livedarklions

The null hypothesis here is that cyclists follow the FRAP law as riding on the right has been the standard practice for over a century. Forester's argument wasn't that wasn't true, but that it shouldn't be. VC proponents have been alleging that Forester's influence changed the default at some point. I don't think the burden is on me to disprove that.

njkayaker

???

What FRAP is is kind of ambiguous but I'm not sure how you manage to see most cyclists usually riding in the middle of the lane (which, in most states, is generally illegal in the absence of certain exceptions) "all around the US".

Digger Goreman

Regardless of where FRAP came from, or how many use it, my ~10 years of experienced commuting is that motorists hate to WAIT for anything and (except for a few lovely spirits) will take every opportunity to squeeze by, no matter the risk to others. FRAP encourages this risky behavior.

UniChris

No, they haven't. VC makes no claim of invention or ownership. VC is just one name for doing what many have independently (both before and after) come to the same conclusion is safest.

What you call your style of cycling is irrelevant. That there's actually tons of agreement on what is safest is what matters.

Most of where there's still disagreement is in specific situations that may not really have a universal answer anyway (eg, stay in line at a light or go up to the front or even jump it) or what the best way to aid more timid cyclists might be.

The poster you're responding to didn't say that they'd seen most cyclists riding "in the middle" of the lane; their observation was effectively that they had been seeing people riding other than at the dangerous extreme right position favored by the naive. What exactly a position other than extreme right would be has both situational and personal preference factors.

Many - at this point I'd say most "FRAP" laws stress the "practicable" and make it explicit that one need not stay far right when the lane is too narrow to safely share.

Increasingly, official state publications like driver's manuals and state bike law briefing sheets do actually interpret this as permission for the cyclist to use the full lane at their individual discretion: eg https://www.mass.gov/doc/drivers-manual

"As a bicyclist: (from Chap. 85, Section 11B) • You can use the full lane anywhere, anytime, and on any street (except limited access or express state highways where signs specifically prohibiting bicycles have been posted), even if there is a bike lane."

I-Like-To-Bike

True, the ardent VC promoter(s) and proselytizers have come to tons of conclusions about an alleged superior "safety" record for cyclists who practice, or are likely to practice vehicular cycling that is outlined and specified in John Forester's books and articles. Those conclusions about "what is safest" which may or may not be true, were, and continue to be, based only on anecdotes, hypotheses and Forester's so-called "tests", cherry picked comparisons of varied populations of cyclists (none of whom were identified as using vehicular cycling techniques) and analyses of "crashes" that were anything but scientific or unbiased. No way are these so-called safety conclusions based on anything that should be confused with real world results or any scientific or objective research about evaluating or reducing risks of cycling in traffic.

Details of the bogus basis of these conclusions and claims of quantitative risk reduction for people who practice vehicular cycling and/or take Vehicular Cycling courses (80% reduction in "crashes", "1000% safer" in some cases) have previously been cited in the past on this subsection of A&S. If interested, go look it up.

livedarklions

My favorite Forester misuse of statistics is his habitual claim that only 5% of car bicycle crashes occur from the rear of the bicycle. That could more naturally be cited for the effectiveness of FRAP in preventing cars from striking the bicycle from the rear.

njkayaker

livedarklions wasn't talking about people riding at the "dangerous extreme right" either. But bbbean came to the "opposite conclusion" (the "conclusion" being unspecfiied). The only reasonable "opposite conclusion" to assume is riding in the middle of the lane. (I suspect bbbean wasn't being careful and made an unreasonable assumption about what livedarklions was talking about.)

The law has "practicable" in it for a reason (there's no reason to "stress" it). It isn't reasonable to interpret "extreme" right as "practicable" (which means it isn't reasonable to expect that's what bbbean was talking about). Yes, state laws typically provide a list of exceptions to riding FRAP. Narrow lanes are a common exception. Note that the exceptions are not limited to those listed.

Massachusetts bicycle law is rather unique. It's not evidence of a trend (your "Increasingly") in other states at all.

UniChris

If you'd actually read what you claim to have, you'd know precisely what the 1000% claim was about - which is to say not at all what you are pretending it argued.

What it was actually about was a demonstration of how segregated roadside infrastructure was unsafe if used efficiently, and inefficient if used safely.

Forester had a road route that he'd been historically riding without issue. Then he was ticketed for failure to use a parallel non-road route. So he went and tried to ride the non-road route behaving as if it were a road route, and basically found himself in constant conflict with drivers who didn't expect vehicle type movements off of what was at best a glorified sidewalk. His point was that the only way to use that non-road route safely was to effectively become a pedestrian at intersections. His danger comparison was specifically, and only, between riding on the actual road, vs riding the non-road route as if it were a road. That trying to do so was absurd was the very point he was making. He wanted it recognized that such badly designed infrastructure took away cyclists' rights to efficiently operate as an ordinary road user, enjoying legal right of way over intersecting secondary roads, and instead put them at a disadvantaged position in precisely the places where a driver trying to do the same thing was advantaged.

Worse - Forester feared (and one need not look far in reality to see this confirmed) that the very same naive cyclists for whom this sidewalk-like infrastructure was being constructed were not going to understand the dangers it created at intersections and would go and do some of the very same sorts of unwise things that Forester had done in his demo. Not because they were vehicular cyclists who were pretending they were still on a road, but because they didn't understand that a designated route did nothing to protect them in the intersections if they simply barreled obviously into the path of turning and entering drivers who didn't expect anything like that coming at (even a relaxed for cycling) speed from outside the travel lanes.

As for the 80% crash reduction do you really find it implausible that someone who is employing what are widely recognized as being the best strategies for operating with cars (whatever the recognizer chooses to call their version), would have an 80% reduction in crashes compared to a naive approach to interacting with traffic (eg, compared to something like trying to hide from traffic on the extreme road edge, insisting on riding facing traffic so they can see it, and all of the other habits one sees in naive cyclists) ? This isn't a claim for Forester's cycling vs your cycling, it's a claim for riding smart vs riding naive.

Huh? What exactly is your point? That the overwhelming majority of crashes are at intersections rather than overtaking is well demonstrated reality (though not to be confused with the reality that the small fraction of crashes which are fatal do have a majority in between intersections where speed differential is higher).

The main point of such a statistic in VC theory is that people's fear of being hit from behind drastically outstrips their actual risk of it, and their efforts to avoid being hit from behind cause them to adopt strategies such as sidewalk riding or calling for sidewalk-like infrastructure which increase their already much higher risk at intersections.

One can both recognize that being hit from behind is a small part of the risk, and also do things which try to minimize the risk of being hit from behind, such as adopt a lane position strategy which discourages bad passes. When that lane position strategy also increases ones visibility to turning and entering drivers at the recognized high risk locations which are intersections, that's a double win.

njkayaker

While being hit from behind is less likely, it's also more dangerous (statistically).

UniChris

Well, livedarklions was seemingly trying to draw some sort of distinction between between FRAP and VC lane positioning strategy (which I found weird, since they've elsewhere argued that FRAP doesn't preclude such a strategy)



It's that sort of FRAP that has to be something other than a VC lane position ("far right"?) that bbbean's observations appears to counter.

Of course it's possible that livedarklions is being misunderstood.

I think it's becoming something in state-authored guidance to cyclists more than you realize, and will continue to do so. For example here's the NJ bike manual - it's not quite the blanket permission of MA's statement, but it's still very specific practial guidance that goes well beyond just a technical exception to FRAP:

So there's another state literally using the words "take the lane". These are just two examples I personally know of; I'd expect there are already others among the other 48, and that their number will continue to grow.

njkayaker

Sure, he wasn't clear either. Presumably, livedarklions was treating VC as being in the middle of the lane. It's reasonable to point that issue out (bbbean wasn't doing that).

FRAP (generally) excludes that strategy (since one can typically ride more right than the middle of the lane). The law (overall) does not exclude that strategy (the law provides exceptions, like narrow lanes, to FRAP).

The quote wasn't from the law. I don't think any state's traffic laws use the phrase "take the lane". The quote is interpreting the law using a phrase ("take the lane") that is a "term of art" for cyclists (and not really anybody else).

UniChris

To weigh that fairly, we'd have to multiply the consequence times the probability.

With only something like 1 in 20 (from memory, feel free to suggest a different number) of crashes being fatal, it's likely one could make a reasonable argument that the net suffering of the total injuries in the more common non-fatal crashes exceeds that of the rare fatal ones.

Also only something like maybe 2/3 of fatal crashes are in between intersections (1/3 are at intersections). And not all in-between intersections are hits from behind; given that we've all seen salmon, some are presumably head-on.

I-Like-To-Bike

And of course in Forester's analysis the likely results of a rear end "crash" is not considered any more hazardous than a crash from a stumble on the sidewalk. All "crashes" are considered equally hazardous in VC land!

njkayaker

Correct. (That was my point.) The frequency is an incomplete measure of the risk.

You can't lump minor injuries with serious debilitating ones either.

And some are ninja cyclists riding at night with no lights and sometimes drunk too.

I-Like-To-Bike

Unless, like Forester and his disciples, a person ignores injury severity or fatalities as a more severe hazardous result than skinned knee "crashes"

I-Like-To-Bike

Exactly. Evaluating a hazardous condition requires considering frequency of the event, exposure to the hazardous condition, and severity of the results. Forester always ignored likwly severity and exposure frequency, and only counted total number of "crashes."

I-Like-To-Bike

In Forester/VC-speak "efficiency" is measured in least amount of time to cover the chosen route for a specific amount of effort, safety is measured in some sort of vaguely defined "crash rate." In Forester land "efficiency" trumps all other concerns, hence riding like a jackass regardless of environment as if it were some other environment and refusing to moderate speed or use caution is a valid test of relative cycling safety of a road treatment. Why claim a 1000% safer? Why not 5000% safer when the tester is fabricating an absurd value to place on his absurd "test"?

No, it is a claim for a humongous quantitative reduction in bicycling risk for people who become vehicular cyclists through formal training or through experience ,over any other group of cyclists based solely on alleged tests and analyses that in fact are made up of whole cloth and without ever identifying any group or even individuals who are vehicular cyclists, let alone their so-called safety record or even hinting at a competent risk analysis of cycling hazards.

Why settle for 80% when fabricating a risk reduction percentage, why not 99%?

UniChris

You're lying and you know it.

As you already well know if you've read what you've claimed to have, (nevermind the recap I just gave you) the comparison was between what was efficient and safe while using the ordinary road in an ordinary manner, and the degree of adaptation and inefficiency required to survive when the use of badly designed sidwalk-like "infrastructure" was required instead - in effect, reverting almost to pedestrian movement at every intersection.

The fact that you can't even have an honest conversation on the subject, but have to invent lies, is pretty telling. You start from a bias that the term "vehicular cycling" is evil, so the minute its reality is looking uncomfortably reasonable, rather than accept that reality, you have to invent a false characterization of it so that you still have something to argue against.

More lies. The comparison is not between those who self identify as "vehicular cyclists" and all others, it is between cyclists who are aware of the actual sources of danger and how to mitigate them (whatever they call that) vs the assortment of nonsense practices preferred by naive, ignorant users of bikes. The sidewalk riding at speed, the salmoning, the edge riding.

It's not the name that matters, its the practices which create safety.

And those are practically drastically more agreed upon than certain people are comfortable admitting... so you have to invent a false version of it that you can distance yourself from.

This whole conflict is over the proper nouns alone, not the practical guidance.

I-Like-To-Bike

Really? What safety record of what group of self identifying "vehicular cyclists" was ever identified by Forester (or any of his disciples) let alone compared with what safety record of what group identified as "naive ignorant users of bicycles."

I must say you have mastered the Forester technique and vocabulary for defending the true faith and faithful, and casting derision on the alleged bicyling riff-raff who practice "nonsense."

No, the whole conflct is over false claims of evidence of an alleged significant reduction in cycling risk occuring as the result of any group of cyclists adapting vehicular cycling techniques or guidance.

UniChris

That you keep repeating lies that were thoroughly debunked years ago comes down to one simple reality:

Name an actual "vehicular cycling" practice that you take issue with,explain the detail of your objection and what you personally do instead.

An actual one, not an imagined one where you start by lying about what vehicular cycling is or claims, so that you have something to distance yourself from... that would just be more childish immaturity of the sort this thread, and the many before it, have seen far too much of.

That's going to be a much simpler conversation. But at least it will be a productive one. We might actually talk about something useful, such as techniques for risk mitigation while cycling.

I-Like-To-Bike

There are no "vehicular cycling techniques" as described by John Forester and his ardent followers that have established a measured record of mitigating cycling risk (i.e.reduction in frequency and/or severity of cycling mishaps) for any group of cyclists.

UniChris

What a load of dishonest nonsense.

We both know the truth, which is that there's an uncanny overlap between what you yourself would chose to do when riding on a road (because really, it's the only sane choice when riding there) and "vehicular cycling".

But admitting that reality is too painful, so instead you must resort to lies so that you can distance yourself from it.

So again, the question you're afraid to answer: What's an actual difference between vehicular cycling technique, and your own practices?

Any actually honest answer to that might lead to a productive conversation.

livedarklions

There's nothing ever productive coming out of arguments with the unicycle guy. He has "the truth", states every " fact" as unquestionable no matter how subjective the statement, and then calls people liars when they question it. It's a completely dishonest debate technique and it's automatically ad hominem as it's immediately an attack on your motivation for disagreement--"you know you're a liar!". Every argument he gets into follows the same endless pattern, which appears designed to wear you down for the sole purpose of getting the last word.

The basic move of the " moderate " defenders of VC is to caricature FRAP as unyielding adherence to the right margin, and to pretend that VC doesn't, in its formulation, default to the center of the lane. It's a false dichotomy between situationally adaptive riding and a strawman FRAP. They just pretend that the radical irrational resistance to any segregation of bicycle traffic wasn't essential to the ideology or that it was somehow misunderstood. The remaining few VC fundamentalists do things as absurd as claiming that the majority of people riding in the US don't default to FRAP.

The one state in the country that doesn't have a FRAP rule is MA. I do a lot of riding all over the state and quite a bit of driving there. I admit my observations are anecdote, but I defy anyone to produce data that suggests that the vast majority of bicyclists in the state don't default to FRAP rather than the center of the traffic lane.

VC is dead, dead, dead. If people want it to get some credit for clarification of rules that allow cyclists to take the lane under some circumstances, who cares? Put it on the epitaph. Almost everyone has moved past the basic concept of dogmatic traffic lane integration at this point. Without that concept, the name VC doesn't even make sense.

I-Like-To-Bike

Defense of sacred beliefs brings out emotional responses from true believers.
The final words on the "scientific evidence" and validity of analyses proving the alleged risk reduction record of vehicular cycling promotion can be put succinctly:
Forester said it,
I believe it,
That settles it!

End of story.

UniChris

I've moved your declaration of biased viewpoint from the ending to the beginning.

When you start with the bias, you're then in pickle of what to do about the uncanny resemblance between vehicular cycling and the cycling practices you've argued for in your post history, those you've seen people doing, and what we all see as actually reasonable.

And all you end up doing is reinforcing my central point: the dispute is only about the the term "vehicular cycling", not the riding practices.

Example? People might have said that years ago, but my recent posts contain lots of explanation that "practicable" does not mean hiding at the right edge.

Except of course that you yourself keep using "FRAP" to seemingly mean "unwilling to be more left when one should be" - perhaps that's not how you meant it, but it was hard to see a contrast in your comparisons without reading it that way.

Perhaps we should just both stop saying "FRAP" and instead say exactly what we do mean we've seen riders doing.

FALSE. This is a classic example of making up a false description of VC to distance if from your own practices.

There are situations where a cyclist (not matter what they call themselves) needs to control the entire lane because it is too narrow to be passed in, or because they will be turning left, or similar and there are situations where they don't. Actual vehicular cycling theory is very, very clear on that.

Situationally adaptive riding is exactly how vehicular cycling does lane positioning!

Strawman is indeed the right word - for your own behavior.

You've constructed a false, strawman version of vehicular cycling to distance it from your own habits.

And that's the dishonesty that ends up choking up all of these threads - dug in opponents unwilling to be honest about what vehicular cycling is - and more importantly what it isn't - spend pages arguing against their strawman construction, and ignoring the years of posts which clearly and repeatedly explain that what they are arguing against is not actually vehicular cycling, but their own imagination.

I'll say the same thing I said to others yesterday: What's an actual vehicular cycling practice that's different from your own riding strategy, and why did you chose your way?

I'm here to talk about actual cycling practices - but that's a discussion which would have to start by being honest about the actual techniques, rather than habitually misstating them to invent differences in the very places where there's actually agreement.

Of course, given the high degree of actual agreement about how to ride, maybe there just aren't many actual differences to talk about ;-)