John Forrester cycle safety guru

[mike1026]

I came across this; article john forrester as a result of a comment on TV. 'What do you call cyclists in America?' answer 'Organ Donors'. (Gavin Eslar Newsnight Mon 17th February 2009). I wondered if cycling in America was more dangerous than in Europe, the answer according to statistics (see this) appears to be that it is.
John Forrester see biographyan expert on cycle safety advocates the idea that provided you cycle as a driver of a vehicle you will be much safer on busy roads than on dedicated cycle lanes or paths!
My own experience is that it is more dangerous to cycle in the same lane as heavy (or even light) motorised traffic and it is certainly more unpleasant than on a dedicated cycle lane.
I would be interested in other peoples views and if anyone has more knowledge of John Forrester and his philosophy.

 

[wafflycat]

John Forrester, author of Cyclecraft, the book which goes hand-in-hand with the National Cycle Training Standards, does indeed know what he is talking about. And a more pleasant, unassuming chap you could not meet. He talks about cycling safely and assertively (not aggressively, there is a difference) in a way which helps you maximise your safety and minimise your risk. If you are having problems cycling on road even in light traffic, I suggest you get yourself some up-to-date cycle training as it will enable you to acquire the skills you need to cycle safely and assertively with confidence on roads

http://www.ctc.org.uk/DesktopDefault.aspx?TabID=4135

It works.

 

[MarkHR]

John FORESTER - Effective Cycling - http://www.johnforester.com/ - ISBN-10 0262560704 - ISBN-13 9780262560702

John FRANKLIN - Cyclecraft - http://www.cyclecraft.co.uk/ - ISBN-10: 0117037400 - ISBN-13: 978-0117037403

 

[mickle]

[QUOTE/MarkHR's sig] Blah blah blah blah wear a helmet blah blah blah blah

No.

 

[dellzeqq]

I've met Franklin and he's modest, quietly spoken and authoritative. The book goes on a bit, but, to be honest, if you've been cycling on city streets as long as I have and watched others, you'll probably be doing it his way.

I'd credit him with making the first position the accepted way to ride. And that's no small thing.

 

[Origamist]

I've heard John Forester speak and he is knowledgeable, argumentative, and incredibly dismissive when it comes to the views of others. He still posts on the Yahoo group: Chainguard.

Franklin is much more affable in the flesh, but it's worth remembering that much of Cyclecraft owes a considerable debt to Forester's "Effective Cycling".

A less pedagogical take on cycling guidance is Hurst's "The Art of Urban Cycling".

 

[wafflycat]

Yup. my error on the Johns... Both Johns, both have surnames beginning with 'F'... oops

However, the rest holds true - if the OP is having difficulty cycling in even light traffic, then he needs to get some training to get the skills and assertiveness to be doing it safely & with confidence.

And both Johns are correct in that you are safer cycling on road and not on cycle farcilities.

 

[tdr1nka]

It is worth noting as well that the 'organ donor' name is used, rather bleakly, by non cyclists who, in general have no idea of safe cycling can actually be and nothing positive to say on the subject.

 

[MartinC]

My own experience is that it is more dangerous to cycle in the same lane as heavy (or even light) motorised traffic.....than on a dedicated cycle lane.

Is your experience of more danger (i.e more incidents/accidents) or are you saying that your perception is that it's more dangerous?

My experience is different. I've had some unpleasant experiences on cycle tracks and the only time I've had a bike written off in accident was on a cycle track. My perception is that some cycle tracks are too dangerous to ride on.

 

[srw]

And both Johns are correct in that you are safer cycling on road and not on cycle farcilities.

Not this knee-jerk response again. It's a little more complex than that.

You are safer cycling in safe places to cycle. Roads are often more consistently safe, because cycle facilities (I think your finger slipped) are often badly designed. The safest place to cycle of all is on a facility completely isolated from traffic. But that's not particularly useful if it doesn't go where you want to go. The best way of getting roads safer is to encourage more people to cycle on them. The danger of cycling on roads is often overstated.

 

[mike1026]

Thanks for your responses I found the information very helpful.
Can anyone point me in the direction of the uk statistics that say normal roads are safer for cyclists than dedicated cycle lanes/paths?
Does anyone know of any studies on the effects of breathing internal combustion exhaust fumes (diesel petrol or both) while exercising heavily?

Quote from John Forrester
EFFECTIVE CYCLING INSTRUCTOR'S MANUAL

"Effective Cycling does not take explicit steps to prevent a lawful cyclist who is proceeding straight ahead from being hit from behind. It doesn't do so because the steps that might be taken are worse than the minute hazard (in day-light) of being hit from behind. Probably the best answer is a combination one: we don't take students
out in heavy traffic until we are sure that they will not swerve about, we require that they ride far enough right (left in the UK) to let motorists overtake easily,................"
Any ideas why he does not consider the danger of being struck or forced off the road when a motor vehicle passes too close and too fast?
I have been cycling for 48 years and to those who think I would benefit from cycle training I would say that they are probably right.

 

[MarkHR]

Thanks for your responses I found the information very helpful.
Can anyone point me in the direction of the uk statistics that say normal roads are safer for cyclists than dedicated cycle lanes/paths?
Does anyone know of any studies on the effects of breathing internal combustion exhaust fumes (diesel petrol or both) while exercising heavily?

Quote from John Forrester
EFFECTIVE CYCLING INSTRUCTOR'S MANUAL

"Effective Cycling does not take explicit steps to prevent a lawful cyclist who is proceeding straight ahead from being hit from behind. It doesn't do so because the steps that might be taken are worse than the minute hazard (in day-light) of being hit from behind. Probably the best answer is a combination one: we don't take students
out in heavy traffic until we are sure that they will not swerve about, we require that they ride far enough right (left in the UK) to let motorists overtake easily,................"
Any ideas why he does not consider the danger of being struck or forced off the road when a motor vehicle passes too close and too fast?
I have been cycling for 48 years and to those who think I would benefit from cycle training I would say that they are probably right.

Safety - No idea

Fumes - apparently sitting in a vehicle is the worst because of the funnelling effect of the vehicle's ventilation and traffic lanes. Can't provide a ref.

Forester - why don't you ask him?

 

[byegad]

The Statistical evidence on road safety is a mess.
For a start the Human traffic counters you sometimes see at busy junctions and on main roads as a general policy do not count cyclists as 'traffic'. The automated pneumatic ones may not even register a light cyclist on wide tyres!
Thus when accident rates are calculated (either per mile or per hour) an estimate is used for cycling time or miles covered.
Then many cyclists are children, as most of them ride only near their homes and fall off while doing things most adult cyclists don't attempt, their accidents can skew the figures to show riding in urban areas is more dangerous than it is for an adult cyclist.
As cycling figures are deemed less important (the numbers are small compared to other road deaths) than vehicle and pedestrian figures no one seems to be too worried about analysing what data is available to come up with the kind of answers I'd be interested in reading.

I'd like to know how many adult cyclists are involved in an rta, how many fall off and sustain serious injury (or worse) with no traffic interaction, how many are killed while time trailling or practicing for the same (I suspect this figure on its own could seriously dent TT numbers). As well as what kind of road produces what kind of collision.

Others will want more details on other cycling situations.

Unfortunately there is no appetite to produce detailed figures in the government departments involved. I do know some hospitals collect data but as the collection is done at the point of treatement it is suspect. A couple of years ago I managed to hit myself in the forehead with a pedal (it's a long story) and while glueing the scalp wound back together the hospital recorded it as a cycle accident. As the pedal was in my shed at the time and not connected to a bike it was certainly NOT a cycling accident. I suspect that if I'd dropped an engine block on my toe it would not have been recorded as a motor accident!

 

[dellzeqq]

A couple of years ago I managed to hit myself in the forehead with a pedal (it's a long story)

long, short, or somewhere inbetween, you're going to have to tell us all about it...

 

[byegad]

Well I was tidying the shed out and had a number of pairs of pedals hung on a bracket with each pair tied together with string. I pulled one pair off the bracket and another came with it, then the string snagged ,then broke, and the left pedal of pair two (a bear trap with aggressive teeth) snapped back at speed and hit me just above my nose.

Lots of blood, I couldn't see for blood in both eyes, and a visit to the local A&E where they super glued the split together.