Sidewalk bicycling

[Helmet Head]

Where sidewalks become dangerous is at intersections.
Sidewalks intersections include every intersection with every driveway, not just the major intersections. And these intersections are more dangerous for cyclists on sidewalks than cyclists on the roadway, unless the sidewalk cyclist is traveling at pedestrian speeds, because motorists going in and out of driveways expect pedestrians traveling at pedestrian speeds, not cyclists traveling at bike speeds.

Passenger side doors (opening) are also a serious danger.

[kb0tnv]

Thought this would be best added to this thread

http://www.boston.com/news/odd/articles/2005/08/02/ohio_cyclist_ticketed_after_falling/

Ohio Cyclist Ticketed After Falling
August 02, 2005 6:49 PM EDT

TOLEDO, Ohio - A northwest Ohio man's fall off his bicycle left him with a bruised leg, a big hospital bill and a ticket from police. Police fined Melvin Surprise III, of Toledo, because he was riding his bike on a sidewalk when he was struck by a pickup truck pulling out of a parking lot.

City law says anyone 15 and older can't ride a bike on the sidewalk. Violators face a $93 fine.

Surprise, 22, pleaded innocent to the charge in Toledo Municipal Court on Monday. He plans to fight the citation, saying the law discriminates against adult cyclists.

He was riding his bicycle on a sidewalk along a heavily traveled street on July 22 when he was hit.

The driver, Michael Garvin, 17, was not cited. Police said a trailer park and large vehicle parked nearby created a blind spot. "I never even saw him," Garvin said. "The bike literally appeared out of nowhere."

Lt. Kevin Keel, who heads the police traffic bureau, said a citation should be filed when one person's negligent action causes an accident. "If the officer can determine fault, we strongly suggest they file charges," he said.

To add to the injury, Surprise was taken to Toledo Hospital as a precaution and billed $800 because he is unemployed and does not have medical insurance.

---

Information from: The Blade, http://www.toledoblade.com/

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff - North County (Ferguson / Florissant)

"Work to eat. Eat to live. Live to bike. Bike to work" (North County Bike Commuter)
__o
_`\<,_
(_)/ (_)

Share the Road! (Same Rules, Same Rights, Same Road)

The bicycle is the most civilized conveyance known to man. Other forms of transport grow daily more nightmarish. Only the bicycle remains pure in heart. ~Iris Murdoch, The Red and the Green

[noisebeam]

I was walking downtown last night amidst some crowds. A homeless man on a bike rode thru on the sidewalk. Some one said to them "Please ride on the street, not on the sidewalk" Homeless man replied "Get of the sidewalk? F-you, I live on the sidewalk"

Al

[va_cyclist]

Here's a question for those who dislike bikes on the sidewalk. When you're walking on the sidewalk, and a person on a bike is coming toward you, do you move aside to make room for them?

I'm visiting San Diego this week, and walking around quite a bit. There are lots of people riding bikes on the sidewalk here, some less carefully than others. And I'm finding my passive-aggressive side is enjoying forcing them to ride around me rather than move out of their way. Does anyone else do this? So far I haven't said "get off the sidewalk" to anyone yet, but it's tempting.

[Litespeed]

Around near Seaport Village and along the Embarcadero you will always find people on the "sidewalk" even though it is for bicycles and people. Bicycles will go around you but it's always nice if the bicyclist says something before doing it. I know from riding down there that even though I have said "bike behind you", either the people can not understand English (which is very likely with all the tourists) or they will ignore you since there are so many other people around. I have even rung my bell at them and many still ignore me. In the actual parks, like Mission Trails or Lake Murray, Mission Bay, people will move. Unless you are on a regular city street, most of the "sidewalks" you see are for both people and bicycles.

[va_cyclist]

Nope, not talking about Seaport Village, these were regular city streets, downtown in the Gaslamp area and further north.

[highspeedcycle]

Just today i was pedaling 20+mph on a sidewalk, but i can see every driveway and intersection. Otherwise, i don't ride on sidewalks

[cerewa]

I'm convinced that riding a bicycle through any kind of intersection (with a street, driveway, or a route used by pedestrians) is often fairly risky behavior. I think it's usually a terrible idea to ride on the sidewalk at faster than a running pace, but if you essentially behave like you would as a pedestrian, sidewalk riding for short periods is OK. I despise the way a lot of people in philadelphia ride bicycles against traffic. One of the reasons people do this is that with the large number of one-way streets, it's sometimes easier than going around. If they want to do that, though, I think they should get on the sidewalk and behave like a pedestrian. That means not exceeding a running pace, and slowing down to a slow jog pace as well as looking carefully for traffic when leaving/entering the sidewalk.

[Helmet Head]

SANTA ROSA
Big-rig truck hits, kills female bicyclist

Jim Doyle

Tuesday, September 13, 2005

A Santa Rosa woman was killed Monday when a big-rig truck hit her bicycle at an intersection on the city's outskirts, police said.

Sarah Beth Hines, 39, was riding her bicycle about 11:20 a.m. on Stony Point Road when the 18-wheeler hit her. Hines was knocked off her bike and run over. She died at the scene.

"We're still trying to determine who was at fault," said Sgt. Doug Schlief of the Police Department traffic division. "There doesn't appear to be any gross negligence."

Witnesses told police that Hines, who had been riding her bicycle on the sidewalk, turned into the road at the West Third Street intersection. At that moment, a delivery truck for Clover Stornetta dairy was making a right turn on a green light. Hines' bicycle was in a crosswalk when she was hit, Schlief said.

At least four bicyclists have been killed by motorists in Sonoma County in the past 18 months.


http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/09/13/BAG0GEMQEL1.DTL

[noisebeam]

...I despise the way a lot of people in philadelphia ride bicycles against traffic. One of the reasons people do this is that with the large number of one-way streets, it's sometimes easier than going around.
I do know that wrong way cycling on sidewalk is more common here because the high speed multilane roads can be difficult to cross with sometimes no x-walks or controlled intersections to cross at mile intervals. Your ride out of a neighborhood to one of these arterials and want to go left, but can't cross the 50mph 7-lane street so you ride down the sidewalk until the next intersection. I've done it after waiting 5+min with no break in traffic during rush hour.

Al

[macca123]

how can riding on a sidewalk be considered safe. If you are riding on a sidewalk it should only be at a VERY casual pace and you must slow and ride on your drops if you are on a road bike near a driveway. Most Car drivers respect youre rights if you know the road rules and ride safely on the road. I do not use sidewalks at all fullstop i will use paths very occasionally and am conscious and wary of everything on the path howver i feel i am putting other pedestrians at risk, dogs, little children, elder people and even less experienced riders. I ride to train, i train to race so obviously 99.95% of riding is on the road (how it should be) yet i wonder if anyone can justify training on a path or sidewalk you either must be really slow and unfit or really stupid.

[tomcryar]

macca123.........?????????? training for what?! 80% of bicyclists are not training for anything. They're simply trying to go from one point to another. Sidewalks are far better for "normal" riding than are the streets. You have to pay just as much attention no matter whare you ride........we don't need any more "elitist's" thank you

[Bruce Rosar]

... don't need any more "elitist's" ...
Ah, that's a nice juicy label to slap on those who dare to deliver a disagreeable message! Much less risky than just discussing the message strictly on its own merits (unless other readers of the thread happen to recognize disinformation tactic (http://www.whale.to/m/disin.html) #5 when they see it)

#5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule.
This is also known as the primary 'attack the messenger' ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as 'kooks', 'conspiracy buffs', 'radicals', 'militia', 'fanatics', 'deviates', and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.

[JRA]

Ah, that's a nice juicy label to slap on those who dare to deliver a disagreeable message!If the shoe fits.

Another classic tactic to avoid discussing an issue is to whine about a label.

Bicyclists are bombarded by incessant anti-sidewalk riding propaganda - prpaganda not supported by any body of evidence that sidewalk riding is inherently dangerous. What studies that have been done are inconclusive at best. Often they compare accident rates of young and/or inexperienced cyclists riding on the sidewalk to the rates for adult bicyclists riding in the road.

Or they fail to distinguish between sidewalks and sidepaths.

Another thing the anti-sidewalk riding gang is fond of doing is underestimating the number of bicyclists that ride on the sidewalk and overestimating the number that are "vehicular cyclists".

The relative numbers are difficult to determine. By my personal observation (admittedly unscientific), most of the bicyclists that use their bicycles as vehicles (as a means for getting from one place to another) ride on the sidewalk for at least part of their journey. On the other hand, the number of cyclists who obey all traffic laws seems to be a very small fraction of all bicyclists.

"Elitist" is an accurate term for many of the anti-sidewalk riding crowd. Many of these so-called advocates make a lot of noise about protecting the rights of bicyclists to ride on the roads but seem perfectly happy to have the rights of bicyclists to ride on the sidewalk restricted. I'd call that elitism.

#5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule.

It's funny you should mention sidetrack #5 since so much name-calling and ridicule is directed at bicyclists who dare to commit the "sin" (in the religion of VC) of riding on the sidewalk.

[tomcryar]

When I say "elitists" what I'm really writing about is those who believe that they are the next Mr. Armstrong..........They have noe business "training" in traffic. I reiterate my contention that 80% of bicyclists are merely trying to get from point a to point b, and I believe that no matter where you ride, you should always exercise the utmost caution, because- on the road, drivers really don't want you there, and on the sidewalk, most pedestrians won't even see you until you're upon them.......it's up to you, whomever rides for whatever reason to bring the courtesy to the pedestrian (if on the sidewalk), or to realize the car outweighs you by 2450 lbs. (if on the road)..........Simple common courtesy goes a long way no matter where you ride, or walk, or drive...............!

[Helmet Head]

since so much name-calling and ridicule is directed at bicyclists who dare to commit the "sin" (in the religion of VC) of riding on the sidewalk.
Oh get off it JRA. Even John Forester writes about riding on a sidewalk from time to time for various reasons. So do I. You seem fairly intelligent. I'd like to see you use that intelligence to critique something VCs actually say, than critiques of your exaggerated extreme strawmen of what they say.

Do you have any actual examples of name-calling or ridicule directed at bicyclists who "dare" to ride on sidewalks by VC advocates?

[JRA]

It's ironic that I find myself an advocate of sidewalk bicycling because I rarely ride on the sidewalk. But an advocate of sidewalk bicycling is what I'm becoming.

Bicyclists that use the sidewalk represent a large percentage of all bicyclists. Many so-called advocates for bicyclists rights seem willing to write those bicyclists off. When laws are passed restricting the right to ride on the sidewalk, these advocates seem strangely quiet. Apparently, some advocates are only interesting in protecting the rights of some bicyclists.


Oh get off it JRA.That's funny. You turn half the threads in this forum into VC debates/proselytizing and now you're telling someone else to get off it? Get off it your own self.


Ridicule of sidewalk bicyclists is a staple of bikeforums.


Do you have any actual examples of name-calling or ridicule directed at bicyclists who "dare" to ride on sidewalks by VC advocates?If I wanted I'm sure I could dig up lots of examples. I'll just give you one. After it was pointed out earlier in this thread that Missouri law provides for cycling on sidewalks not in a business district, a self-proclaimed VC advocate replied (post #128 on page 6).
Missouri law also provides for men wearing bras, yet bras do not belong on men.If comparing sidewalk bicyclists to men wearing bras isn't ridicule, I guess I don't know what ridicule is.

Please spare me the normal lecture about how it's an analogy and not a comparison. Often an analogy is used as a backhand way of making a comparison. It's a cheap semantic trick.


Even John Forester writes about riding on a sidewalk from time to time for various reasons. So do I.Well whoop-de-do! To tell the truth, I don't give a rat's behind what John Forester writes about or where he rides. I've read enough of Forester to know that I strongly disagree with him (and spare me the lecture on reading Effective Cycling. I've read it. I've read better books).


You seem fairly intelligent. I'd like to see you use that intelligence to critique something VCs actually say, than critiques of your exaggerated extreme strawmen of what they say.I'd like to think I have better things to do than to list all the things VC-ists have said that I disagree with. If I just replied to all the things you say on bikeforums (or in Wikipedia) that I disagree with strongly, I wouldn't have time to do anything else.

While VC riding techniques are good, the ideology is absurd. It's built on, among other things, the quicksand of believing that there is one and only one true way to ride and that all other ways of using a bicycle are wrong. Bicyclists who ride other ways are inferior in the eyes of a VC-ist. VC is an inherently elitist ideology. And yes, part of that ideology is a belief that sidewalk bicycling is inherently wrong, the fact that "the Great One" does it sometimes notwithstanding.

[I-Like-To-Bike]

While VC riding techniques are good, the ideology is absurd. It's built on, among other things, the quicksand of believing that there is one and only one true way to ride and that all other ways of using a bicycle are wrong. Bicyclists who ride other ways are inferior in the eyes of a VC-ist. VC is an inherently elitist ideology. And yes, part of that ideology is a belief that sidewalk bicycling is inherently wrong, the fact that "the Great One" does it sometimes notwithstanding.
As further evidence of the Great One's elitist ideology (recently posted by the Great One on another discussion group dominated by himself and a nest of fellow traveler VC dogmatists):
"The person who has not learned vehicular cycling, he does not possess the knowledge by which to make a reasonable choice.

The key to producing a rational view of cycling in America is to have a sufficient number of vehicular cyclists and to have their conclusions accepted as best for cyclists. In the interim, before this nirvana, vehicular cyclists should retain their legal status as drivers of vehicles and the equivalent social status, so that they can conduct their activity in the safe and effective manner of operating as drivers of vehicles."

As is obvious to all but the Great One's acolytes, Short of Nirvana (mandated EC classes/licensing schemes for the "incompetents") the VC program is now obstructionism for the purpose of protecting the status quo of a tiny band of mystery/alleged vehicular cyclists from all threats real, absurd or imagined; with no ability to detect any difference or the validity of these so-called threats.

[Helmet Head]

I'd like to think I have better things to do than to list all the things VC-ists have said that I disagree with. If I just replied to all the things you say on bikeforums (or in Wikipedia) that I disagree with strongly, I wouldn't have time to do anything else.
I'm not asking you to respond to everything, or even anything. I'm just asking you to stop creating VC strawmen and responding to those, and instead, do nothing, or at least respond to what VC's actually say. As an example of the kind of strawman I'm talking about, consider the last paragraph of your last post.


While VC riding techniques are good, the ideology is absurd. It's built on, among other things, the quicksand of believing that there is one and only one true way to ride and that all other ways of using a bicycle are wrong. Bicyclists who ride other ways are inferior in the eyes of a VC-ist. VC is an inherently elitist ideology. And yes, part of that ideology is a belief that sidewalk bicycling is inherently wrong, the fact that "the Great One" does it sometimes notwithstanding.
Where do you get the idea that the VC ideology is built on "believing that there is one and only one way true way to ride and that all other ways of using a bicycle are wrong". I'm not going to say that there aren't any VC fanatics who might have implied that - though I don't know of any who have - but to ascribe that to all of VC ideology is absurd. If you believe that about "VC ideology", no wonder you're so angered by it. The tragedy is that it's simply not true. It's a baseless strawman that you've created. I will give you the benefit of the doubt, that you really believe that's what VC ideologists like myself believe, but I can't understand why you insist on believing it.

"Bicyclists who ride other ways are inferior in the eyes of a VC-ist. VC is an inherently elitist ideology. "
False. Baseless opinion. Strawman.

"And yes, part of that ideology is a belief that sidewalk bicycling is inherently wrong, the fact that 'the Great One' does it sometimes notwithstanding."
False. Baseless opinion. Strawman.

[noisebeam]

Just found this statistic on Mesa, AZ cycling accidents:

Mesa Bicycle Accidents - 1996
..........................Against Traffic....With Traffic
Street..........................106................116
Sidewalk.......................94..................15
Crosswalk.....................41...................22
Totals..........................241................153

Of course this is numbers, not percentage of those who ride in either mode. But my observations are that folks in Mesa (and other Phx-metro suburbs) ride at about a ratio of 50 sidewalk to every 1 street rider, so it is curious to me why so many more accidents are on the street.

Al

[Helmet Head]

And as far as the bra post (#128 on Page 6) goes, I was just using a colorful illustration of my point: If the law allows for X on Y, that does not mean that X belongs on Y.

In no way shape or form was I ridiculing anyone. If you find ridicule in something so inoccuous as that, it's no wonder you have the skewed opinions that you have.

[Helmet Head]

Just found this statistic on Mesa, AZ cycling accidents:

Mesa Bicycle Accidents - 1996
..........................Against Traffic....With Traffic
Street..........................106................116
Sidewalk.......................94..................15
Crosswalk.....................41...................22
Totals..........................241................153

Of course this is numbers, not percentage of those who ride in either mode. But my observations are that folks in Mesa (and other Phx-metro suburbs) ride at about a ratio of 50 sidewalk to every 1 street rider, so it is curious to me why so many more accidents are on the street.

Al
Do sidewalk cyclists hit while crossing at intersections without explicitly painted crosswalks count as Street, Sidewalk or Crosswalk?

What percentage of the intersections in Mesa have explicitly painted crosswalks?

If the percentage of unmarked crosswalks is significant, and hits on those types of intersections are counted as "Street", that would explain it.

[noisebeam]

Do sidewalk cyclists hit while crossing at intersections without explicitly painted crosswalks count as Street, Sidewalk or Crosswalk?

What percentage of the intersections in Mesa have explicitly painted crosswalks?

If the percentage of unmarked crosswalks is significant, and hits on those types of intersections are counted as "Street", that would explain it.
100% of crosswalks on arterial and collector streets are marked. Sidewalk cycling is even far more common on these type of streets than on the relatively quiet residential streets where x-walks are not marked.
Also if the data was accurately dispositioned/collected then x-walk accident should include unmarked x-walks as they are implied as x-walk by law.

Al

[JRA]

Where do you get the idea that the VC ideology is built on "believing that there is one and only one way true way to ride and that all other ways of using a bicycle are wrong".From John Forester. Ever heard of him?

I know it's a waste of time to respond to you but, hey, I've got some time to waste.

I said, "Bicyclists who ride other ways are inferior in the eyes of a VC-ist. VC is an inherently elitist ideology."
False. Baseless opinion. Strawman.

I said, ""And yes, part of that ideology is a belief that sidewalk bicycling is inherently wrong, the fact that 'the Great One' does it sometimes notwithstanding."
False. Baseless opinion. Strawman.

In the first place, those are my opinions, so they can't be false. They are indeed my opinions. You say they're baseless. I say they're not. I'll sumarize the discussion which follows from that:
HH: Are too baseless.
JRA: Are not.
HH: Are too.
JRA: Are not.
Repeat, rinse.

If I wanted a strawman, I'd use John Forester.


As further evidence of the Great One's elitist ideology...Not that we needed any more proof. Elitism and a certain unbridled arrogance has always characterized much of what John Forester says.


Quote (Forester): "The key to producing a rational view of cycling in America is to have a sufficient number of vehicular cyclists and to have their conclusions accepted as best for cyclists. In the interim, before this nirvana, vehicular cyclists should retain their legal status as drivers of vehicles and the equivalent social status, so that they can conduct their activity in the safe and effective manner of operating as drivers of vehicles."How anybody can read that and not see the elitism in it is beyond me. The use of a religious concept is amusing but it's Forester's idea of what nirvana is that's a little frightening: - a class of vehicular cyclists whose conclusions are accepted as best for cyclists - like we don't already have enough VC-ists telling bicyclists what is best for cycling.

Oh, no, John Forester's ideas aren't elitist. :rolleyes:

[Helmet Head]

How anybody can read that and not see the elitism in it is beyond me.
Is it elitism to believe that "cyclists fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles"?

The nirvana quote follows logically from believing that principle to be true, so if believing the principle is not elitism, then how is a conclusion that follows directly from it elitism?

[Brian Ratliff]

Is it elitism to believe that "cyclists fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles"?

The nirvana quote follows logically from believing that principle to be true, so if believing the principle is not elitism, then how is a conclusion that follows directly from it elitism?

The "cyclists fare best..." premise is based in observation, not in fact. An observation foisted on someone who does not observe the same is a form of "elitism." Observations are tricky little buggers. Our entire science community is involved in getting others to believe their observations. To keep from getting into this "elitism" scrap, referreeing and standards of observation are required.

A true elitist opinion is one which places higher priority on one's own observations while discounting, or not taking at face value, observations of another person. So the question is: if provided with an observation from another person which is in direct conflict with your own, will you re-evaluate your position to include the other person's observation, or will you disregard the other's observation out of hand (I have a hard time believing...)? Answer this and you will find if you are elitist or not.

[Helmet Head]

I know you think otherwise, but I try very hard to continually re-evaluate my position based on input from others. Heck, that's one of the main reasons I participate in forums like this. In fact, it is my tendency to reevaluate my position that allowed me to become a vehicular cyclist in the first place.

When most cyclists learn of other cyclists opposing bike lanes, for example, they do dismiss those arguments out of hand. I didn't, even though, at first, they didn't make sense to me. But I listened, thought about the arguments, and changed my opinion. Later I began to wonder why I had never heard these arguments before, for, if I had, I probably would have opposed bike lanes much longer. So now I try to do my part in at least exposing others to the BL opposition arguments. Of course, doing so has only limited effectivity, since the majority seem to dismiss out of hand that which they hear that is in opposition to their beliefs.

The single most important factor that determines one's religion... is his parent's religion.

The single most important factor that determines one's politics (after they're 40)... is his parent's politics.

What does that tell you about how open people are to really listening to arguments opposing their views, and not dismissing them out of hand?

Evidence of "dismissing out of hand", is from posters like ILTB, JRA, patc, and a host of others, who admit that they don't listen to what I and others are saying.

While I admit to having a hard time believing some things, that is not dismissing it out of hand. I don't just ignore it and move on. I ask deeper questions. I inquire. I try to find reasons to believe what I find hard to believe.

Another example... When I heard about Intelligent Design for the first, I had a hard time believing it, but I didn't dismiss it out of hand. I read about. I debated others about it. Then I learned that all the reasons they gave for it were not compelling to me. That's not believing it, but it's not dismissing it out of hand. I believe I gave ID folks a fair shake. More of a fair shake than most cyclists around here give VC ideas, or the arguments against bike lanes...

[JRA]

Is it elitism to believe that "cyclists fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles"?

The nirvana quote follows logically from believing that principle to be true, so if believing the principle is not elitism, then how is a conclusion that follows directly from it elitism?Even if we accept "cyclists fare best...", Forester's view of Nirvana does not follow from it. Getting from "cyclists fare best..." to the idea that the conclusions of vehicular cyclists should be accepted as best for cyclists requires a huge leap of faith. That leap is almost the definition of elitism. It certainly isn't logic.

Even if cyclists do "fare best...", that does not mean that the views of vehicular cyclists are any more valid than the views of other cyclists. But Forester is basically saying just that. This is the kind of nonsense that forms the basis of VC-ism, and it's pretty much pure elitism.

Forester: "The person who has not learned vehicular cycling, he does not possess the knowledge by which to make a reasonable choice."

That is so typical of Forester.

And quite a load of condescending nonsense.

I'd argue that most of the bicyclists who ride on the sidewalk make a very reasonable choice to do so - bicyclists who ride a short distance at slow speed, bicylists who know they don't have the skill and experience to ride in heavy traffic, and have neither the need nor desire to do so.

Forester's nuts if he thinks many of them aren't making a reasonable choice.

As to whether "cyclists fare best...", I believe they do, generally. This is why I practice VC riding techniques.

It seems, however, that "cyclists fare best..." is often interpreted as "all cyclists always fare best...", which is pure, unadulterated horse hockey.

Some bicyclists fare quite well riding on the sidewalk - and they don't need some VC "expert" (referencing a study that doesn't show what the "expert" claims it shows) telling them that they aren't faring well. Some bicyclists fare quite well riding mostly in the street but occasionally riding short distances on the sidewalk - and they don't need a VC "expert" saying they aren't capable of making a reasonable choice. And they certainly don't need laws making their reasonable choice illegal and thereby making it more difficult for them to use their bicycle as a means of getting from one place to another.

[Helmet Head]

JRA, you are seeing the same words as I, and assigning different meaning to them. If I understood the same meaning that you see, then I would share your opinion about them. I will not rule out the possibility that it is I who is misunderstanding Forester's intent in his words, but I hope you will understand that I am biased to believe it is more likely that it is you who is misunderstanding.

I will start by saying that I read Forester's words with a certain handicap in mind, call it the British arrogance handicap, if you will, that is so ingrained in his style that he can't help it. I keep this handicap in mind, and try not to allow his presentation style to affect my judgment of the content. It appears to me that you do not allow him a similar slack, and that probably accounts for at least some of the differences in how we interpret his words.

With that in mind, please allow me to explain in more detail why I believe the "Nirvana quote" follows logically from the principle, "Cyclists fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles." I will start with the first sentence of the paragraph in question.


The key to producing a rational view of cycling in America is to have a sufficient number of vehicular cyclists and to have their conclusions accepted as best for cyclists.
As I am on the list upon which this post was made, and have been reading and participating on it for over a year, I think I have a pretty good understanding of what Forester means by this, because he has stated it repeatedly. Basically, he's saying that in order for American culture to generally accept the principle that cyclists "fare best...", then the beliefs of those that understand it and believe it need to be accepted. Which makes perfect sense, given that one believes that cyclists "fare best when..." That's why I say this follows logically from believing the principle. Now let's look at the "nirvana" statement itself:


In the interim, before this nirvana, vehicular cyclists should retain their legal status as drivers of vehicles and the equivalent social status, so that they can conduct their activity in the safe and effective manner of operating as drivers of vehicles.
It's pretty obvious to me that the use of the word "nirvana" in this context is simply to indicate his belief that believing the referenced state, "have a sufficient number of vehicular cyclists and to have their conclusions accepted as best for cyclists", will ever actually occur, is wishful thinking. Ascribing any other meaning to it is missing his point, as I understand it.


Even if cyclists do "fare best...", that does not mean that the views of vehicular cyclists are any more valid than the views of other cyclists.
What? Assuming "other cyclists" are those that contend that cyclists do not "fare best...", of course it does. If cyclists do fare best..., then those who say they do are right, and those who say otherwise are not. That seems perfectly logical to me. What am I missing?

The difference in our interpretation of the other statement you reference, "The person who has not learned vehicular cycling, he does not possess the knowledge by which to make a reasonable choice.", appears to be due to my knowing the context, and you not. Here's the original full paragraph, which ILTB did not provide (the italics highlighting the sentence in question are mine):


I think that the typical discussions about bicycle transportation
show plenty of evidence that these views are widespread, probably
held by a majority of Americans, in one form or other. It has also
been discussed that using the term "cyclist-inferiority" upsets may
bicyclists, who both feel denigrated by the term (denigration which
is deserved, just like an evangelist exhorting "sinners") and feel
that they are "superior", rather than "inferior", because they are
not driving a car. I have not tended to think this latter is
important, for two reasons. The first reason is that those whose
interest is in avoidance of motoring are also, generally, bikeway
advocates. The second reason is that I place little importance in
avoiding motoring as such; I maintain that persons should choose
cycling over motoring for those trips in which cycling best suits
their purposes, and should choose motoring over cycling on those
occasions when motoring suits their purposes. The definition of
purposes is best left to the individual; by and large, a vehicular
cyclist knows what he wants and can best judge the difficulties and
advantages of each choice. As for the person who has not learned
vehicular cycling, he does not possess the knowledge by which to make
a reasonable choice.
Note that Forester is talking about a particular choice, in particular in choosing whether motoring or cycling is suitable in a given situation. All that he is saying is that a vehicular cyclist is better suited to decide whether cycling in general is suitable on a particular road than is someone who is not a vehicular cyclist. For example, there are people on the board of my local bicycling coalition that are surprised I commute on the road I have been commuting on for the last 5 years, without any problems. I'm sorry, but I'm here to tell you that these "cycling advocates" who think that La Jolla Village Drive is unsuitable for cycle commuting do not possess the knowledge by which to make a reasonable choice on whether La Jolla Village Drive is suitable for cycling. I should note that those on the board who do possess the knowledge by which to make a reasonable choice in this matter, including those that are LCIs, are not among those who believe LJVD is unsuitable for cycle commuting. To me, that's the kind of thing he's talking about. What's wrong with that?

[Helmet Head]

It seems, however, that "cyclists fare best..." is often interpreted as "all cyclists always fare best...", which is pure, unadulterated horse hockey.
Of course. I hope you don't think that either I or Forester have ever used the latter "horse hockey" interpretation in anything we've written.


Some bicyclists fare quite well riding on the sidewalk - and they don't need some VC "expert" (referencing a study that doesn't show what the "expert" claims it shows) telling them that they aren't faring well.
Case in point... my 85 year old mother, who never learned to drive and rides on streets in her senior citizen community (speed limit 10 mph), but only uses sidewalks out in the real world, and walks across all intersections.


Some bicyclists fare quite well riding mostly in the street but occasionally riding short distances on the sidewalk - and they don't need a VC "expert" saying they aren't capable of making a reasonable choice. And they certainly don't need laws making their reasonable choice illegal and thereby making it more difficult for them to use their bicycle as a means of getting from one place to another.
No argument here.

[Daily Commute]

. . . How anybody can read that and not see the elitism in it is beyond me. . . .
Actually, it's the anti-VC, bike-lanes-everywhere people who are elitist. They think most cyclists are too lazy and stupid to learn how to ride in traffic.

[JRA]

Actually, it's the anti-VC, bike-lanes-everywhere people who are elitist. They think most cyclists are too lazy and stupid to learn how to ride in traffic.Speaking for myself, I think no such thing.

I simply do not buy the theory that bike lanes are an impediment to learning to ride in traffic. I think that theory is a crock. I think, in fact, that bike lanes may actually facilitate learning to ride in traffic.

VC-ists seem to think that anybody who rides in a bike lane is an idiot. There's your elitism.

[JRA]

I will start by saying that I read Forester's words with a certain handicap in mind, call it the British arrogance handicap, if you will, that is so ingrained in his style that he can't help it.You make a good point - that Forester's style is a handicap to him. It seems we do agree on something.

I admit that I find Forester's writing annoying to the point that it's difficult for me to even read him, let alone take him seriously. When Forester isn't being arrogant and condescending, he's nattering on (how's that for a Briticism?).

You seem to think the arrogance in virtually everything Forester writes is just style. I'm convinced that the style betrays underlying attitudes. At virtually every opportunity, Forester confirms this.

Consider the following (from what you quoted): It has also been discussed that using the term "cyclist-inferiority" upsets may bicyclists, who both feel denigrated by the term (denigration which is deserved, just like an evangelist exhorting "sinners") and feel that they are "superior", rather than "inferior", because they are not driving a car.

"denigration which is deserved"?
"like an evangelist exhorting 'sinners'"?

Gimme a break! I'm trying to find a common ground with Forester and he says ridiculous stuff like that. We're back to square one. If we have to choose, and the choices are VC-ist or member of the unwashed masses, I choose unwashed masses.

I admit I don't know the context of the previous quote. It amuses me regardless. What follows it looks like typical Forester babbling: "The first reason is that those whose interest is in avoidance of motoring are also, generally, bikeway advocates..."

I'm sure I have no idea what the heck Forester is talking about here and I'm pretty sure that I don't want to.

With regard to Forester's nirvana comments:
The difference in our interpretation of the other statement you reference, "The person who has not learned vehicular cycling, he does not possess the knowledge by which to make a reasonable choice.", appears to be due to my knowing the context, and you not.The point is well taken. I did not understand the context. I thought Forester was talking about a choice between riding in the roadway or riding on the sidewalk when it seems he was actually talking about a choice between riding a bicycle or driving a car. He's still wrong (a person can still make a resonable choice based on their knowledge and abilities), but his wrongness is a little less condescending than I thought it was.

It's pretty obvious to me that the use of the word "nirvana" in this context is simply to indicate his belief that believing the referenced state, "have a sufficient number of vehicular cyclists and to have their conclusions accepted as best for cyclists", will ever actually occur, is wishful thinking. Ascribing any other meaning to it is missing his point, as I understand it.I don't ascribe any other meaning to the use of the word "nirvana. It just struck me as amusing.

I said: Even if cyclists do "fare best...", that does not mean that the views of vehicular cyclists are any more valid than the views of other cyclists.

What? Assuming "other cyclists" are those that contend that cyclists do not "fare best...", of course it does...Of course it does not. The fact that someone is right about one thing doesn't mean they are right about everything. That's absurd. The conclusions of one bicyclist who fares well (let's say a vehicular cyclists) are no more valid or important than the opinion of another cyclist who fares well (let's say a sidewalk bicyclist). The only way that makes sense is if you make some kind of value judgement - like, for example, that the vehicular bicyclist is more important than the sidewalk bicyclist. Since sidewalk bicyclists seem to outnumber vehicular bicyclists by a large margin (at least where I live), I doubt that's true.

I said: It seems, however, that "cyclists fare best..." is often interpreted as "all cyclists always fare best...", which is pure, unadulterated horse hockey.
Of course. I hope you don't think that either I or Forester have ever used the latter "horse hockey" interpretation in anything we've written.
I don't think that and I didn't mean to imply that.

And with regard to ridicule directed at sidewalk bicyclist, I didn't mean to imply that is necessarily comes from VC-ists.

This thread has strayed somewhat from the topic, which is sidewalk bicycling.

Sidewalk bicycling has its place. I've come to the conclusion that it shouldn't be illegal anywhere. Laws against sidewalk bicycle are almost universally anti-bike, plain and simple. I'm disturbed by the lack of outrage among bicyclists against such laws.

The fact that I think sidewalk bicycling should be legal does not mean I think it should be encouraged. For trips of any distance, riding on the road is much more efficient. Riding on the sidewalk has it's own unique hazards - no doubt about it. That said - these hazards have been greatly exagerated by the anti-sidewalk riding crowd. Some bicyclists fare quite well on the sidewalk, thank you.

IMHO, the laws we now have in the City of St. Louis are an example of the worst of all worlds. Sidewalk riding is generally illegal except where a sidewalk is designated as a bike path. What jackasses came up with these laws? The minute a sidewalk is designated as a bike path, it becomes more dangerous to everyone involved. Bicyclists suddenly think they can ride at cycling speeds and the dangers increase.

If cyclists are going to ride on the sidewalk, it should be clear it's a sidewalk. Then the rules are clear: the design user is a pedestrian; pedestrians have the right of way in all cases. A bicyclist can be no more than a POW - pedestrain on wheels. If a bicyclist is in a hurry, they should get off the sidewalk and get on the road.

The idea of designating a sidewalk as a multi-use path is nonsense. The idea of making it illegal to ride a bicycle on the sidewalk (at pedestrian speeds and yielding to pedestrians in all cases) is also nonsense.

Riding on the sidewalk should not be illegal.

[Daily Commute]

. . .VC-ists seem to think that anybody who rides in a bike lane is an idiot. There's your elitism.
Wrong. I think that people who ride in poorly-designed bike lanes are ignorant, not stupid. We all start off ignorant.

Riding in bike lanes teaches very little about riding in traffic. Many bike lanes teach cyclists to ride on door zones, to stay too far to the right, to pass on the right, and to turn left from the right side of traffic. Cyclists who want to learn to ride in traffic should start on empty parking lots, move up to quiet residential streets, and then get on progressively busier roads.

[JRA]

Wrong. I think that people who ride in poorly-designed bike lanes are ignorant, not stupid. We all start off ignorant.Whatever, dude.


Riding in bike lanes teaches very little about riding in traffic.I never said bike lanes teach anything. It's VCists who claim that.


Cyclists who want to learn to ride in traffic should start on empty parking lots...Yea, right, empty parking lots.

Some VC-ists don't seem to know jack about how bicyclists learn things. Bicyclists learn from other bicyclists, not from empty parking lots or from stripes on the pavement.

[Daily Commute]

I never said bike lanes teach anything. It's VCists who claim that.
Yes, you did:


I think, in fact, that bike lanes may actually facilitate learning to ride in traffic.

[tomcryar]

If you ride on the sidewalk (which is the safest place in Pinellas county, FL) you have certain obligations........that is: respect for anyone else on the sidewalk. There are a lot of idiot bike riders here and I see so much disregard for even the common courtesy laws..........even motorists, and especially the ones who don't even realize that there are any laws-- most are not enforced anyway....It comes down to this: RESPECT whomever you meet while riding--on the sidewalk or in the road--if you respect them and give them the courtesy, they might not give back immediately, but the more you do it and the more they see it.........maybe..........I choose to believe they most motorists will get the message--but only if you do things right..................!

[JRA]

I said, "I never said bike lanes teach anything."


Yes, you did:
No, I did not. You are wrong.

What is said was, "I think, in fact, that bike lanes may actually facilitate learning to ride in traffic."

facilitate
1. to make easy or less difficult.

teach
1. to show how to do something; to give instructions to; to train.

Source: Webster's New Twentieth century Dictionary of the English Language, second edition, unabridged, Collins World Publishing, 1977.

I used the word "facilitate" intentionally.

An empty parking lot may facilitate learning to ride a bicycle. An empty parking lot cannot teach how to ride a bicycle.

It's bike lane opponents who content that stripes on the pavement teach something. To a certain extent, stripes do instruct, but bicyclists learn to ride primarily from other bicyclists, either directly or indirectly.



Actually, it's the anti-VC, bike-lanes-everywhere people who are elitist. They think most cyclists are too lazy and stupid to learn how to ride in traffic.You are quite wrong.

I don't assume that anybody is too lazy and stupid to learn how to ride in traffic. Quite the contrary, I think almost anyone can do it. It ain't rocket science.

It's bike lane opponents that think people are too stupid to learn to ride in traffic if there's a strip of paint on the pavement. Oh, the horror of it! They claim that the white line teaches improper riding techniques. Some of these same people talk of how, when they ride on a street with a bike lane, they ignore the stripe and position themselves as if the bike lane doesn't exist. So, in other words, they think they know how to ride on a street with a bike lane but they don't think others are smart enough to do it. I say "bull". It ain't rocket science.

BTW, I've never heard of any "bike-lanes-everywhere people". That's either a strawman you've created or it's hyperbole.

I have, however, heard of some bike lanes nowhere people.

[Daily Commute]

I moved my response to the Bike Lane thread (http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=1641072&postcount=1290).

[billh]

I haven't read this gargantuan thread, maybe I could use several vacation days sometime to do so. Anyway, an anecdote from this mornings commute. There are "a lot" more cyclists out on the streets of good ol' St Louey due to the high gas prices, $2.99 now. And a lot of them are on the sidewalks. I was waiting in the line of traffic at stop light this morning, maybe eight cars deep. I guy riding on the sidewalk came blazing by to my right. The light turned green. I started to cringe. Oh man, he was not going to stop. I know from experience that many cars make the right turn with no turn signal. Several cars turn right. He doesn't slow. Oh man, this is an accident waiting to happen. This guy is going to get creamed. Several cars next in line start to move toward the intersection. None with turn signals. The cyclist shoulder checks. He hops on the pedals and is going for it. I can barely look. Oh God, cars, please be going straight. Sure enough, just as the cyclists enters the intersection, the blue sedan next in line, no turn signal, begins his right turn. Aaaagh! Scrreeetch!!! He stops. The cyclist slows. ARgh. Idiot. Cyclist goes, car turns. No one hurt thank God. I go straight through and pass the cyclist in about 20m, he has to slow for several driveways. I consider giving him a piece of my mind, but just keep going, shaking my head in disbelief.

[steel_is_real]

...the majority seem to dismiss out of hand that which they hear that is in opposition to their beliefs.

The single most important factor that determines one's religion... is his parent's religion.

The single most important factor that determines one's politics (after they're 40)... is his parent's politics.

What does that tell you about how open people are to really listening to arguments opposing their views, and not dismissing them out of hand?

Evidence of "dismissing out of hand", is from posters like ILTB, JRA, patc, and a host of others, who admit that they don't listen to what I and others are saying.

This is quite interesting, and seems to apply to people's beliefs in general. On a totally unrelated topic, when the stock market was booming in the late '90s anyone who came on a forum and said the market was going to fall, was roundly ridiculed. Study's have shown that people tend to discount information that runs counter to their beliefs or the current trend, and accept info that supports them.

[anchojoe]

Originally Posted by John Forester: "The key to producing a rational view of cycling in America is to have a sufficient number of vehicular cyclists and to have their conclusions accepted as best for cyclists."

Sorry, I only need one cyclist to produce a "rational view of cycling in America" and that cyclist is me, thank you very much.

[va_cyclist]

Love this topic.

Short rant:

My wife and I spent the past weekend in Washington, D.C., walking around the mall, Foggy Bottom, and Georgetown. I saw more sidewalk bicyclists there than I've ever seen.

Granted, there's kind of a blurred line in D.C. between MUPs and sidewalks, but in 48 hours I saw maybe three cyclists on the street, and about three hundred on the paths and sidewalks. Of these three hundred, a total of two said "on your left" as they passed. Most just whizzed by with inches to spare.

I've pooh-poohed "OTL" on these forums, but that was for roadies passing other roadies. I think passing peds on a sidewalk or MUP with a two-inch margin warrants an "on your left".

/EOR

[noisebeam]

What would you do as a driver?

I was cruising along the right lane at about 40mph an intersection ahead. About 200yrs from intersection noted two sidewalk cyclist riding hard, jumping driveway curbs, etc.

Intersection ahead had a green light, I was turning right. As I approached I had recently passed the cyclists and noted that x-walk signal had turned for some time to a full solid red 'do not walk 'symbol (as it does about 30sec or so before the green light turns yellow)

So I had passed the cyclists, they were behind me, I had green, x-walk was red, sidewalk was clear I started to turn and cyclist came screeching up beside me screaming at me. I just pointed at signal and told them they were illegally crossing on red. We went on our way, them annoyed at 'clueless' drivers, me hating law breaking sidewalk cyclists.

Al

[anchojoe]

What would you do as a driver?

I was cruising along the right lane at about 40mph an intersection ahead. About 200yrs from intersection noted two sidewalk cyclist riding hard, jumping driveway curbs, etc.

Intersection ahead had a green light, I was turning right. As I approached I had recently passed the cyclists and noted that x-walk signal had turned for some time to a full solid red 'do not walk 'symbol (as it does about 30sec or so before the green light turns yellow)

So I had passed the cyclists, they were behind me, I had green, x-walk was red, sidewalk was clear I started to turn and cyclist came screeching up beside me screaming at me. I just pointed at signal and told them they were illegally crossing on red. We went on our way, them annoyed at 'clueless' drivers, me hating law breaking sidewalk cyclists.

Al

As a driver this is what I actually do in cases such as this whether it involves bikes, kids on skateboards, pedestrians, horses, dogs, whatever. If there is any uncertainty in my mind as to what the actions of those involved are going to be, I stop and remain stationary until the situation resolves itself. I feel it is my responsibility as an operator of two ton vehicle to be aware and drive defensively at all times. In my mind the few seconds of delay are inconsequential compared to the potential harm I could cause by proceeding carelessly.

[noisebeam]

As a driver this is what I actually do in cases such as this whether it involves bikes, kids on skateboards, pedestrians, horses, dogs, whatever. If there is any uncertainty in my mind as to what the actions of those involved are going to be, I stop and remain stationary until the situation resolves itself. I feel it is my responsibility as an operator of two ton vehicle to be aware and drive defensively at all times. In my mind the few seconds of delay are inconsequential compared to the potential harm I could cause by proceeding carelessly.
So you would stop on a green arrow just because some pedestrians on the curb may suddenly jump off when they have a red.

(If you note there was no accident, I was going quite slow, unsure of cyclists, but ready to react to them, wondering if they would stop or not.)

Al

[chipcom]

So you would stop on a green arrow just because some pedestrians on the curb may suddenly jump off when they have a red.

(If you note there was no accident, I was going quite slow, unsure of cyclists, but ready to react to them, wondering if they would stop or not.)

Al

Maybe not stop, but I sure as heck watch em close, expecting them to do the dumbest thing possible at any moment. Seems like you were doing exactly that be slowing and being aware of them, but not aware enough to see them coming up on you. Just cuz you may be in the right legally, does give license to risk putting anyone in harm's way.

[I-Like-To-Bike]

What would you do as a driver?

I was cruising along the right lane at about 40mph an intersection ahead. About 200yrs from intersection noted two sidewalk cyclist riding hard, jumping driveway curbs, etc.

Intersection ahead had a green light, I was turning right. As I approached I had recently passed the cyclists and noted that x-walk signal had turned for some time to a full solid red 'do not walk 'symbol (as it does about 30sec or so before the green light turns yellow)

So I had passed the cyclists, they were behind me, I had green, x-walk was red, sidewalk was clear I started to turn and cyclist came screeching up beside me screaming at me. I just pointed at signal and told them they were illegally crossing on red. We went on our way, them annoyed at 'clueless' drivers, me hating law breaking sidewalk cyclists.
Al
Given a determination from observation that the cyclists approaching the intersection were erratic and not complying with any kind of cycling "rules", I would have responded in the same way as when children are nearby and a ball or puppy runs into the street. In other words not let myself be surprised when the expected happens.

[noisebeam]

Maybe not stop, but I sure as heck watch em close, expecting them to do the dumbest thing possible at any moment. Seems like you were doing exactly that be slowing and being aware of them, but not aware enough to see them coming up on you. Just cuz you may be in the right legally, does give license to risk putting anyone in harm's way.
Of course. But these cyclist were going to go no matter what and were also in a flow. I saw them well before intersection, but at intersection was focusing on the car ahead of me and the peds standing on the curb. As it turns out one of the cyclist went the the right of the standing peds and jumped off curb to the right of the x-walk, the other went behind me as they jumped to the left of the peds and right in front of the car turning right behind me. It was hard to watch them coming as they were among peds, trees, bushes, newstands, etc. Frankly any other motorist would have not even slowed.

This is what went thru my head. 1. notice cyclists 2. green right ahead, 3. cyclist have stop signal.... 4. get to intersection. 5. check road ahead clear 6. glance to the right/rear sidewalk, don't see cyclist any more. 7. go real slow around corner cause they were there earlier, 8. oh, there they are.

Al

[chipcom]

This is what went thru my head. 1. notice cyclists 2. green right ahead, 3. cyclist have stop signal.... 4. get to intersection. 5. check road ahead clear 6. glance to the right/rear sidewalk, don't see cyclist any more. 7. go real slow around corner cause they were there earlier, 8. oh, there they are.

Al

I hate just having to walk and chew gum at the same time...I get soooo confused!