==================================
THE CHAINGUARD LIST IS NOT INTENDED AS A CHAT ROOM, FORUM OR BULLETIN BOARD FOR
BICYCLING CHIT-CHAT OR DISCUSSION OF BICYCLING EXPERIENCES.

The list was established for use by a what was assumed would be a relatively
small number of contributors for serious discussions of vehicular-bicycling
advocacy. The success of this list was never intended to be measured in terms of
number of members or number of postings.  There are many bicycle lists on the
net which have been created with a chat-room intent, and they serve a purpose.
If that is what you are seeking, please find one and use it.

DO NOT USE THE CHAINGUARD LIST AS A GENERAL CYCLING CHAT-ROOM OR FORUM.
THIS LIST IS FOR DISCUSSIONS OF VEHICULAR CYCLING ADVOCACY ONLY

There are many lists and forums on the net which welcome a chat-room styled
discussion of cycling anecdotes, and they serve a purpose for just that. Please
find one and use it.

The ONLY correct topic for posts to the Chainguard list is:

VEHICULAR CYCLING ADVOCACY ISSUES

That's ADVOCACY, with an emphasis on effective methods and ideas.
===================================

Chainguard is a forum for serious productive discussion and brainstorming by
vehicular cycling advocates of methods to best promote and protect vehicular
cycling.

The Chainguard list is for those who believe that bicyclists have the right,
should expect, and be prepared to demand, safe accommodation as vehicle
operators on EVERY road - the rights and concepts known as Vehicular Cycling.
The list is for those who have moved beyond debating vehicular-cycling rights as
compared to restricted lanes and separate pedestrian-bicycle facilities. If you
are using this list to debate the merits of Vehicular Cycling vs. "paint and
path" then you are on the wrong list and your posts will be deleted.


If you are an active vehicular cyclist or advocate, or someone wishing to learn
more about vehicular cycling and why we believe what we do, then stick around.

A final thought.  Like most any public gathering, this list has a wide range of
personalities and approaches to communication.  A select few have very little of
value to contribute, but insist on doing so with great generosity.  Their posts
are invariably negative in tone and often line-by-line, even word-by-word,
analyses of previous posts, seeking anything to challenge and often
reinterpreting the original author's meaning to accommodate their own always
self-righteous frequently fantasy-world viewpoints.   On most any topic they
will have thoughts to share and they must have the last word, so please- for all
our sakes give it to them immediately. They will never leave a response
unanswered and they communicate in a never-ending stream of disjointed chat-room
fragments. Do us all a favor and make an effort to ignore their posts just as
many of us have learned to do.  They are the yapping dogs of our online
neighborhood.

==================

Please use your real name when posting to the list, and not just a screen
name, email address or nickname. If you feel your views are so embarrassing to
yourself that you would rather remain "anonymouse" then you should post
elsewhere.

===========================
Why was my post rejected?

List activity is moderated using the following guidelines, however, exceptions
are based on individual note content and overall list activity.

All postings must be on topic and relevant to the discussion of vehicular
cycling advocacy. Postings which do not have direct bearing on the topic of
vehicular cycling advocacy will be deleted.

The list is not for discussion of cycling experiences unless somehow directly
related to ADVOCACY. This can include questions and discussion of proper VC
technique and principles which are to be advocated.

Continuing bickering between individuals will be deleted.  Do not impose your
ego on the other list subscribers. Summarize your viewpoint and take the rest to
personal email.

Posting activity is a maximum of three postings per day per subscriber.

Prolonged rants, flame-baiting, personal attacks, name calling, offensive
language, and any other pre-third-grade level communications will be deleted and
the member's subscription terminated.

Republishing copyrighted material, for example entire news articles, is
prohibited.  Use excerpts or links to copyrighted material.

=============================

Jack Taylor
Chainguard list Moderator

The 20K miles/year is about 160% of normal.  Especially given that it
was DC area, the 46mph overall average speed seems a touch high, if
correct low contact with cyclists could be explained by an aversion to
city streets. (the beltway can move quickly, but not during the
morning commute..)

On 4/24/06, Kenneth O'Brien <kob2@...> wrote:
>
>
> John W wrote:
>
> >  --- In chainguard@yahoogroups.com, Wayne Pein <wpein@...> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > An "incident" that requires evasive action is such a broad
> > definition as
> > > to be meaningless. For example, every motorist that changes
> > trajectory
> > > to overtake a bicyclist within the lane can be said to have taken
> > > evasive action.
> > >
> > > The essential issue is the time/space relationship between evading
> > > motorist and potentially struck bicyclist or other object. Did they
> > > define "evasive action" precisely or instead rely on the judgement
> > of
> > > the data coders?
> > >
> > Here is what they said on this point: "The distinction between near
> > crashes and incidents was based on the subjective assessment of
> > reviewers in concert with kinematic and proximity data
> > associated with adjacent vehicles or objects."  This of course says
> > nothing about distinguishing an incident from a non-incident.
> > However, given that there were only 16 bicycle events in 2,000,000
> > miles it seems likely that their definition of evasive manuever
> > required something more than normal slowing down or passing
> > movements. In addition, the study is very professional and the
> > equipment measuring the events were quite extensive including five
> > video cameras and a variety of motion and proximity sensors in
> > addition to having cross validation between reviewers (coders) so I
> > think it is likely all 16 incidents involved evasive action that were
> > more exteme than is usually necessary to avoid hitting a bicycle.
>
> Still no chance to read. I am still just commenting on my thoughts
> going into reading this - and thoughts that the discussion
> gives me:
>
> I suspect, at the present time, it would be hard to overestimate
> the effect of  false paradigm beliefs about roadway bicyclists when
> it comes to "subjective assessments" made by any group of people,
> professional or otherwise.
>
> Not quite sure if 16 "incidents" in 2e6 miles is about right or not,
> but it is my VERY strong suspicion, for now,  that they don't have
> the right 16 "incidents", even if that is the correct number of real
> "incidents".
>
> By the way, doesn't 20,000/miles a year average traveled by
> individuals make the study population distribution non-representative
> of drivers licensed portion of US population? I don't know, just asking.
>
> Also note: if the 16 "incidents" profile does not match studies of
> good statistics studies of bicyclist  injuries from collsions, that
> would demonstrate that the "subjective assessment" used
> was poor (though, of course, the low number of
> 16 gives a pretty wide latitude for possible statistical
> spread that is still a possible match to injury-from-collsion-with
> auto profile to a believable level of significance).
>
> By the way, if the profile of the 16 "incidents" _did_ ~match
> strong statistic on studies of collsion profiles - again, after
> recognizing that the low numbers allow a good spread, but if they
> did manage to look like larger statitics numbers - about 8 cases
> the bicyclist is breaking basic traffic rules, about 4 cases it is
> autodriver breaking basic rules, and about 4 cases unclear (though
> my observation of bicyclist behavior everywhere in the US makes
> me confident that, when viewed from within the VC paradigm, the
> best guess is that the majority of these last 25% are bicyclists doing
> something inadvisable.)
>
> If there are people out there involved in "distracting" activities
> (likely another "subjective assessment"  I think it would be good
> to be skeptical about), I would suggest a three prong attack:
>
> 1) encourage them to stop distracting themselves from their duties
>
> 2) keep the system of use simple and logical
>
> 3) encourage a high level adherence to the simple and logical
> system of use
>
> KOB
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> To change your delivery options, send a blank email to the corresponding
address shown below:
>   Subscribe:    chainguard-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
>   Unsubscribe:  chainguard-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>   Switch to Digest Mode: chainguard-digest@yahoogroups.com
>   Use Website Access/Hold Mode: chainguard-nomail@yahoogroups.com
>   Normal Mode: chainguard-normal@yahoogroups.com
> Mail the list manager(Jack Taylor): chainguard-owner@yahoogroups.com
>
> Chainguard site: http://probicycle.com
> To e-mail system:  http://yahoogroups.com/community/chainguard
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>


--
-dp-
Founder, The New England Rubbish Deconstruction Society; The NERDS
http://www.the-nerds.org/

This planet needs a lot more kids who think taking a lawnmower apart is more
fun than playing a videogame

bob.bayn@... wrote:

> Today's "Parade" insert in the newspaper contains an article
> "the Best News in Fitness" by Wayne Kalyn.  It includes a
> recommendation to squeeze aerobics into your workday schedule
> and has a picture of a bike rider on office garb (sans tie)
> riding in an urban business district.  Aside from the picky
> detail about helmet fit, It looks rather like he may be riding
> on the wrong side of the street.  What do you think?
>

  From the perspective of the photo it is impossible for me to make a
good judgement.

Wayne

On 4/22/06, John W <akohekohe@...> wrote:

> They followed 100 drivers in Virginia for one year, a total of
> approximately 2,000,000 miles and 43,000 hours of operation, using
> some sophisticated equipment to monitor driver behavior.

> The over-all conclusion of the study is that engaging in distracting
> behavior is a major cause of accidents (almost 80% of the crashes in
> the study occurred when the drivers were engaged in a distracting
> activity).

Is this a case of altering the results by observing them?  We usually
hear about speeding and DUI being the major cause of a substantial
number of crashes.  But if my car had sophisticated equipment to
monitor my behavior, I think I'd be real careful about speeding, and
100 people are probably too small a sample to get a lot of DUI
drivers.

John W wrote:

>  --- In chainguard@yahoogroups.com, Wayne Pein <wpein@...> wrote:
> >
> >
> > An "incident" that requires evasive action is such a broad
> definition as
> > to be meaningless. For example, every motorist that changes
> trajectory
> > to overtake a bicyclist within the lane can be said to have taken
> > evasive action.
> >
> > The essential issue is the time/space relationship between evading
> > motorist and potentially struck bicyclist or other object. Did they
> > define "evasive action" precisely or instead rely on the judgement
> of
> > the data coders?
> >
> Here is what they said on this point: "The distinction between near
> crashes and incidents was based on the subjective assessment of
> reviewers in concert with kinematic and proximity data
> associated with adjacent vehicles or objects."  This of course says
> nothing about distinguishing an incident from a non-incident.
> However, given that there were only 16 bicycle events in 2,000,000
> miles it seems likely that their definition of evasive manuever
> required something more than normal slowing down or passing
> movements. In addition, the study is very professional and the
> equipment measuring the events were quite extensive including five
> video cameras and a variety of motion and proximity sensors in
> addition to having cross validation between reviewers (coders) so I
> think it is likely all 16 incidents involved evasive action that were
> more exteme than is usually necessary to avoid hitting a bicycle.

Still no chance to read. I am still just commenting on my thoughts
going into reading this - and thoughts that the discussion
gives me:

I suspect, at the present time, it would be hard to overestimate
the effect of  false paradigm beliefs about roadway bicyclists when
it comes to "subjective assessments" made by any group of people,
professional or otherwise.

Not quite sure if 16 "incidents" in 2e6 miles is about right or not,
but it is my VERY strong suspicion, for now,  that they don't have
the right 16 "incidents", even if that is the correct number of real
"incidents".

By the way, doesn't 20,000/miles a year average traveled by
individuals make the study population distribution non-representative
of drivers licensed portion of US population? I don't know, just asking.

Also note: if the 16 "incidents" profile does not match studies of
good statistics studies of bicyclist  injuries from collsions, that
would demonstrate that the "subjective assessment" used
was poor (though, of course, the low number of
16 gives a pretty wide latitude for possible statistical
spread that is still a possible match to injury-from-collsion-with
auto profile to a believable level of significance).

By the way, if the profile of the 16 "incidents" _did_ ~match
strong statistic on studies of collsion profiles - again, after
recognizing that the low numbers allow a good spread, but if they
did manage to look like larger statitics numbers - about 8 cases
the bicyclist is breaking basic traffic rules, about 4 cases it is
autodriver breaking basic rules, and about 4 cases unclear (though
my observation of bicyclist behavior everywhere in the US makes
me confident that, when viewed from within the VC paradigm, the
best guess is that the majority of these last 25% are bicyclists doing
something inadvisable.)

If there are people out there involved in "distracting" activities
(likely another "subjective assessment"  I think it would be good
to be skeptical about), I would suggest a three prong attack:

1) encourage them to stop distracting themselves from their duties

2) keep the system of use simple and logical

3) encourage a high level adherence to the simple and logical
system of use

KOB

==================================
THE CHAINGUARD LIST IS NOT INTENDED AS A CHAT ROOM, FORUM OR BULLETIN BOARD FOR
BICYCLING CHIT-CHAT OR DISCUSSION OF BICYCLING EXPERIENCES.

The list was established for use by a what was assumed would be a relatively
small number of contributors for serious discussions of vehicular-bicycling
advocacy. The success of this list was never intended to be measured in terms of
number of members or number of postings.  There are many bicycle lists on the
net which have been created with a chat-room intent, and they serve a purpose.
If that is what you are seeking, please find one and use it.

DO NOT USE THE CHAINGUARD LIST AS A GENERAL CYCLING CHAT-ROOM OR FORUM.
THIS LIST IS FOR DISCUSSIONS OF VEHICULAR CYCLING ADVOCACY ONLY

There are many lists and forums on the net which welcome a chat-room styled
discussion of cycling anecdotes, and they serve a purpose for just that. Please
find one and use it.

The ONLY correct topic for posts to the Chainguard list is:

VEHICULAR CYCLING ADVOCACY ISSUES

That's ADVOCACY, with an emphasis on effective methods and ideas.
===================================

Chainguard is a forum for serious productive discussion and brainstorming by
vehicular cycling advocates of methods to best promote and protect vehicular
cycling.

The Chainguard list is for those who believe that bicyclists have the right,
should expect, and be prepared to demand, safe accommodation as vehicle
operators on EVERY road - the rights and concepts known as Vehicular Cycling.
The list is for those who have moved beyond debating vehicular-cycling rights as
compared to restricted lanes and separate pedestrian-bicycle facilities. If you
are using this list to debate the merits of Vehicular Cycling vs. "paint and
path" then you are on the wrong list and your posts will be deleted.


If you are an active vehicular cyclist or advocate, or someone wishing to learn
more about vehicular cycling and why we believe what we do, then stick around.

A final thought.  Like most any public gathering, this list has a wide range of
personalities and approaches to communication.  A select few have very little of
value to contribute, but insist on doing so with great generosity.  Their posts
are invariably negative in tone and often line-by-line, even word-by-word,
analyses of previous posts, seeking anything to challenge and often
reinterpreting the original author's meaning to accommodate their own always
self-righteous frequently fantasy-world viewpoints.   On most any topic they
will have thoughts to share and they must have the last word, so please- for all
our sakes give it to them immediately. They will never leave a response
unanswered and they communicate in a never-ending stream of disjointed chat-room
fragments. Do us all a favor and make an effort to ignore their posts just as
many of us have learned to do.  They are the yapping dogs of our online
neighborhood.

==================

Please use your real name when posting to the list, and not just a screen
name, email address or nickname. If you feel your views are so embarrassing to
yourself that you would rather remain "anonymouse" then you should post
elsewhere.

===========================
Why was my post rejected?

List activity is moderated using the following guidelines, however, exceptions
are based on individual note content and overall list activity.

All postings must be on topic and relevant to the discussion of vehicular
cycling advocacy. Postings which do not have direct bearing on the topic of
vehicular cycling advocacy will be deleted.

The list is not for discussion of cycling experiences unless somehow directly
related to ADVOCACY. This can include questions and discussion of proper VC
technique and principles which are to be advocated.

Continuing bickering between individuals will be deleted.  Do not impose your
ego on the other list subscribers. Summarize your viewpoint and take the rest to
personal email.

Posting activity is a maximum of three postings per day per subscriber.

Prolonged rants, flame-baiting, personal attacks, name calling, offensive
language, and any other pre-third-grade level communications will be deleted and
the member's subscription terminated.

Republishing copyrighted material, for example entire news articles, is
prohibited.  Use excerpts or links to copyrighted material.

=============================

Jack Taylor
Chainguard list Moderator

--- In chainguard@yahoogroups.com, Wayne Pein <wpein@...> wrote:
>
>
> An "incident" that requires evasive action is such a broad
definition as
> to be meaningless. For example, every motorist that changes
trajectory
> to overtake a bicyclist within the lane can be said to have taken
> evasive action.
>
> The essential issue is the time/space relationship between evading
> motorist and potentially struck bicyclist or other object. Did they
> define "evasive action" precisely or instead rely on the judgement
of
> the data coders?
>
Here is what they said on this point: "The distinction between near
crashes and incidents was based on the subjective assessment of
reviewers in concert with kinematic and proximity data
associated with adjacent vehicles or objects."  This of course says
nothing about distinguishing an incident from a non-incident.
However, given that there were only 16 bicycle events in 2,000,000
miles it seems likely that their definition of evasive manuever
required something more than normal slowing down or passing
movements. In addition, the study is very professional and the
equipment measuring the events were quite extensive including five
video cameras and a variety of motion and proximity sensors in
addition to having cross validation between reviewers (coders) so I
think it is likely all 16 incidents involved evasive action that were
more exteme than is usually necessary to avoid hitting a bicycle.

It is interesting to note that they should have all the data to be
able to answer the questions about bicycle behavior considering the
five video cameras (front, rear, both sides and driver's face).  This
information could presumably be used to analyze all encounters with
bicycles during the study, not just the "incidents", but that would
probably require looking through the entire 43,000 hours of data!

Anyway, I encourage people to read the study.  It is very
interesting.  The link did not come through on one line so you will
have to cut and paste it and edit out the carrige return before
pasting it into you browser.

With modern lightweight sensors and cameras it would perhaps be
possible to perform such a study with bicycles.  I think that could
give us some very useful data and could answer a lot of questions
about bicycle safety.  It seems that for most of our bicycle safety
analysis we must rely on very old data from questionable sources.  I
will see if the PI responds to my E-mail.  If he does I'll broach the
idea of doing a similair study of bicycles and see what he thinks.

Aloha, - John W.

On 4/23/06, CRKJLAW@... <CRKJLAW@...> wrote:

> In a message dated 4/23/2006 2:20:23 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
> mikethebowhunter@... writes:

> I ride a  three wheel bike. the bike lanes here are
> great except that when people  open the car doors across the bike lanes
> on busy streets and they do not  look what they are doing.

> That would be a good example of a poor designed bike lane. If the bike lane
> cannot be placed at least 4 feet to the left of parking spaces, it should be
> omitted.

The traffic engineer should omit it.  Since traffic enginneers (not
being cyclists) often fail to do so, the cyclist should ignore the
paint and ride at least a car-door width to the left of the parked
cars.

See CVC 21202 and 21208 for all the exceptions to the far right/bike
lane rules.  You may be surprised that there's almost always an
exception in effect.

I couldn't open most of the stuff for which you provided links.  Are
they videos?  I don't do on-line videos -- no high-speed connection.
What I did see suggested the spoof ads were routine SUV-bashing.  GM
targets its SUV marketing (so do the SUV importers, by the way) to user
groups that are not remotely interested in reducing their auto usage
(although they will be buying more fuel-economical vehicles in the
future) and which look at anti-motoring messages with derision.

As a strategem for reducing driving, "ad busting" is a waste of time.
Auto use is driven by the variety of transport work for which dedicated
distributed motorized transport modes (cars) are, in terms of users'
priorities (such as saving time), by far the most efficient mode.
Bicycle are more efficient in certain niche environments.

I would venture a guess that most of the people on this list are keen
on advancing cyclists' road rights but are not especially interested in
reducing auto use.

Declaring an interest: I own 2 SUVs and 3 other currently licensed
motor vehicles, the most fuel-effcient of which, a 3 cyl 1-liter Suzuki
auto, has a lifetime average of 62 mpg.

eFin


On Apr 21, 2006, at 10:55 AM, Erik wrote:

> Hello everyone,
>
> As bicyclists, we are continually confronted by the domination
> of cars in our public spaces.  So here's something for
> consideration and (possibly) fun....
>
> In case you haven't heard, the marketing boys at Chevrolet
> launched an advertising campaign for their bloated Tahoe SUV
> that featured an interactive web site.  Visitors were invited to
> create their own ads for the Tahoe using a selection of music
> and bizarre video segments provided by GM.  Prizes were offered
> for the best ad.
>
> Many people chose instead to create ads that lampoon SUVs,
> Chevy, and the car culture in general.  For example:
> http://tinyurl.com/q7may
>
> Chevy spun the incident by only censoring the most critical or
> offensive ads and then claiming that they were "encouraging
> dialogue" about their products.  So here's the question: Do
> spoof ads play into GM's hands by spreading images of their
> cars, or is "ad busting" actually an effective tactic for
> reducing driving?
>
> You can judge for yourself.  This site has a collection of some
> of the best ads:
> http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Chevy_Tahoe_2007_Ad
>
> Also, an Alaskan environmental group is taking votes for the
> best ad here: http://www.alaskaaction.net/tahoe  I thought entry
> #50 was excellent.
>
> Enjoy!
>
> Erik
>
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
>
>
>
>
>
> To change your delivery options, send a blank email to the
> corresponding address shown below:
>   Subscribe:    chainguard-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
>   Unsubscribe:  chainguard-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>   Switch to Digest Mode: chainguard-digest@yahoogroups.com
>   Use Website Access/Hold Mode: chainguard-nomail@yahoogroups.com
>   Normal Mode: chainguard-normal@yahoogroups.com
> Mail the list manager(Jack Taylor): chainguard-owner@yahoogroups.com
>
> Chainguard site: http://probicycle.com
> To e-mail system:  http://yahoogroups.com/community/chainguard
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>

Wayne Pein wrote:

>
> An "incident" that requires evasive action is such a broad definition as
> to be meaningless. For example, every motorist that changes trajectory
> to overtake a bicyclist within the lane can be said to have taken
> evasive action.
>

Yes. Similar to the use of  measured "conflict" in another
paper (Hunter Stewart et al, I believe?)
_________________________________________________
John W.:

>I would be very interested to hear the comments of people on this
>list regarding this study and its relationship to VC advocacy or just
>comments in general.

My initial thought, before getting a chance to read links provided
for this study - a comment about the perspective I will take into
my reading of the study:

Good traffic rule design and good conservative  roadway design
is a system built to allow drivers  to devote  attention where it is
needed when it is needed. The driver's basic duties must be consistent
with not creating fatigue or overload  is some ~6sigma member of the
driving public, over long periods of driving.

That is why facility design and rules must be logical, simple,
and consistent with basic human physiology. If we have  inattentive
drivers out there, throw in illogical facilities that discourage best
bicyclist behavior and assign unreasonable new duties to drivers -
look out.

KOB

michael malone wrote:

>  Thank you for letting me join the group. I ride all over
> Sacramento,Ca. I ride a three wheel bike. the bike lanes here are
> great except that when people open the car doors across the bike lanes
> on busy streets and they do not look what they are doing.

The correct way to turn this into an instant non-problem is to never
ride closer than an open car door from parked cars.

Do not fall prey to the common but misplaced fear of overtaking
traffic. If you look, yield  to traffic so close that moving into its line
would create a hazard, then merge to a new line - for any lateral
move, and for any lateral roadway position - you will be very safe.

Bikelanes are never great. They are miseducation about good
roadway bicycling painted into the infrastructure. They are
based on fuzzy, unsupported thinking - typically characterized by
the misperception that predictable roadway bicyclists have reason
to fear overtaking traffic.

I suggest

"Effective Cycling", 6th ed, 1993, John Forester, MIT Press, ISBN 0-262-06159-7

Thanks
Ken

In a message dated 4/23/2006 2:20:23 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
mikethebowhunter@... writes:

I ride a  three wheel bike. the bike lanes here are
great except that when people  open the car doors across the bike lanes
on busy streets and they do not  look what they are doing.




That would be a good example of a poor designed bike lane. If the bike lane
cannot be placed at least 4 feet to the left of parking spaces, it should be
omitted.

Chris Law


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Thank you for letting me join the group. I ride all over
Sacramento,Ca. I ride a three wheel bike. the bike lanes here are
great except that when people open the car doors across the bike lanes
on busy streets and they do not look what they are doing.

John W wrote:

> The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has just released
> a new report on inattentive driving to go with some earlier reports.
> See
> http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/departments/nrd-
> 13/newDriverDistraction.html
>
> They followed 100 drivers in Virginia for one year, a total of
> approximately 2,000,000 miles and 43,000 hours of operation, using
> some sophisticated equipment to monitor driver behavior.  They
> actually collected data on conflicts with pedacyclists (as we are
> known to the NHTSA).  They used three categories of conflicts -
> Crashes, near crashes and incidents.  Crashes were actual accidents,
> near crashes required rapid, severe evasion maneuver to avoid a
> crash, and an incident required evasive action but of lesser
> magnitude than a near crash. There were a zero crashes, zero near
> crashes and 16 incidents involving pedacyclists.
>
> The over-all conclusion of the study is that engaging in distracting
> behavior is a major cause of accidents (almost 80% of the crashes in
> the study occurred when the drivers were engaged in a distracting
> activity).  Although the study gives very limited information about
> conflicts with cyclists (they do not report on what the drivers were
> doing when they had the incidents with the pedacyclists) I am sure
> that the seperate facilities folks will use this study to support
> their cause.  I have e-mailed the PI on this study and asked if he
> had a breakdown on what the drivers were up to when these 16
> incidents occurred.
>
> I would be very interested to hear the comments of people on this
> list regarding this study and its relationship to VC advocacy or just
> comments in general.
>
> Aloha, - John


An "incident" that requires evasive action is such a broad definition as
to be meaningless. For example, every motorist that changes trajectory
to overtake a bicyclist within the lane can be said to have taken
evasive action.

The essential issue is the time/space relationship between evading
motorist and potentially struck bicyclist or other object. Did they
define "evasive action" precisely or instead rely on the judgement of
the data coders?

The study likely did not consider what the bicyclist was doing when
there was an "incident." Was the bicyclist riding the wrong way on a
sidewalk, for example? To what extent did the bicyclist contribute to
any "incident?" Also, what was the infrastructure at the location of the
"incident?" Perhaps many of the incidents involved bicyclists using bike
lanes!

Given that there are only 16 "incidents" with bicyclists, it would be
very easy to further analyze each one.

Wayne

Today's "Parade" insert in the newspaper contains an article
"the Best News in Fitness" by Wayne Kalyn.  It includes a
recommendation to squeeze aerobics into your workday schedule
and has a picture of a bike rider on office garb (sans tie)
riding in an urban business district.  Aside from the picky
detail about helmet fit, It looks rather like he may be riding
on the wrong side of the street.  What do you think?

--- In chainguard@yahoogroups.com, "John W" <akohekohe@...> wrote:
>
> Routledge is an academic publisher based in the UK but with a New
> York branch.  You can look at their website at
> http://www.routledge-ny.com/ and judge for yourself if he can get
> his dissertation published as a book.  By the way, there is a book
> currently on the front of the web page titled "Without Condoms"
> with a cover picture of two men on bicycles. The book is about
> homosexual men that refuse to use condoms.  Judging from the
> picture these people are real risk addicts since not only do they
> have unprotected a*** sex but they ride their bicycles without a
> helmet! I am truly shocked.

In hopes that a full-blown h***** war is not about to begin, I do
hope that your last two sentences were meant either to be 100%
sarcastic and/or to mean, instead of the verb "are," something along
the lines of "must be portrayed in the book as."

In addition, the men in the
book's cover picture apparently have their feet on the ground
straddling their bicycles, so they would not quite be "riding" their
bicycles at the particular moment of the photograph (although some
people might presume that they also ride the bicycles in the same
attire as that shown on them in the still photograph).

Mentioning the h***** word in an authoritative context during cycling
discussions can easily provoke drawn-out heated, emotional arguing
over the rationality by multiple sides, so it becomes necessary to
distinguish sarcasm from seriousness very clearly when it comes to
talking about h*****s in order to avoid such a "war" from occurring.

Andrew Smolik

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has just released
a new report on inattentive driving to go with some earlier reports.
See
http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/departments/nrd-
13/newDriverDistraction.html

They followed 100 drivers in Virginia for one year, a total of
approximately 2,000,000 miles and 43,000 hours of operation, using
some sophisticated equipment to monitor driver behavior.  They
actually collected data on conflicts with pedacyclists (as we are
known to the NHTSA).  They used three categories of conflicts -
Crashes, near crashes and incidents.  Crashes were actual accidents,
near crashes required rapid, severe evasion maneuver to avoid a
crash, and an incident required evasive action but of lesser
magnitude than a near crash. There were a zero crashes, zero near
crashes and 16 incidents involving pedacyclists.

The over-all conclusion of the study is that engaging in distracting
behavior is a major cause of accidents (almost 80% of the crashes in
the study occurred when the drivers were engaged in a distracting
activity).  Although the study gives very limited information about
conflicts with cyclists (they do not report on what the drivers were
doing when they had the incidents with the pedacyclists) I am sure
that the seperate facilities folks will use this study to support
their cause.  I have e-mailed the PI on this study and asked if he
had a breakdown on what the drivers were up to when these 16
incidents occurred.

I would be very interested to hear the comments of people on this
list regarding this study and its relationship to VC advocacy or just
comments in general.

Aloha, - John

--- In chainguard@yahoogroups.com, Erik <erikesse@...> wrote:
>
> Hello everyone,
>
> As bicyclists, we are continually confronted by the domination
> of cars in our public spaces.


Not really.  A critical mass is one bike.

Jeremy Parker

Hello everyone,

As bicyclists, we are continually confronted by the domination
of cars in our public spaces.  So here's something for
consideration and (possibly) fun....

In case you haven't heard, the marketing boys at Chevrolet
launched an advertising campaign for their bloated Tahoe SUV
that featured an interactive web site.  Visitors were invited to
create their own ads for the Tahoe using a selection of music
and bizarre video segments provided by GM.  Prizes were offered
for the best ad.

Many people chose instead to create ads that lampoon SUVs,
Chevy, and the car culture in general.  For example:
http://tinyurl.com/q7may

Chevy spun the incident by only censoring the most critical or
offensive ads and then claiming that they were "encouraging
dialogue" about their products.  So here's the question: Do
spoof ads play into GM's hands by spreading images of their
cars, or is "ad busting" actually an effective tactic for
reducing driving?

You can judge for yourself.  This site has a collection of some
of the best ads:
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Chevy_Tahoe_2007_Ad

Also, an Alaskan environmental group is taking votes for the
best ad here: http://www.alaskaaction.net/tahoe  I thought entry
#50 was excellent.

Enjoy!

Erik



__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

--- In chainguard@yahoogroups.com, John Andersen <jsa@...> wrote:
>

> Perhaps you should send him a letter demanding to include
> a rebuttal chapter in his dissertation, or at least have the
> address of his dissertation supervisor .
>
Dissertation chair: Jonathan Sterne - Now at McGill.
Website: http://sterneworks.org/

I was reading his blog around the time of the dissertation defense
and it contains this entry: "In a feat of determination, Zack
immediately shipped out the diss to Routledge to put it under review."

Routledge is an academic publisher based in the UK but with a New
York branch.  You can look at their website at http://www.routledge-
ny.com/ and judge for yourself if he can get his dissertation
published as a book.  By the way, there is a book currently on the
front of the web page titled "Without Condoms" with a cover picture
of two men on bicycles. The book is about homosexual men that refuse
to use condoms.  Judging from the picture these people are real risk
addicts since not only do they have unprotected a*** sex but they
ride their bicycles without a helmet!  I am truly shocked.

Aloha, - John W

John W wrote:

> Last night I was watching a DVD (Tartan Video disc TVD 3394) of the
> Ingmar Bergman film "Sommaren med Monika" (1953) which starts with a
> series of shots of the Stockholm water front that could have been
> from a tourist short and then, abruptly, cuts to our pratagonist,
> Harry (Lars Ekborg) riding a delivery tricycle (two wheels in front,
> one in the rear, with a front platform holding packages) through busy
> streets.  In these street scenes bicycles are behaving just like
> other vehicles, passing other vehicles, riding in all the various
> lanes depending upon their destination, etc.  Here is how a present
> day film critic, Philip Strick, describes this scene in the
> commentary included with the DVD: "The films opening mood is quickly
> eroded by traffic.  On his delivery bike, Harry is hemmed in by
> vehicles on crowded streets until, his vulnerability
> established, ..." Monika (Harriet Andersson) hits on him in a Cafe.
>
> If Bergman had intended to use a scene of riding a bicycle in 1953
> Stockholm to establish vulnerability to his Swedish audience he would
> have had to show it more directly by having Harry or another cyclist
> get hit.  What Bergman is actually showing in this scene is two fold,
> 1. He is establishing class by having Harry ride the delivery bicycle
> and 2. he is setting up the contrast between the working world and
> the dreamy watery world that constitutes "the summer with Monika"
> later in the film when Harry and Monika quit their jobs and set off
> for an idyllic summer of romance on an isolated sea coast.  The
> cyclist inferiority complex is so widespread that Strick completely
> misses the point of the scene.  While it is true that Harry proves
> vulnerable to the seductive ways of Monika, Harriet Andersson can
> hardly be equated with a bus (this film caused quite stir in 1953
> Sweden because of a scene showing Andersson's naked backside as she
> hopped accross the stones at the sea shore).
>
> So, how does this relate to VC advocacy? Well, this film clearly
> shows that no special infrastructure is necessary for bicyles to be
> an important part of the transportation mix for both people and goods
> and it shows how 50 years later that concept is incomprehensible to
> people even when they see the evidence on film right before their
> eyes!
>
> Aloha, - John
>
> Next installment: "I am Curious (Yellow)" where I examine how
> director Vilgot Sjöman establishes that Lena Nyman is a truely a
> liberated woman by showing her riding her bicycle in the road while
> her friends ride in the bike lane. This is the real reason that this
> film was siezed by US customs agents.  Full frontal male nudity was
> just a pretense!
>
>

John,

Thanks for the mini critique. I'll try and watch this sometime.

Check out the Drive Your Bike (1954) film at:
http://www.humantransport.org/bicycledriving/library/movies/movies.html

Wayne

>
> Here's a link to a PhD dissertation that largely
discusses critical
> mass. John Forester gets a lot of negative press.
>
>
http://etd.library.pitt.edu/ETD/available/etd-12052005-210916/
>
>
> Wayne
>
I would disagree with the assertion that Mr. Forester
gets a lot of negative press in the dissertation.  I
read a good portion of the dissertation, and he does
mention Mr. Forester near the begining, but mostly by
way of dismissing his views as not being relevant to
the work at hand - to which I would agree.  The paper
is not about how to drive a bicycle, or bicycle
safety, but rather it is about riding a bicycle as a
form of political speach.  Mr. Foresters long rants on
this, and other  forums, and his lobbying efforts,
make it clear that he has other avenues to express
himself, and I would guess that if asked, he would not
consider that the mere act of riding to work in the
morning (I assume here that Mr Forester is a bike
commuter)is viewed more as transportation than
statement.  This can be contrasted with a rider in
Critical Mass, to whom transportation is a secondary
or tertiary factor for his ride.

I have to say, that prior to reading the paper, I had
considered my commute to be a combination of exercise
and transportation, but now I wonder how much of it is
motivated by a desire to express a political opinion.


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

--- In chainguard@yahoogroups.com, J F Scott <jfscott@...> wrote:
>
> Not much of one, probably not even in another Rhet-Com department.
The
> key to this goofy dissertation is the department that granted it.
> Rhet-Com departments are the successors to the old Speech
departments,
> which were dumping grounds for all sorts of academic loose-change
types
> who no substantive department wanted but who were crowd-pleasing
> lecturers who drew big enrollments.  University administrators are
fond
> of big enrollments and at most schools take care to keep a few mick
> majors around for the party-timers and student who find the more
> demanding majors too difficult.  Schools with no mick majors at all
> (Reed, Cal Tech, Univ of Chicago undergrad program) have limited
> enrollments.
>
> The dissertation in question would never have been approved by the
> Sociology Department at UCD.
>
> eFin Professor Emeritus
>
And, you note, he only had one member of the Pittsburgh Rhet-Com
department on his dissertation committee, both the Chair and Co-chair
weren't even with the University of Pittsburgh and the other person
on his committee from the University of Pittsburgh is in
ethnomusicology.  I also note that there were no Full Professors on
the committee, only Associates. Talk about a collection of red flags!

- John W.

P.S. University of Chicago has no undergaraduate mick majors?  I wish
I had talked to you before going there! By the way I was considered
strange because I rode my bicycle from UC to the Loop where my girl
friend attended Roosevelt University (they didn't have the lakeshore
bicycle path in those days - I just rode on Martin Luther King
Blvd).

On Tuesday 18 April 2006 04:25 pm, John Forester wrote:
> I downloaded and saved this dissertation, read it on screen but did
> not print it out for easy reference.

Good on you John, no sense in wasting trees on this foolishness.

Perhaps you should send him a letter demanding to include
a rebuttal chapter in his dissertation, or at least have the
address of his dissertation supervisor .

--
_____________________________________
John Andersen

I downloaded and saved this dissertation, read it on screen but did
not print it out for easy reference. I have it on screen as I write
these remarks, but I am not aiming for a comprehensive review, which
would require printing out and taking notes.

Furness grew up in the American Midwest (Michigan, in part) with the
feeling that many motorists did not like him to be cycling. He also
seems to be naturally a counterculture person. The combination has
led him to conclude that cycling is largely a protest against the
present society, which protest he describes in this paper. This
belief of cycling as protest has misled him about the early cyclists.
He describes the cyclists agitating for better roads as protestors,
which they were not. They were not against any aspect of society;
they just wanted better roads, for which the technology had existed
for seventy years, but was little used once railroads had taken over
all but short-distance transport. I cannot say that he is misled
about vehicular cyclists, mentioning me and my books by name, because
he recognizes that since we are not opposed to motoring we are not
part of his counterculture protest. For which, I suppose, he despises
us. He describes the vehicular cycling view as "the rhetorical tropes
utilized by particular organizations or individuals convey meanings
about the function and 'nature' of the bicycle that are incapable of
addressing certain positions with which this dissertation is
concerned; namely the incorporation of bicycling as part of a
politicized and/or radical critique of technology, capitalism and
'car culture'."

Furness describes his intention as: "Rather, this project is a way
for me to map out the different political uses of cycling as they are
articulated with respect to technology, urban space, capitalism, and
Western culture."

Furness has a chapter on Critical Mass, which he praises for its lack
of organization, program, and spokesmen. This makes it purely a
demonstration of what the world should be like, while avoiding both
disciplinary action and negotiations about specific changes. Furness
has a chapter on journalistic and artistic productions by
counterculture cyclists, in which cycling is seen as both the
exemplar and the vehicle of protest. Furness has a chapter devoted to
building countercultural institutions that rebuild bicycles for poor
people, local and foreign, by teaching the required skills to local
poor people.

Furness's paper can be considered to be a description of the
bicycling aspect of countercultural life, except that it provides no
evaluation of its subject while praising that view of life as being
correct and valuable, and claiming rather more than is justified by
making the implication that only the counterculture considers certain
important social factors. Near the end he states: "Through these
outlets, cyclists not only bolster the claims made by previous
generations of political bicycling advocates, they have also
developed important discourses about bicycling within a context where
issues of race, class, gender and resistance are taken seriously."

I am sure that many readers in this group are aware of many
criticisms of my attribution of anti-motoring motives to certain
arguments that are presented here. Furness's descriptions of cycling
activism as he sees it all contain anti-motoring as one aspect of
their motivation. I do not bother to discuss the other aspects in
relation to bicycle transportation, for Furness's list of "race,
class, gender and resistance", and whatever else he includes, are
irrelevant. However, Furness clearly believes that I do not
sufficiently emphasize the anti-motoring content of the opposition to
vehicular cycling, because he states: "What Forester fails to realize
is that many cyclists are not only discontent with the idea of acting
like a driver, they are discontent with both the automobile and the
culture in which it symbiotically thrives." So you see, Furness has
concluded from his survey of the field that I have failed to
recognize the extent of anti-motoring emotions in cycling advocacy,
while so many of you have criticized me for what you consider to be
exaggerated attribution of anti-motoring emotions.

John Forester, MS, PE
Bicycle Transportation Engineer
7585 Church St.
Lemon Grove, CA 91945-2306
619-644-5481 www.johnforester.com

And now for something a little bit different.  A combination car-bike
rally, complete with hot rod (car) show.

http://www.roadmate2006.org/

On 4/18/06, bob.bayn@... <bob.bayn@...> wrote:

> So what kind of job can you get with a PhD
> in bicycle mythology from the Rhetoric and
> Communications Dept?

Executive Director of a Bicycle Coalition?

(That's either funny, or sad, or a cheap shot.  Or all three.)

Not much of one, probably not even in another Rhet-Com department.  The
key to this goofy dissertation is the department that granted it.
Rhet-Com departments are the successors to the old Speech departments,
which were dumping grounds for all sorts of academic loose-change types
who no substantive department wanted but who were crowd-pleasing
lecturers who drew big enrollments.  University administrators are fond
of big enrollments and at most schools take care to keep a few mick
majors around for the party-timers and student who find the more
demanding majors too difficult.  Schools with no mick majors at all
(Reed, Cal Tech, Univ of Chicago undergrad program) have limited
enrollments.

The dissertation in question would never have been approved by the
Sociology Department at UCD.

eFin Professor Emeritus



On Apr 18, 2006, at 10:16 AM, bob.bayn@... wrote:

>
>
> So what kind of job can you get with a PhD
> in bicycle mythology from the Rhetoric and
> Communications Dept?
>
>
>
>
> Peter Rosenfeld <jprosenfeld@...> wrote:
>> Basically, the thesis is arguing that there are other
>> issues than transportation in the bike culture. I
>> didn't quite follow his ideas about facilities. I got
>> the impression that a penned out space in an urban
>> area where people could interact on bikes would
>> satifsy the non-transportational needs of bike
>> culturists.
>
>> I'm really surprised you can get a PhD with this sort
>> of thesis.
>
>> --- John W <akohekohe@...> wrote:
>
>>> --- In chainguard@yahoogroups.com, Wayne Pein
>>> <wpein@...> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Here's a link to a PhD dissertation that largely
>>> discusses critical
>>>> mass. John Forester gets a lot of negative press.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>> http://etd.library.pitt.edu/ETD/available/etd-12052005-210916/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Wayne
>>>>
>>> Wayne, thanks for the laugh!  Here is one of many
>>> quotes from the
>>> dissertation that will have you all on the floor
>>> laughing:
>>>
>>> "Forester's notion that cyclists "fare best" when
>>> they act like
>>> drivers is the same rhetorical trope that was
>>> advocated by people in
>>> the 1960s who believed that African-Americans would
>>> "fare best" if
>>> they acted like white people. Or similarly, gay
>>> people "fare best"
>>> when they conduct themselves like straight people."
>>> - Page 23.
>>>
>
>
>> __________________________________________________
>> Do You Yahoo!?
>> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
>> http://mail.yahoo.com
>
>
>
>
>> To change your delivery options, send a blank email to the
>> corresponding address shown below:
>>  Subscribe:    chainguard-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
>>  Unsubscribe:  chainguard-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>>  Switch to Digest Mode: chainguard-digest@yahoogroups.com
>>  Use Website Access/Hold Mode: chainguard-nomail@yahoogroups.com
>>  Normal Mode: chainguard-normal@yahoogroups.com
>> Mail the list manager(Jack Taylor): chainguard-owner@yahoogroups.com
>
>> Chainguard site: http://probicycle.com
>> To e-mail system:  http://yahoogroups.com/community/chainguard
>
>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> To change your delivery options, send a blank email to the
> corresponding address shown below:
>   Subscribe:    chainguard-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
>   Unsubscribe:  chainguard-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>   Switch to Digest Mode: chainguard-digest@yahoogroups.com
>   Use Website Access/Hold Mode: chainguard-nomail@yahoogroups.com
>   Normal Mode: chainguard-normal@yahoogroups.com
> Mail the list manager(Jack Taylor): chainguard-owner@yahoogroups.com
>
> Chainguard site: http://probicycle.com
> To e-mail system:  http://yahoogroups.com/community/chainguard
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>

So what kind of job can you get with a PhD
in bicycle mythology from the Rhetoric and
Communications Dept?




Peter Rosenfeld <jprosenfeld@...> wrote:
>Basically, the thesis is arguing that there are other
>issues than transportation in the bike culture. I
>didn't quite follow his ideas about facilities. I got
>the impression that a penned out space in an urban
>area where people could interact on bikes would
>satifsy the non-transportational needs of bike
>culturists.

>I'm really surprised you can get a PhD with this sort
>of thesis.

>--- John W <akohekohe@...> wrote:

>> --- In chainguard@yahoogroups.com, Wayne Pein
>> <wpein@...> wrote:
>> >
>> > Here's a link to a PhD dissertation that largely
>> discusses critical
>> > mass. John Forester gets a lot of negative press.
>> >
>> >
>>
>http://etd.library.pitt.edu/ETD/available/etd-12052005-210916/
>> >
>> >
>> > Wayne
>> >
>> Wayne, thanks for the laugh!  Here is one of many
>> quotes from the
>> dissertation that will have you all on the floor
>> laughing:
>>
>> "Forester's notion that cyclists "fare best" when
>> they act like
>> drivers is the same rhetorical trope that was
>> advocated by people in
>> the 1960s who believed that African-Americans would
>> "fare best" if
>> they acted like white people. Or similarly, gay
>> people "fare best"
>> when they conduct themselves like straight people."
>> - Page 23.
>>


>__________________________________________________
>Do You Yahoo!?
>Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
>http://mail.yahoo.com




>To change your delivery options, send a blank email to the corresponding
address shown below:
>  Subscribe:    chainguard-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
>  Unsubscribe:  chainguard-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>  Switch to Digest Mode: chainguard-digest@yahoogroups.com
>  Use Website Access/Hold Mode: chainguard-nomail@yahoogroups.com
>  Normal Mode: chainguard-normal@yahoogroups.com
>Mail the list manager(Jack Taylor): chainguard-owner@yahoogroups.com

>Chainguard site: http://probicycle.com
>To e-mail system:  http://yahoogroups.com/community/chainguard

>Yahoo! Groups Links

Basically, the thesis is arguing that there are other
issues than transportation in the bike culture. I
didn't quite follow his ideas about facilities. I got
the impression that a penned out space in an urban
area where people could interact on bikes would
satifsy the non-transportational needs of bike
culturists.

I'm really surprised you can get a PhD with this sort
of thesis.

--- John W <akohekohe@...> wrote:

> --- In chainguard@yahoogroups.com, Wayne Pein
> <wpein@...> wrote:
> >
> > Here's a link to a PhD dissertation that largely
> discusses critical
> > mass. John Forester gets a lot of negative press.
> >
> >
>
http://etd.library.pitt.edu/ETD/available/etd-12052005-210916/
> >
> >
> > Wayne
> >
> Wayne, thanks for the laugh!  Here is one of many
> quotes from the
> dissertation that will have you all on the floor
> laughing:
>
> "Forester's notion that cyclists "fare best" when
> they act like
> drivers is the same rhetorical trope that was
> advocated by people in
> the 1960s who believed that African-Americans would
> "fare best" if
> they acted like white people. Or similarly, gay
> people "fare best"
> when they conduct themselves like straight people."
> - Page 23.
>


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com