|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Ads |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Dan reads (gasp!) a book
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 |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Dan reads (gasp!) a book
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. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Dan reads (gasp!) a book
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 ? |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Dan reads (gasp!) a book
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 |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Dan reads (gasp!) a book
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 |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Dan reads (gasp!) a book
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. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Dan reads (gasp!) a book
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? |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Dan reads (gasp!) a book
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. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Dan reads (gasp!) a book
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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
ESPN reads rbr | tony | Racing | 13 | August 4th 06 02:14 AM |
Mountain Biker Hits (Gasp!) TREE ROOT, Falls Down 60 Feet | SuperG | Social Issues | 0 | July 1st 05 04:16 AM |
Mountain Biker Hits (Gasp!) TREE ROOT, Falls Down 60 Feet | stevemtbsteve | Mountain Biking | 17 | June 24th 05 10:31 PM |
RR: Typical Mountain Biker Goes for ride and (Gasp!) Enjoys Nature! | MattB | Mountain Biking | 4 | May 12th 05 02:47 PM |
Gasp, cyclists in the middle of the road. | Simon Mason | UK | 19 | March 31st 04 05:19 PM |