John Forester

Don't be ridiculous about hills; I never suggested your ridiculous statement.

If you talk to doctors, social service workers, insurers, attorneys, and close relatives, you will find plenty of evidence that there are worse outcomes from a traffic accident than is death.

Hagen's main trouble is that he makes general statements that are conspicuously false, and then defends them by pointing out some particular situation in which the questioned statement happens to be true. Conspicuous among these are his statements about traffic accidents when he actually pays attention only to fatal ones. He uses these general statements in such a way that his readers, at least those of us who try to understand exactly what Hagen means, do not know whether he is discussing national differences or site-specific differences.

Hagen may choose to agree with Hurst's side of the Hurst/Forester difference, but I point out that Hurst holds a rather far outlying opinion in the traffic engineering world. Hurst asserts that traffic operates in some unknown manner and that cyclists should strive to take advantage of every opening that enables them to move faster, regardless of law. The mainstream view of traffic operation, to which I adhere, holds that traffic generally operates according to the accepted principles and laws, although, of course, mistakes do occur. Cyclists fare best when they obey those principles and laws and when, in turn, society treats them as both doing so and being entitled to do so. Hurst asserts, so far as I know, that I tell cyclists to simply obey the rules of the road and nothing else. That is conspicuously false, because I tell cyclists that when they know how traffic should operate, as it usually does, they are best prepared to detect an abnormality and to avoid the likely consequences of that abnormal operation, for which I give some advice.

hagen2456

Judging from Hurst's posts here, I think it's doubtfull that he would recognize his points of view in your description. Same goes for mine quite often, by the way

John Forester

I have carefully read and reviewed Hurst's Art of Urban Cycling. My review is posted at johnforester.com/Articles/Social/Hurst's Art.pdf.
If you, Hagen, care to disagree with my view of Hurst's opinions, then read the review and make your arguments.

hagen2456

If you, Forester, care to disagree with my view of Hurst's opinions, then read his replies to you in the "Tour De the **** You" thread.

(Phew. Took way too much time to find it. Debating with this man is rather exasperating)

hagen2456

In fact, the thread I link to shows how mr. Forester can sabotage any discussion with his constant evasions, misreading-as-if-on-porpose etc. Take, for example, the conversation from post #106 and on. It's quite amazing the lengths he'll go to, to find a weakness in his opponents reasoning, including hammering on the use of the word "principle", which I had allready corrected myself, and the use of which should be clear from the context. This man really has a diamond-like mental flexibility and shows a complete disregard for the substance of any objection to his positions. Another example could be from post #55 in that thread, where I had to tell him that "Your demanding that it should be bike-collission specific is a bit weird, as I was not talking specifically of that issue. i was merely mentioning the fact that the "mysteries" of traffic are now being studied in a new light.". He continuously seems to read things one never wrote. If one is not alert to that fact, one is dragged into endless meanderings, in the end never knowing how one ended up in a strange and forbidding place. I read somewhere that the nazi doctors used that method when experimenting with how to make people psychotic. I can believe that.

(And no, that is not drawing the nazi card, to your information. Could probably have happened in the USSR, too)

Oh, and I can see that I'm not the first to point out his weird way of debating and his idealist view of traffic: https://www.bikeforums.net/showthread...Art-of-Cycling. So, dear members of BF, should one simply ignore him, or should one go on offering some sensible counter weight? Is it futile? Does it serve any purpose?

Digital_Cowboy

So because a motorist acted in an a presumably illegal and definitely unsafe manner you’re willing to blame where and how she was riding. Wouldn’t it be better to blame the driver for engaging in such a dangerous manner when THEY clearly didn’t have a clear line of sight? My take on this case is that had the motorist in question been more patient and had waited for a safe spot to pass then they never would have hit the woman in question.

And typically speaking in cases like this the cyclist has both more time and more space to react in. That in this and a small percentage of cases that it doesn’t work out isn’t the fault VC riding nor taking the lane. This poor woman’s death is squally on the shoulders of the motorist and has nothing to do taking the lane or riding VC style.

Why shouldn’t the general laws/rules of the road apply equally to everyone regardless of the type of vehicle that they are operating? A bicycle in most states in the USA ARE legally regarded as a vehicle with all the same rights and responsibilities as any other vehicle on the road. As I’ve said the Amish and farmers operating on the public road are given more respect then cyclists riding bicycles on the public roads are given.

So why is it that a horse drawn buggy and a tractor or combine is given more respect than a bicycle? Both are slow moving vehicles and in the case of a horse and buggy very light in weight.

As you’ve been told sadly, the bicycle specific infrastructure that you enjoy would not work in the USA. Because:

a) The American motorist will not sit well with having any of their “road” given up/infringed upon.
a. They want to be able to go fast without having to worry about accommodating slower moving traffic.
b. They view the road as being their and only their domain.
b) The American motorist want to give up “any” of their roads to anyone else.

IF VC is so “wrong” then how do you explain why so many people here in the states practicing it safely? How do you explain all of those who practice it reporting that when they ride VC vs. FRAP that they get more not less respect on the road?

There is an intersection on my normal route that if I go through it one way I get what is known as a “dead read” because it gives priority the avenue that crosses the street. Whereas if I go through the intersection on the avenue I can catch the light green, about half the time I have to deal with some semi-heavy traffic. So far everyone that I’ve had coming up behind me when I’ve signaled that I am preparing to move to the left has been met with cooperation, i.e. the motorists will slow down and give me time and space to move into the left hand turn lane.

Thus, I would say proving that riding VC style does in fact work.

hagen2456

As for the killed cyclist, I only place a very small part of the responsibility on herself, as we have pretty universal FRAP here. The overwhelming responibility is, of course, with the driver. But that's not the issue, really. What this - and the other example of the blind curve - tells us is, that IF you ride VC in such a place (and now mr. Forester tells me that it isn't VC, though several people here told me it is, and the only right thing to do), you put your fate in the hands of drivers to a completely unnecessary extent.

And that brings us to your reasons for feeling that VC "works". I'm sure it does. Most of the time. After all, most drivers are reasonable people who will, albeit grudgingly, cooperate with and accept cyclists regardless of their riding style. But don't forget, just as History is written by the "winners", so will reports on the success of VC be told by those who survive it (and that is the vast majority). However, with VC incorporating riding like in the examples I've given here and elsewhere, one is allowed to be rather skeptical of claims as to its being THE safe manner of riding. In the "tour de **** you" thread, it's quite effectively described how it's based on presumptions about traffic which are not realist but utopian. Mr. Forester has a very inflexible and immature way of understanding traffic (and apparently language, too), which doesn't in my eyes inspire confidence.

The reasons you give for Dutch style infrastructure not working in the USA are not really that, but reasons why it will be difficult to implement. But that's no different in principle, but only in degree, from the situation in most of the world, including Denmark and exluding probably only Holland. You should see the comments to Danish websites discussing the exlusion of cars from more streets, or lowered speed limits etc. The same bloodthirstyness, car centricity and vengefulness that you get in English speaking countries.

I-Like-To-Bike

??? So many people practicing vehicular cycling??? By what standard is anyone labeled a "VC"? By what standard do you arrive at "so many"? Who has done the count/measurement using any standard? You, or some other John Forester VC spinning acolyte?

sudo bike

I felt it worthy of note to call this out as plain ad hominem. Come now, John, you're better than that. hagen has been more clear than many-a-poster here and you know this.

In the case of a hill, I don't think so. The whole problem of the hill is that they are too close before you can see them, meaning they are close by the time they are visible, meaning you shouldn't have much trouble seeing them by the time they are visible. I would think in this situation you'd want to be further right to allow the motorist to either swerve/move left in time with enough space to avoid hitting you, or give you more room to bail to the right if you need to. At the very least you're more likely to have a glancing hit.

John Forester

No, I stand by my criticism of Hagen's use of English. Certainly, a grammarian would find few errors in his writing, which runs smoothly. However, Hagen fails to use the normal qualifiers that one would expect to see in normal English discussions, so that the reader cannot tell whether Hagen is discussing a general situation or a specific situation. One could easily attribute this failure to some other cause, but I have chosen to offer what appears to be the easiest suggestion.

John Forester

Hagen is now saying that I, Forester, have told him that taking the lane on a blind curve is not VC. I have never so written, to Hagen or anyone else. Rather, as long ago as 1976 I wrote that when the right-hand edge of the road is obscured, as by a high bank or wall, then cycling near the edge shortens the sight distance and cycling further left lengthens the sight distance to that for normal traffic, so that the cyclist is well advised to ride in the place for normal traffic.

John Forester

I add to whatever reasons Digital Cowboy gave for the reason that Dutch-style infrastructure would not "work" in the USA. Most cities of the USA grew up in the automotive era, while most cities in The Netherlands grew up in the medieval era using horse, boat, and walking transport. When urban cyclists in a medieval city are asked why they cycle, one of the most common answers is that cycling is faster than walking. When urban cyclists in an automotive city are asked for the major disadvantages of cycling, one of the most common answers is that cycling is slower than motoring. The difference between those two answers illustrates why the implementation of Dutch-style cycling in the typical city of the USA will not "work" as it does in The Netherlands.

hagen2456

Oh dear. In 1976? Vital information!

I guess I can see how mr. Forester can, in his desperation, interpret my sentence as saying that he has stated that taking the lane in a curve is not VC. I don't think it's in accordance with standard rules of grammar, but never mind. The thing is, this is another grasping-at-straws instead of offering arguments against the substance. Small wonder. No such arguments exist outside his Utopia.

hagen2456

You know very well that this is not true. Urban sprawl may be slightly less extensive in Europe, but the differences are of degrees, not of kind. Same goes for median distances traveled in commutes.

Bring on the myths. Or just read https://www.aviewfromthecyclepath.com...-one-post.html


PS: But is it relevant to the discussion of lane-taking, or are we once more being dragged into a mire of diversions, evasions etc.? I think we are.

John Forester

Here are Hagen's actual words: "But that's not the issue, really. What this - and the other example of the blind curve - tells us is, that IF you ride VC in such a place (and now mr. Forester tells me that it isn't VC, though several people here told me it is, and the only right thing to do), you put your fate in the hands of drivers to a completely unnecessary extent."

Given those words, I stand by my claim that Hagen has written that controlling the lane in a blind curve is VC and that I, Forester, have told him that this is not VC. I therefore repeat my suggestion that the least offensive explanation for this behavior by Hagen is his poor command of the English language.

hagen2456

Am I the only one finding this post from mr. Forester absolutely ridiculous and irrelevant to the discussion?

I-Like-To-Bike

No more ridiculous or relevant to real world bicycling risk evaluation than any other Vehicular Cycling stuff posted by that fellow or his acolytes in any forum.

Since when?

hagen2456

Heh. I will this one time admit that mr. Forester has a point, as he obviously finds my posts difficult to decipher due to my imperfect command of English. He does apparently find it very difficult to see the wood(s) for trees. Some people have this problem, and my experience is that even in one's mother tongue, it can be quite difficult do have a conversation with them. So small wonder that he finds it difficult to understand what I'm trying to say.

Hoshnasi

In the instance he comments on above, his comprehension (and mine) from reading your post makes it sounds like your believe Forester made a comment that he never made or intended to make a point of. We all understand your words, but sometimes the point you are trying to make in actuality might be different from the way you arranged the words.

I-Like-To-Bike

I seriously doubt that Mr Forester has any trouble understanding your posts. Your command of English is fine.

Misleading paraphrasing and "re-interpretations" of others' intent (regardless of vocabulary or grammar) in order to set up straw man arguments to rebut are standard tools of the trade for the gentleman.

hagen2456

Okay then, let's have a short analysis of the sentence in question. What is the difference between saying

"What this - and the other example of the blind curve - tells us is, that IF you ride VC in such a place (and now mr. Forester tells me that it isn't VC, though several people here told me it is, and the only right thing to do),"

and

"What this tells us is, that IF you ride VC in such a place (and now mr. Forester tells me that it isn't VC, though several people here told me it is, and the only right thing to do),"?

This is the difference, right: "- and the other example of the blind curve -"? Inserted between dashes. Used, typically as a way of saying "and, by the way, so-and-so".

So, what does that tell us? In my view, that my statement "and now mr. Forester tells me that it isn't VC" refers to the "this" in "what this tells us" - "this" being the rider who was killed taking the lane near the hilltop, and NOT to what's between the dashes. The context - not least his own post, #651 - should make it crystal clear. That would be the case in Danish, though of course it just might give cause for doubt in that language, too. My limited knowledge of English makes it impossible for me to know if this would be the case in that language.

John Forester

The "and" between "this" and "the other example of the blind curve" says that both the entity referred to as "this" and the "blind curve" share the same characteristics. I chose to answer the "blind curve" part because it was specifically named, rather than bother about misunderstandings regarding the antecedent of "this".

Since Hagen now asserts that his statement refers only to the cyclist killed near the top of a hill, I now also state that nowhere have I told Hagen, or anybody, that taking the lane near a hilltop is not following VC principles.

As for Hagen's claim that my post #651 should make clear the context of these later discussions, my post disclaimed the ability to see through hills that Hagen appeared to be arguing was the basis of an argument. I fail to see that referring to #651 assists in clarifying #671.

Hoshnasi

As I said, your formulation of sentences is fine. I got the message... HOWEVER, do you truly believe that Foster ever made that point? If you believe that post #671 is some proof for your claim, perhaps your comprehension is the issue?

hagen2456

No. This is too much. I can't keep up with your tsunami of nonsense.

hagen2456

My comprehension of what exactly mr. Forester says is VC, respectively/versus what his disciples say is, could well be shaky.

I referred to #651 to show that as he had already told me that etc. etc., he had no reason to believe that I still thought that etc. etc. Now, should we put an end to this crazyness and see if we can get some kind of response from mr. Forester regarding the substance?


On second thoughts, I think I need a break. My head spins from being presented with so much lunacy.