RobertH wrote:
> Frank Krygowski <[email protected]> wrote in part:
>
>
>>I agree with Steven on this one. Robert looks on EC as dogma which the
>>followers may never violate, but it's not presented that way and it's
>>not used that way.
>
>
> <snip>
>
>>... But Forester's done literally groundbreaking work,
>>and it's paid off. If you ride by his principles, you'll find they work.
>
>
> You had me right up until the end there.
If you object only to the end, we're making progress. In particular, if
you understand you're wrong in viewing EC techniques as
never-to-be-violated dogma, then your views are getting more accurate.
>
> It's true that Forester has greatly helped and
> elevated cyclists and we owe him a debt of
> gratitude.
Yes.
But his principles, as principles, ultimately
> fail, as evidenced by the fact that even the most
> basic of them must be qualified to pieces, and
> by the fact that nobody actually follows these
> principles consistently.
Here, you're regressing.
First, can you name _any_ practical advice that doesn't need
qualification? Anything from "Look both ways before crossing the
street" to "Thou Shalt Not Kill" deserves _some_ qualification (and "to
pieces" is an unquantified judgement on your part).
Second, you're simply mistaken when you say nobody actually follows
those principles consistently. There are many, many of us who do so,
and very successfully.
If he had said "Most of
> the time, cyclists fare best when they act and are treated
> as drivers of vehicles," nobody could argue with that.
> But that's not what he said.
I think you're misunderstanding the meaning, and purpose, of his
statement. And I suppose the same is true for many other statements.
People profit from having clear statements of principles. Such
statements need to be concise to be memorable - that is, to be useful as
reminders. Furthermore, as previously mentioned, when Forester coined
the sentence "Cyclists fare best when they act and are treated
> as drivers of vehicles," momentum was gathering to force cyclists off
the roads onto parallel bike paths. The statement is useful to remind
people that such schemes won't work - and to remind cyclists how to
handle almost all situations on the road.
Exceptions? Sure, they exist, just as they exist for "Thou Shalt Not
Kill." But if one were to start listing all conceivable exceptions,
they'd lose most of the benefit of a concise statement of principle.
And you wouldn't gain any significant benefit, because OF COURSE people
understand there will always be unusual exceptions. Or at least, _most_
people will understand this.
> The worst thing about EC is not the system itself but
> the sneering, holier-than-thou disciples who are
> incapable of admitting their mistakes.
Hmmm. It sounds as if you can't admit that there can be different
judgement about a particular traffic situation. A neutral observer
might wonder about _your_ attitude, as evidenced by that last sentence!
Whatever you might think, it's safe to say that the principles of
Effective Cycling have changed the American approach to bicycle
training, and much for the better. They've helped preserve our rights
to the road, and they've taught hundreds of thousands of cyclists how to
ride safely and confidently wherever they desired to ride.
So far, the "RobertH" school of bike advice hasn't accomplished nearly
as much. You're not even convincing the few people reading this! It
may be that you need to re-write your first edition manuscript before
you submit it to MIT Press.
--
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com.
Substitute cc dot ysu dot
edu]
