Dan reads (gasp!) a book

John B. wrote:
On Fri, 28 Feb 2014 08:54:45 -0800 (PST),

snip

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


Particularly amazing given the ridiculously low level of cycling injuries
(safer than walking) touted by the same guys telling you that you need to
read this book to know how to ride safely.


snip

--
duane

On Friday, February 28, 2014 12:45:15 PM UTC-5, Duane wrote:
On 2/28/2014 10:19 AM, jbeattie wrote:


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.

Bike lanes, plus Oregon law, encourage bicyclists to pass at speed
in the motorist's right side blind spot. I understand that you, Duane,
don't get that. The lack of understanding is common. The people who get
injured or killed by right hooks usually don't get that. The "thinking,"
if you can call it that, is "I've got a bike lane so I'm safe."

Or is it that the riders are being hidden by cars from the drivers
turning and don't realize that they aren't seen?

Oh, and a variant of what I described: Large vehicles like trucks and
buses sitting waiting to turn right (or left in the UK); cyclists sitting
at their blind side, invisible in the truck's mirrors and unable to see the
turn signal. Green light, truck moves toward the curb, cyclist has no
place to escape. That's caused lots of London fatalities.

"Bike advocacy" solution? A "die-in" with cyclists lying down in the street.

Mmm. I do books for a living, as a writer, an editor and a publisher... I've taught myself several skills out of books, so well that in some of them I'm a world class authority; I'm very impressed with the power of books. But this fellow's book is unnecessary hard work, and avoidably so because he's a pompous prat who instantly gets the reader's back up with constant appeals to authority (guess whose authority) and equally constant failures of reason. Additional proof is that he appeals to other pompous prats. We'll no doubt soon see Franki-boy Krygowski in here to abuse Dan for not paying obeisance.

Andre Jute

On Thursday, February 27, 2014 4:01:50 PM UTC, 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.



But he seems to well acknowledge a couple of things. One, that he

learned by doing and thinking about things, and that indeed that is

the only way his readers will learn. He also says something about

developing your own style of riding. These are redeeming factors

completely missing from Frank's approach to disussion with me.



But but he still exudes an "either you do and think my way or you're

wrong". That's something I don't do. I defend the reasoning for my

way, but I never say it's the right way for anyone else.



More thoughts on the whole business of whether I deserve the trouble

that I could avoid by doing it someone else's way, and on the idea that

cars and bikes *are* different and it would be stupid to pretend they're

not; but I've said al that before a million ways.

On Friday, February 28, 2014 2:32:44 PM UTC-5, jbeattie wrote:
On Friday, February 28, 2014 9:13:28 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:

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.

By "normal rules of the road," I did not mean Oregon's specific bike lane
rules of the road. Those are absolutely not normal.

The normal rules of the road are the UVC portions applying to all vehicles.
That would include, in this instance, that slower vehicles should be in the
rightmost lane; and that (only) if it's safe to do so, they should be far enough
right to not unduly hamper safe passing. Those rules would also state that
therefore, passing should be done on the left. And most obvious of all,
that straight-through vehicles should not be to the right of right turning
vehicles. For what type of vehicle does this make sense?
http://bikinginla.com/wp-content/upl...flict-zone.jpg

Bicycles are sometimes slow, and they're usually narrow. That's led
to all sorts of weird "special" laws that defy geometry, normal traffic
conventions and common sense. There are pretty good arguments for saying
that there should be almost no bicycle-specific traffic laws; i.e. just let
the general slow-moving vehicle laws apply when the bicycles are moving
slowly. Certainly, don't mandate the situation shown in the graphic above!

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...

Well, I didn't think it was called the Oregon _U_ VC, and I'm not just
being picky. To explain:

The Uniform Vehicle Code is a national thing, and it exists specifically
so the rules of the road can be very uniform across the country. Of course,
traffic laws are not under the control of the federal government, so states
are free to make up their own. However, almost always, legislators and
bureaucrats understand that doing something crazily "innovative" would cause
chaos. That's why a red light always means stop, why nobody (in the U.S.)
normally drives on the left side of the road, why nobody turns right from the
left side or left from the right side, etc.

Except for bicycles! There, the principles seem to be "they're just toys"
and "keep them out of the way at all costs (to them)." So there are laws
stating that a bicyclist must always be at the extreme edge of the road.
There are bike lanes that fit the graphic I linked above.

And it's getting worse now, especially in PDX. The key word is no longer
"uniform." It's "Innovative!" IOW, if you can dream up some crazy scheme
that nobody has ever done before, well, that's wonderful!! Will it
confuse resident motorists for a decade or two? Will out-of-staters be
baffled? Will it kill bicyclists who trust it to work? No matter!
As long as a) it's "Innovative!" and b) we can say "NOW it's safe to
ride your bike!!!" then PDX gives it bonus points. Which is crazy.


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...

And you need a way to teach the (weird) law to _every_ motorist who enters
your area from outside. Because it's completely unrealistic to expect
a first time visitor trying to find his hotel to realize that suddenly,
a familiar traffic law is turned on its head!

... 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.

I would applaud that idea. Because your "in the interim" is going to last
for decades.

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.

But they're "innovative!"

- Frank Krygowski

On Friday, February 28, 2014 4:46:13 PM UTC-5, sms wrote:

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.

I'm not at all surprised.

- Frank Krygowski

On Friday, February 28, 2014 7:08:42 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 28 Feb 2014 08:54:45 -0800 (PST), Frank Krygowski wrote:

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?

Apparently, some people benefit from the advice. There was an article on
the same topic last year in one of our national bike magazines. It had a
different tone, though. It was written as "Don't do what I tried to do."

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?

That's the same thing I said below.

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"?

You're demonstrating that you need to read the book - or at least, the part on
"The Why and Wherefore of Traffic Law."

Traffic laws are not arbitrary. Modern ones were first worked out by William
Eno in New York City, to apply almost entirely to things other than the
very few cars on the road - proof, BTW, that traffic laws are not written
only for cars. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Phelps_Eno
They are based on movement patterns that best smooth
the flow of traffic, naturally provide for safety, fit the capabilities of
ordinary humans, and allow rights to the road for all.

As just on example, in drive-on-the-right countries, when two vehicles arrive
simultaneously at a four-way stop, why does the person on the right get
right-of-way? It's not at all arbitrary. It has to do with extra stopping
distance. Similarly, there are very logical reasons for passing on the left,
not the right; for yielding before entering a road with moving traffic, and
the like.

Those sorts of principles may seem obvious to the highly intelligent denizens
of r.b.tech. But IME, most people benefit from a quick explanation. And
having the thick book of traffic laws summarized in a few basic principles
is valuable logical "shorthand" when a person comes on an unfamiliar
situation.

BTW, not everyone finds such principles obvious. Every salmon-style rider
proves that what's obvious to one person is blindingly confusing to another.

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.

Sorry, John, I don't recall what you're talking about.

Did someone perhaps swerve suddenly in front of a truck? If so, that
directly violates Forester's advice (and mine). Again, you may need to
read the book - or perhaps one of the others I recommended.

As [Forester] 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.

The portions of this book pertinent to this discussion regard riding
where there is significant motor vehicle traffic. Hundreds of millions
of people have ridden, and some still ride, where MVs are rare. They
don't need to know the best way to, say, merge leftward before a left
turn.

Some millions in western Europe, including the British Isles, did fine
without the book because they had an unbroken tradition of riding on
the roads following the normal rules of the road for vehicle operators.
That's actually how Forester learned himself, beginning as a kid.

The reason for those portions of the book, as Forester explains, is that
the U.S. had no such tradition. There was almost zero adult cycling in
the U.S. for perhaps 50 years. Then came the bike boom of the '60s & '70s.
And suddenly, every teen and 20-something was on a "ten speed" and riding
willy-nilly. It was about that time that my three high school buddies
and I were arguing about which side of the road we were supposed to ride.
Two of us argued for the right, two others argued for the left.

People really didn't know what they were supposed to do on a bike. And
many still don't. As an example, one of the most intelligent women I know
did a lot of committee work with me. She finally decided to get her old
3-speed out. We took a very short ride together, and I watched with
horror as she prepared for a left turn by crossing the road and riding
facing traffic.

She, and people like her, don't need to read all 800 words of _EC_, which
is why I recommend starting elsewhere. But they certainly need _something_.
And really, most of the more succinct works they're likely to read are
based on principles laid out in _EC_. That's why I say it was seminal.

- Frank Krygowski

On Friday, February 28, 2014 4:36:15 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Friday, February 28, 2014 12:45:15 PM UTC-5, Duane wrote:

On 2/28/2014 10:19 AM, jbeattie wrote:





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.



Bike lanes, plus Oregon law, encourage bicyclists to pass at speed

in the motorist's right side blind spot. I understand that you, Duane,

don't get that. The lack of understanding is common. The people who get

injured or killed by right hooks usually don't get that. The "thinking,"

if you can call it that, is "I've got a bike lane so I'm safe."

Think of it this way, when you drive your car on a two lane road (each way) cars will pass you in your blind spot regardless of your lane position or whether you're in the fast lane or the slow lane. That's the nature of passing. At some point, the passing or passed car is going to be in your blind spot. Drivers cope.

When the fast lane congests, drivers rat-out and jump over to the slow lane, presumably after checking their blind spots. If they just treated bicycle lanes as the slow-slow lane, and looked before crossing that lane, then most problems would be solved. Trucks (or cars) at lights are a slightly different matter. They should be allowed to shut down the turn lane and divert bicyclists.

The bottom line is that I am going to pass cars on the right in a bike lane, because the option is sitting behind an endless line of smoke belching cars through a succession of lights. I can get to work faster on a bike than in a car for exactly that reason. When I get to intersections, I exercise care, and I take the lane when there are right turning cars, assuming I can get in to traffic. Otherwise, I just have to cool my jets. Sometimes I get mouse-trapped by buses, but if I'm paying attention I can prevent that, but herding buses is not for the faint of heart, and sometimes you do get hit. I've been hit, although I wasn't injured. Taking the lane with long sight lines and low traffic is nothing, but jumping in to fast moving traffic can be hair raising. I had to do that until they filled the pits on the Barbur viaduct after the recent snow, and I got some super-close passes at high speed which felt retaliatory because I don't get passed that closely when riding further to the right and not dead center (which was necessary because of the pits). My further to the right is still not on the "edge" -- but it is definitely in the right third of the lane.

-- Jay Beattie.

jbeattie wrote:
On Friday, February 28, 2014 4:36:15 PM


snip
Think of it this way, when you drive your car on a two lane road (each
way) cars will pass you in your blind spot regardless of your lane
position or whether you're in the fast lane or the slow lane. That's the
nature of passing. At some point, the passing or passed car is going to
be in your blind spot. Drivers cope.

When the fast lane congests, drivers rat-out and jump over to the slow
lane, presumably after checking their blind spots. If they just treated
bicycle lanes as the slow-slow lane, and looked before crossing that
lane, then most problems would be solved. Trucks (or cars) at lights are
a slightly different matter. They should be allowed to shut down the turn
lane and divert bicyclists.

The bottom line is that I am going to pass cars on the right in a bike
lane, because the option is sitting behind an endless line of smoke
belching cars through a succession of lights. I can get to work faster
on a bike than in a car for exactly that reason. When I get to
intersections, I exercise care, and I take the lane when there are right
turning cars, assuming I can get in to traffic. Otherwise, I just have to
cool my jets. Sometimes I get mouse-trapped by buses, but if I'm paying
attention I can prevent that, but herding buses is not for the faint of
heart, and sometimes you do get hit. I've been hit, although I wasn't
injured. Taking the lane with long sight lines and low traffic is
nothing, but jumping in to fast moving traffic can be hair raising. I
had to do that until they filled the pits on the Barbur viaduct after the
recent snow, and I got some super-close passes at high speed which felt
retaliatory because I don't get passed that closely when riding further
to the right and not dead center (which was necessary because of the
pits). My further to the right is still not on the "edge" -- but it is
definitely in the right third of the lane.


Sounds pretty much like most people I know.

This pig headed insistence that the alternative to bike lanes is riding in
the center of the lane just ignores the laws in most places that require
bikes to keep to the right. I'm not less safe because of the bike lane.
I'd be riding there anyway. Like you said, typically right third of the
road.

Anyway this is already one of the safest places in North America to ride a
bike.

duane

On Friday, February 28, 2014 9:43:37 PM UTC-5, Duane wrote:
jbeattie wrote:

On Friday, February 28, 2014 4:36:15 PM





snip

Think of it this way, when you drive your car on a two lane road (each

way) cars will pass you in your blind spot regardless of your lane

position or whether you're in the fast lane or the slow lane. That's the

nature of passing. At some point, the passing or passed car is going to

be in your blind spot. Drivers cope.



When the fast lane congests, drivers rat-out and jump over to the slow

lane, presumably after checking their blind spots. If they just treated

bicycle lanes as the slow-slow lane, and looked before crossing that

lane, then most problems would be solved. Trucks (or cars) at lights are

a slightly different matter. They should be allowed to shut down the turn

lane and divert bicyclists.



The bottom line is that I am going to pass cars on the right in a bike

lane, because the option is sitting behind an endless line of smoke

belching cars through a succession of lights. I can get to work faster

on a bike than in a car for exactly that reason. When I get to

intersections, I exercise care, and I take the lane when there are right

turning cars, assuming I can get in to traffic. Otherwise, I just have to

cool my jets. Sometimes I get mouse-trapped by buses, but if I'm paying

attention I can prevent that, but herding buses is not for the faint of

heart, and sometimes you do get hit. I've been hit, although I wasn't

injured. Taking the lane with long sight lines and low traffic is

nothing, but jumping in to fast moving traffic can be hair raising. I

had to do that until they filled the pits on the Barbur viaduct after the

recent snow, and I got some super-close passes at high speed which felt

retaliatory because I don't get passed that closely when riding further

to the right and not dead center (which was necessary because of the

pits). My further to the right is still not on the "edge" -- but it is

definitely in the right third of the lane.





Sounds pretty much like most people I know.



This pig headed insistence that the alternative to bike lanes is riding in

the center of the lane just ignores the laws in most places that require

bikes to keep to the right. I'm not less safe because of the bike lane.

I'd be riding there anyway. Like you said, typically right third of the

road.



Anyway this is already one of the safest places in North America to ride a

bike.



duane

I've often wondered what the title is of the book on bicycling that Frank must have written since he is the al knowing expert on what to do anywhere when one is bicycling.

Many, many times Frank tells people thousands of miles awaywhat the should have done when they had a close call that they evade by NOT taking the lane. When called on it Frank then states he a, doesn't recall making the statement, b, the statement was misinterpreted or c, the bicyclist exagerated.

Frank's book must be an interesting read.

Cheers

On Fri, 28 Feb 2014 17:44:19 -0800 (PST), Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On Friday, February 28, 2014 7:08:42 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 28 Feb 2014 08:54:45 -0800 (PST), Frank Krygowski wrote:

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?

Apparently, some people benefit from the advice. There was an article on
the same topic last year in one of our national bike magazines. It had a
different tone, though. It was written as "Don't do what I tried to do."


I find this positively amazing. Two people join themselves together in
a family, theoretically at least for the remainder of their lives and
they don't know how to communicate? I'd say "unbelievable" except you
say that it is common enough that folks are writing articles about it.

I suppose it is what they are talking about when they write about
"breakdown in American social values".

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?

That's the same thing I said below.

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"?

You're demonstrating that you need to read the book - or at least, the part on
"The Why and Wherefore of Traffic Law."

Traffic laws are not arbitrary. Modern ones were first worked out by William
Eno in New York City, to apply almost entirely to things other than the
very few cars on the road - proof, BTW, that traffic laws are not written
only for cars. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Phelps_Eno
They are based on movement patterns that best smooth
the flow of traffic, naturally provide for safety, fit the capabilities of
ordinary humans, and allow rights to the road for all.


No, you are wrong. At as far as far as the road user is concerned. Run
a red light. BANG! you got a ticket. Try and engage the police officer
in a discussion of the theories of traffic legislation and all you get
is a blank stare.

As just on example, in drive-on-the-right countries, when two vehicles arrive
simultaneously at a four-way stop, why does the person on the right get
right-of-way? It's not at all arbitrary. It has to do with extra stopping
distance. Similarly, there are very logical reasons for passing on the left,
not the right; for yielding before entering a road with moving traffic, and
the like.

It has been a while since I drove on the right but as I remember it
you are wrong. My memory of who has the right-of-way was that it was
clearly defined in the State traffic laws. theory didn't enter into it
at all.

Those sorts of principles may seem obvious to the highly intelligent denizens
of r.b.tech. But IME, most people benefit from a quick explanation. And
having the thick book of traffic laws summarized in a few basic principles
is valuable logical "shorthand" when a person comes on an unfamiliar
situation.


So what? There is the LAW and there is you. The LAW says, "Stop at the
Red Light". Where does the theory enter into it?

BTW, not everyone finds such principles obvious. Every salmon-style rider
proves that what's obvious to one person is blindingly confusing to another.

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.

Sorry, John, I don't recall what you're talking about.

Probably not.

Did someone perhaps swerve suddenly in front of a truck? If so, that
directly violates Forester's advice (and mine). Again, you may need to
read the book - or perhaps one of the others I recommended.

As [Forester] 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.

The portions of this book pertinent to this discussion regard riding
where there is significant motor vehicle traffic. Hundreds of millions
of people have ridden, and some still ride, where MVs are rare. They
don't need to know the best way to, say, merge leftward before a left
turn.

Ever see a photo of Shanghai?

Some millions in western Europe, including the British Isles, did fine
without the book because they had an unbroken tradition of riding on
the roads following the normal rules of the road for vehicle operators.
That's actually how Forester learned himself, beginning as a kid.

The reason for those portions of the book, as Forester explains, is that
the U.S. had no such tradition. There was almost zero adult cycling in
the U.S. for perhaps 50 years. Then came the bike boom of the '60s & '70s.
And suddenly, every teen and 20-something was on a "ten speed" and riding
willy-nilly. It was about that time that my three high school buddies
and I were arguing about which side of the road we were supposed to ride.
Two of us argued for the right, two others argued for the left.

People really didn't know what they were supposed to do on a bike. And
many still don't. As an example, one of the most intelligent women I know
did a lot of committee work with me. She finally decided to get her old
3-speed out. We took a very short ride together, and I watched with
horror as she prepared for a left turn by crossing the road and riding
facing traffic.


You are simply demonstrating that an individual who you describe as
"one of the most intelligent women I know", didn't, as my grandmother
would have described it, have enough sense to come in out of the rain.

Frank, all you have done is describe a bunch of people who obviously
had no knowledge of the traffic regulations nor any common sense what
so ever, and the book is going to cure them of all their woes.

She, and people like her, don't need to read all 800 words of _EC_, which
is why I recommend starting elsewhere. But they certainly need _something_.
And really, most of the more succinct works they're likely to read are
based on principles laid out in _EC_. That's why I say it was seminal.

- Frank Krygowski
--
Cheers,

John B.