego and opinionated character show already. (He seems to

consider himself exceptionally smart. Since Frank also considers him

"brilliant", it could be interesting reading.) I can see the

confrontational approach to relations that should make the book

exciting reading.



People who exhibit an "exceptionally smart" attitude when writing are

usually engaged on an ego boosting exercise. People who are writing

with the intent of transferring knowledge are usually more interested

in simply getting the information across. Read Stephen Hawking, for

example.





Wouldn't put Hawking in the same paragraph as Forester. The former wants

to educate while the latter wants to show his superlative understanding.

One long anti facility rant without many facts to back up his claims. He

should at least get an editor to fix the sexist macho stuff.



Tedious read. Never got through more than a few chapters. There are

better cycling handbooks out there. Even Franklin if you need a book. Of

course I'm not sure one needs a book to learn how to ride a bike.

No, but locally we're having an up-tic in injuries and deaths due to facility-related conflicts, primarily "hooks" -- right and left, and often because bicyclists overtake moving traffic and assume that they will be seen or that legal right of way gives them magical protection. I don't know if these cyclists need to read a long rant, but they should at least read the DMV manual (particularly page 6). http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/HWY/BIKEP...ike_manual.pdf

We're in the middle of learning curve with bicycle facilities, and motorists are just starting to look over their right shoulders for cyclists, and even then, the tiny windows and huge pillars in modern cars can make it hard to see a bike even when the driver is diligent.


So motorists somehow miss seeing cyclists when they're in a bike lane
when they wouldn't miss seeing them when they're on the right without
one? I don't get that.

Or is it that the riders are being hidden by cars from the drivers
turning and don't realize that they aren't seen? That I get but in that
case Forester's solution is to man up and be in the center of the lane.
Since that's not usually legal here it's not helpful advice. It would
be more helpful to tell someone how to deal with being visible when
riding in the legal way and to make sure that they know they can be
hidden by the other car.

Anyway, you can certainly find authors without all of the baggage of
Forester if you want to learn about riding in traffic.

DID Stalin want to govern ?

Do I want to excrete the word function DID ?

DID Chessman want to practice law ?

DID Napoleon want to visit Russia ?

DID Sales want to offend ?

video idea No. 1827B shot with Gopro

ride down wide crete sidewalk along Blvd toward black figure

pull up itsa girl onah black cycle dressed in a black jumpsuit with black balaclava.

she smiles.

Isay, wearing black is dangerous no one can see you.

she smiles

Imah waitress at THE BLACK LAGOON, I live down the street.

she smiles

camera follows here crossing the BLVD

WHERE FROM SCREEN LEFT TO SCREEN RIGHT TRANSITS A DUMP TRUCK

squash...spewing blood....fattened body parts...a severed arm spouting blood spins out toward the camera and over it off the scrren...


THE END

We're in the middle of learning curve with bicycle facilities, and motorists are just starting to look over their right shoulders for cyclists, and even then, the tiny windows and huge pillars in modern cars can make it hard to see a bike even when the driver is diligent.

.................................................. .................________}

JB go thru some SUV News ?

hopless

On Friday, February 28, 2014 9:13:28 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Friday, February 28, 2014 10:19:13 AM UTC-5, jbeattie wrote:



No, but locally we're having an up-tic in injuries and deaths due to facility-related conflicts, primarily "hooks" -- right and left, and often because bicyclists overtake moving traffic and assume that they will be seen or that legal right of way gives them magical protection.



Hmm. Seems like some people were predicting problems like that. "Some people"

like AASHTO, like Forester, like Franklin, like vehicular cyclists...





We're in the middle of learning curve with bicycle facilities, and motorists are just starting to look over their right shoulders for cyclists, and even then, the tiny windows and huge pillars in modern cars can make it hard to see a bike even when the driver is diligent.



It seems like Portland's BTA is never going to realize the difficulty with

expecting motorists to yield to cyclists they can't see. BTA retains hope

that motorists will eventually learn - perhaps after a few near-misses each?



But even after every motorist in PDX (hah!) learns that invisible bikes have

the right-of-way, there's the problem of out-of-towners facing weird new

traffic rules. Will the Oregon Bicyclist Manual begin advising to read

the license plate of every car, with special rules for riding around

non-PDX vehicles? Will BTA demand a moat around the PDX region, with

motorists permitted to enter and drive only after passing a special "weird

driving rules" test?



It's just so much simpler to have bicyclists ride by the normal rules of

the road. Yes, it requires a little learning. But less, I think, than

some of the weirdness in that Oregon Bicyclist Manual. (Separate rules

for three different types of bike boxes??)



Well, the "normal rules of the road" are that bicycles in bike lanes have the right of way, or put another way, motorists must yield to bicyclists when crossing a bicycle lane. That is the rule most everywhere, although in California (for example) cars can occupy a bike lane while preparing to make a right turn. In Oregon (and some other states), cars can only occupy the bike lane while making a turn. That should be changed. Right turning cars should be able to occupy the bicycle lane when preparing to turn. That would force cyclists in to the lane and around on the left, which is what I do anyway.

I was appointed to a group that creates the court rules for Oregon, and I often hear my colleagues and others complaining how one rule or another is a "trap." Well, every rule is a trap if you don't know it. I get really tired of people complaining about some avoidable mishap resulting from their failure to read a rule.

The Oregon UVC works very well if you know the rules -- bicyclists get their bike lanes and can move past stopped or slower traffic. That moves more traffic. Bicyclists should be safe in intersections if drivers heed the existing law, but that law is non-intuitive (motorists aren't used to looking over their right shoulders) and the law is therefore a "trap." It's not a trap. The law is clear. Drivers just need to learn the law, but in the interim, bicyclists bear the burden of driver stupidity and have to modify their behavior rather than vice versa. I would, however, change the law somewhat and adopt the California approach because it avoids conflicts and moves traffic.

Now, this rant is about bicycle lanes on roadways and not chutes, paths, counter-flow lanes and other species of fish-ladders that are popular with some planners. I do not like chutes and ladders. Candy Land is my game!

-- Jay Beattie.

On 2/28/2014 2:32 PM, jbeattie wrote:


Well, the "normal rules of the road" are that bicycles in bike lanes have the right of way, or put another way, motorists must yield to bicyclists when crossing a bicycle lane. That is the rule most everywhere, although in California (for example) cars can occupy a bike lane while preparing to make a right turn. In Oregon (and some other states), cars can only occupy the bike lane while making a turn. That should be changed. Right turning cars should be able to occupy the bicycle lane when preparing to turn. That would force cyclists in to the lane and around on the left, which is what I do anyway.

I was appointed to a group that creates the court rules for Oregon, and I often hear my colleagues and others complaining how one rule or another is a "trap." Well, every rule is a trap if you don't know it. I get really tired of people complaining about some avoidable mishap resulting from their failure to read a rule.

The Oregon UVC works very well if you know the rules -- bicyclists get their bike lanes and can move past stopped or slower traffic. That moves more traffic. Bicyclists should be safe in intersections if drivers heed the existing law, but that law is non-intuitive (motorists aren't used to looking over their right shoulders) and the law is therefore a "trap." It's not a trap. The law is clear. Drivers just need to learn the law, but in the interim, bicyclists bear the burden of driver stupidity and have to modify their behavior rather than vice versa. I would, however, change the law somewhat and adopt the California approach because it avoids conflicts and moves traffic.



That's a very good idea about allowing cars in a bike lane when they
want to turn right. He would hopefully know that he was moving into a
bike lane and like any other lane look to see if it was clear. And on
the rider's part, he'd see the guy and go around. Here in Quebec the
cars are ticketed for entering a bike lane.


Now, this rant is about bicycle lanes on roadways and not chutes, paths, counter-flow lanes and other species of fish-ladders that are popular with some planners. I do not like chutes and ladders. Candy Land is my game!

What about rail jumps at snow parks in the summer time?

On 2/28/2014 3:29 AM, Duane wrote:
John B. wrote:
On Thu, 27 Feb 2014 08:01:50 -0800 (PST), Dan O
wrote:



Just scored my copy of "Effective Cycling" (6th Edition). Have only
read the "new" edition Preface and the Introduction so far, but...

Impressions:

Forester's ego and opinionated character show already. (He seems to
consider himself exceptionally smart. Since Frank also considers him
"brilliant", it could be interesting reading.) I can see the
confrontational approach to relations that should make the book
exciting reading.

People who exhibit an "exceptionally smart" attitude when writing are
usually engaged on an ego boosting exercise. People who are writing
with the intent of transferring knowledge are usually more interested
in simply getting the information across. Read Stephen Hawking, for
example.


Wouldn't put Hawking in the same paragraph as Forester. The former wants
to educate while the latter wants to show his superlative understanding.
One long anti facility rant without many facts to back up his claims. He
should at least get an editor to fix the sexist macho stuff.

I haven't seen a copy of EF since I got one of the early, self-published
versions from a late friend of John's. From what I hear, the newer
versions have not fixed all the errors.

On Fri, 28 Feb 2014 08:54:45 -0800 (PST), Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On Friday, February 28, 2014 6:29:33 AM UTC-5, Duane wrote:

Wouldn't put Hawking in the same paragraph as Forester. The former wants
to educate while the latter wants to show his superlative understanding.

Forester doesn't want to educate? Was it entirely accidental that
Forester founded the education program then instituted by the League of
American Bicyclists? Was his "Effective Cycling Instructor Manual" (sitting
on the shelf behind me) a similar accident? If he didn't want to educate,
he accidentally wasted a LOT of his time.

Sheesh.

One long anti facility rant without many facts to back up his claims. He
should at least get an editor to fix the sexist macho stuff.

Is "the sexist macho stuff" the "Cycling with love" chapter, that gives advice
on how to gently encourage a wife or child into cycling?

Are you serious? One needs a total stranger to tell one how to
encourage one's family members to do something?

Or are you one of those people who think we should never acknowledge
any difference at all between the sexes?

Tedious read. Never got through more than a few chapters.

I do agree, _Effective Cycling_ is a tedious read. Forester himself says
it's not intended for a read-through. Instead he recommends reading the
parts the person needs.

There seems to be a bit of fallacy here. "One should read only the
parts of an instructional manual that one needs".... If it is actually
a book to tell you how to ride a bicycle than how does one know what
parts one needs to read; until after one has read it?

One problem, though, is that it's often hard for a person to gauge what
knowledge he needs. While I think few would pick up _EC_ without intending
to read the parts on riding in traffic, there might be many (Duane?) who
would skip the parts describing data on cycling crashes, or theory of
traffic laws. Those folks might then say Forester had "not many facts to
back up his claims," or words to that effect.

One needs a lesson on "theory of traffic laws"? I wonder, does one
need a lesson on "the theory of murder laws"? Or the "theory of theft
laws"?

There are
better cycling handbooks out there. Even Franklin if you need a book.

I do think Franklin's _Cyclecraft_ is a better choice for most. But even
his book gets a bit exhaustive on detail. I think John Allen's _Street Smarts_ is better for novices http://www.bikexprt.com/streetsmarts/usa/index.htm
although it needs some improvement. One simple and blatant example is the bit about 3 feet from a parked car; that's far too close. (I'm told that J.A. is
working on a revision.)

After _Street Smarts_, read _Cyclecraft_ but be prepared to skim many parts.
Read _Effective Cycling_ if you want a lot more depth, and can handle
Forester's admittedly contentious style.

Of course I'm not sure one needs a book to learn how to ride a bike.

There are other ways to learn, of course. But the predominant method in our
society - if you can call it a method - is trial and error, using only
personal judgement to recognize errors. I'd guess that over 80% of cyclists
think they must never be more than three feet from the road's edge if there's
a motorist wishing to pass. They don't consider that they may be in error.
And as we've seen, some will argue vociferously if told they may be in error.

Ah yes... seize the lane. Strange when I described an accident (two
dead, two in the hospital) where someone did just that, in front of a
truck, you start to back-pedal and said that they shouldn't have done
that.

That "don't tell me I'm wrong" attitude can appear in other aspects of
learn-on-your-own cycling. Many years ago, my wife entered her only road
race ever. Not many women entered, but the favorite was a member of a
local college's cross-country team. She was quite a bit younger than my
wife and had outstanding endurance. But she came in second, behind my wife.

Why? Because nobody could convince that XC chick that it ever made sense to
shift down out of her highest gear. (My friends who ran the best local bike shop had tried & tried to convince her.) I suppose I should mention that
Forester does explain the benefits of spinning, in detail.

Having said that, I do think _Effective Cycling_ would have benefited from
a strong-willed editor. However, its value is that in it, Forester broke
new ground for North America at the time. At a time when lots of bike-boom
newbies were skulking along in the gutter, he was able to explain - based
on the mechanics of traffic interactions - a much better way to ride. As
he clearly explains, he didn't invent the methods. But he did teach them
to people who might never have encountered them otherwise. The book
certainly qualifies as seminal.

Amazing! I wonder how literally millions, likely billions, of people
world wide have been able to ride a bicycle without reading this
instructional book.

He and his writing are not without fault. But I doubt anyone here has
accomplished as much for cycling.

- Frank Krygowski
--
Cheers,

John B.