tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8492685525705691186.post6400898647875819982..comments2024-03-28T11:56:48.304-04:00Comments on The Retrogrouch: Forester's Effective CyclingBrookshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12110998345857993287noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8492685525705691186.post-51361297612267541502014-01-28T08:40:33.654-05:002014-01-28T08:40:33.654-05:00I'm really glad you mentioned John Allen's...I'm really glad you mentioned John Allen's Street Smarts -- for just the traffic portions, it would be worthwhile, and much more concise. Your point about the narrow highway is well taken. Thanks for including the cycling savvy link, too.Brookshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12110998345857993287noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8492685525705691186.post-37217770314562397822014-01-27T19:09:20.135-05:002014-01-27T19:09:20.135-05:00I agree that _Effective Cycling_ is well worth rea...I agree that _Effective Cycling_ is well worth reading. It is one of the most influential books ever written on cycling, largely because of Forester's logical analysis of traffic laws and how cyclists best fit into the traffic mix. I do think the book is a bit much for a beginner, though. Beginning cyclists might wish to start with the very brief _Street Smarts_ by John Allen (available online or as a free booklet distributed by several states DOTs). John Franklin's _Cyclecraft_ is briefer than EC, better illustrated, and concentrates more on traffic techniques. But Forester's book was groundbreaking, and anyone serious about cycling should read at least the traffic cycling portions.<br /><br />Forester's writing style is often militant. He does have a low capacity for putting up with foolishness. In person, I've found him to be intelligent and gentlemanly.<br /><br />Regarding your narrow 55 mph highway: Perhaps a bike lane might make you feel more comfortable, but I submit that the real benefit would arise from the additional width of asphalt, not from the fact that it had a stripe. I think it's important to make that distinction. In my experience, the difference between a (say) 15' wide lane, vs. a 10' wide lane plus a 5' bike lane, is that the bike lane will have gravel and other road debris in the four rightmost feet! Completely excluding cars removes their "sweeping" action. Personally, I want cars excluded from my path only when I'm actually in it.<br /><br />This is not to say I'm against all bike infrastructure. I'm particularly fond of "shortcut" paths that give cyclists access where cars aren't wanted, e.g. from residential neighborhoods to adjacent parks, schools and shopping areas. But I find most bike facilities to be less useful than an equivalent width of ordinary road, which (I believe) should be the real test.<br /><br />I would love to see at least minimal cycling education in the schools. Where phys ed still exists, cycling should be the first thing taught, long before dodge ball, jumping jacks or anything else. And I heartily agree on your comments regarding drivers' education. I'd love to see nationwide campaigns to inform motorists and law enforcers that cyclists _do_ have full rights to the road. If that fact were as well known as it is in Europe, riding would be much better.<br /><br />Finally, this new, small organization is doing the best cyclist education out there:<br />http://cyclingsavvy.org/ Most cyclists don't realize they have anything to learn. But taking Cycling Savvy course - or reading Effective Cycling or Cyclecraft - will do more for your cycling enjoyment than any piece of equipment you could ever buy!Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00391408746033055791noreply@blogger.com