🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <DI21EG.3rx@freenet.carleton.ca>, ab833@FreeNet.Carleton.CA
(Avery Burdett) writes:
>
>
> Roy Smyth (roy_smyth@mindlink.bc.ca) writes:
>
> > (snip)
> > I'm at a loss for how to change it. Only a hand full of people in this
> > city seem seriously interested in cycling advocacy and even fewer in
> > cycling education. There's no shortage of ultra-orthodox Foresterians
> to
> > rant, strut and argue in the news group, but when it comes to creating
> > change, there seem to be few willing to do some work.
> >
> > If we want change, it takes joining with other advocates, raising
> money,
> > writing letters, attending council meetings, and organizing events and
> > educational programs.
> >
> > That means turning off your computer and getting together with real
> > people. If more of us started doing that, this news group could become
> a
> > forum to exchange news and ideas for change, to plot strategy and to
> > inform everyone of upcoming events.
>
> If this is a call to others to work together with you, you could
> hardly have chosen your words any worse. You say you want to
> promote cycling education and then you launch personal attacks on
> those who have bothered to study bicycle transportation engineering
> and practice the vehicular-style of cycling. The latter style being
> the basis of "CAN-BIKE" courses, the very education which you are
> promoting. The problem with the majority of (self-styled) cycling
> advocates is that they haven't bothered to study traffic
> engineering and don't understand the fundamental principles upon
> which our traffic systems are designed, and thus can't possibly
> know how to effectively and safely integrate cycling into these
> systems. They call for "safer bike facilities" (usually bike
> lanes), without having produced or even looked for evidence to show
> that such facilities are justified or appropriate. It is the same
> absence of science which allowed many of them to support helmet
> legislation or remain silent when it was proposed. No wonder they are so
> easily undermined by bureaucrats and politicians - they have no
> credibility.
>
>
> --
> Avery Burdett
> Ottawa, Ontario



    After I read your response I re-read Roy's posting, as I was surprised
at your reaction to it. It appears to me that Roy is attacking dogmatic
adherence to Forester's ideas rather than Forester's ideas. And while I in
general support Forester's positions, he is not Gospel! And it appears to
me that, on occasion, he is not above selectively presenting statistics
that support his cause. For example, he is fond of quoting the statistic
that 2.6 times as many cycling accidents requiring at least a visit to a
hospital occur on bicycle paths as do on roadways shared with cars. I've
seen that statistic quoted many, many times, and have on occasion quoted it
myself. However, another interesting statistic that I've also seen quoted,
both in North America and in England, is that between 91% and 96% of
cyclist _fatalities_ occur in car-bike collisions. But you will look in
vain to find that particular statistic anywhere in Forester's book on
Effective Cycling, although I think that it is sufficiently interesting
that it should be included in any extensive discussion on cycling
accidents.

    On the subject of bicycle lanes, Forester is clearly opposed to them,
and makes convincing arguments that they increase the incidence of car-bike
collisions. But some of the latest reports that I have seen--most recently
at a seminar given by Alex Sorton, a well-known bicycle facilities designer
at Northwestern University--indicate that the evidence is quite
ambiguous--that some types of accidents are more frequent, and others less
frequent, than on streets with wide curb lanes. A lot depends on the design
of the bike lane, particularly at intersections.

    I mention these two points only to show that there is room for
discussion on these issues, and that Forester's views should not be taken
as sacrosanct. But beyond that, slavish adherence to _any_ doctrine is
unattractive to most people. Some posters to this NG have evinced an
unfortunate tendency to assume that anyone who questions any aspect of
Effective Cycling cannot be a competent traffic cyclist, and that the first
thing he/she should do is take a CAN-BIKE course. I have watched with
amusement as this happened first to Michel Desrochers, and then to Roy
Smyth, both of whom I know from personal experience are in fact very
competent traffic cyclists. But I also think that this kind of reaction has
the unpleasant side effect of discouraging anyone who is not a completely
committed integrationist, with years and years of vehicular-style cycling
to their credit, from posting anything to this NG.
    As far as mandatory helmet legislation goes, isn't Forester in favour
of it?

    I agree with Roy that if cycling advocacy is going to achieve anything
in this fair province, we need to attract people who are willing and able
to do some actual work to make it happen.
Helen Warn