Good book out on urban cycling

[spandexwarrior]

I just snagged a copy of The Art of Urban Cycling , Lessons from the Street. by Robert Hurst. It was published in 2004. I'm about half way through it. The author is a "veteran bicycle messenger and all around urban cyclist who has cycled 150,000 miles and 15,000 hours in heavy traffic", according to the bio on the back cover. All and all it has some interesting ideas in it. He is good at recognizing flexibility is more important than just taking some method, say from Effective Cycling and going with it. The book is well worth the read. It covers a broad range of topics from the history of bicycling, to the effects of the crap we breath in city traffic, to road coverings. It supposedly has info for both the novice and the experienced rider. I definately think that there should be more books about urban cycling. Actually, reading a book on bike commuting is one thing that made me take up bike commuting. The library here had some book called Urban Cycling- Tricks and Tips which was okay, but focused more on silly stuff. I have ehanced my habit of cycling with my habit of reading, and it does pay off. There are just situations you can't imagine happening that do at some point. I've been lucky where I've read about some potential hazard or bizarre driver behavior, encountered it in real life, and then knew what to do. I also highly recommend reading roadie books. Speed is invaluable in dealing with some maniacs. These racer books speak of things like interval training, which is something you can do in your daily commute. First you go hard as you can for a set time, starting at 5 min. Then you rest for that period of time. Then you go hard as you can for approximately double that time, then rest for the same time. You then double that subsequent time and to this until you are tired. The roadie books, like the one by Davis Phinney, speak of slanting the bike to create a direct line between your toe and your nose. With slanting the bike like this you are actually using your body weight to apply pressure to the pedal. It's good for hills and stuff. So read and have fun. Perhaps bikeforums members could collaborate on some book on urban cycling. With so many cities represented here, there is probably a wealth of interestering tricks we all have.

[GCG199]

I recently picked up The Art of Urban Cycling too. I saw a thread somewhere on one of the bike forums talking about it. I have found it to be a good book, especially for the history of the bicycle part, which has very surprising stuff in it.

[cosmo starr]

speak of slanting the bike to create a direct line between your toe and your nose. With slanting the bike like this you are actually using your body weight to apply pressure to the pedal.

i just thought that was bad form....i guess im just a natural then

[bluejack]

speak of slanting the bike to create a direct line between your toe and your nose. With slanting the bike like this you are actually using your body weight to apply pressure to the pedal.
i just thought that was bad form....i guess im just a natural then

I see them doing it in the tour de france, so it can't be too bad. Some of those guys are actually pretty good cyclists.

Sounds like an interesting book. I'll check it out.

[alanbikehouston]

I began reading Robert Hurst's "Art of Urban Cycling" today. Terrific book, in large part because he has an interesting writing style. He writes in great detail about topics that interest him, and skips other related topics entirely. Most of the book is devoted to how to be a more skilled rider in urban traffic.

Although some of his ideas may be controversial (put your hand down to break your fall during a crash...that suggestion came just after a discussion of broken collarbones...Hurst doesn't see the connection between the two) most of his ideas are excellent.

His most helpful safety tips could probably be put into ten pages, rather than the 240 pages he uses. However, the book is so enjoyable to read, that wading through four or five pages to get the one sentence "tip" is well worth it.

The $15 price of the book is far cheaper than a trip to the ER. Any cyclist, no matter how experienced, can learn some new things from Hurst, or be reminded of things we once sort of knew, but have forgotten.

Best of all, although he is writing about safety, he does not make urban cycling seen suicidal, as do several of the "regular" posters in "Advocacy and Safety". He thinks urban cycling is reasonably safe, and both practical and enjoyable. Hurst just thinks we all could ride a little better if we worked at it a bit.

[Helmet Head]

Robert Hurst posts here once in a while, and actually did today. User RobertHurst.

[LCI_Brian]

I haven't read the book, but I've thumbed through it the last few times I've been at the bookstore, thinking that I might buy it, but then deciding not to.

The core assumption seems to be a mischaracterization of vehicular cycling as a dogmatic approach to riding in traffic. (Although I do think that some people apply vehicular cycling to the point of being dogmatic, most people who I would consider vehicular cyclists don't apply it so dogmatically.) Everything else seems to cascade from that assumption. So in some places where he says he disagrees with vehicular cycling, I feel he agrees.

Although the writing style is casual and easily readable, I found it mildly insulting in a couple of places. One section discussed route selection, saying that vehicular cyclists advocating using major arterial roads, but then parenthetically questioning whether they followed their own advice. As someone who regularly commutes on high speed roads with narrow outside lanes, I find that statement insulting. Furthermore, route selection depends on a number of variables - cyclist skill, cyclist comfort, destination, time constraints, type of road network, etc. - so it lends itself to more discussion than "use these kinds of roads and avoid those kinds".

[genec]

Found it to be a quite a bit better read than EC. And a bit more current... without the self inflating ego commentary of JF.

[Brian Ratliff]

I haven't read the book, but I've thumbed through it the last few times I've been at the bookstore, thinking that I might buy it, but then deciding not to.

The core assumption seems to be a mischaracterization of vehicular cycling as a dogmatic approach to riding in traffic. (Although I do think that some people apply vehicular cycling to the point of being dogmatic, most people who I would consider vehicular cyclists don't apply it so dogmatically.) Everything else seems to cascade from that assumption. So in some places where he says he disagrees with vehicular cycling, I feel he agrees.

Although the writing style is casual and easily readable, I found it mildly insulting in a couple of places. One section discussed route selection, saying that vehicular cyclists advocating using major arterial roads, but then parenthetically questioning whether they followed their own advice. As someone who regularly commutes on high speed roads with narrow outside lanes, I find that statement insulting. Furthermore, route selection depends on a number of variables - cyclist skill, cyclist comfort, destination, time constraints, type of road network, etc. - so it lends itself to more discussion than "use these kinds of roads and avoid those kinds".

...judging a book by its cover? Pick it up and read it before commenting. Read it without an agenda. Then compare it to other books and Effective Cycling in particular. Only then can you make your comments. There is no mischaracterizations of anything. Only interpretations; and if you read it with a level head, you will see that Hearst is actually pretty reverent of John Forester (in an "old curmudgen" type way) and the work he has done back when things were pretty bad for cyclists. He has opinions about how people such as our very own Helmet Head has twisted the vehicular cycling theory into something else; but then again, it is his book and he has the right to his opinions.

I've read it and it is a good read. Whereas Effective Cycling is mostly about specific techniques (all except the one chapter, the last one, which is purely opinion and where most of the complaints about his ideology and ego come from), The Art of Urban Cycling is about philosophy, style, and attitude. I would suggest reading both. If you go with only Effective Cycling, your style will gravitate to be very confrontational, and very stressful if you care at all about other road users. The only way to completely follow John Forester's advice and not have it be stressful is to not care about the other users of the road and be selfish. It can be debated whether other road users (i.e. drivers) should be accomodated, but this is largely a matter of personal opinion.

On the other hand, if you only read The Art of Urban Cycling, you will get lots of advice on making peace with other road users, working with drivers, and being smooth, predictable and mindful of common hazards, but obtain only a little advice on specific techniques; probably not enough to get right out and start riding in traffic starting with zero knowledge.

So, the best thing is to read both books (or the relevent chapter of each regarding cycling in traffic) and go out and practice the parts of each with work best. For the most part, they both say the same thing and reach the same conclusions; only their focus is different. Use Forester's book (Effective Cycling) to learn specific techniques of riding on the road, such as making vehicular left turns, taking a lane, and negotiating space; use Hurst's book (The Art of Urban Cycling) to gain insights on what it means to be part of the traffic system, working with other road users to facilitate traffic flow for all, and making practical deviations from strict vehicular cycling theory.

As it is most of the time, the best line to take is the one right down the middle.

[Helmet Head]

Brian, I did read the book, and I agree with LCI_Brian's assessment above.

Robert obviously has an axe to grind with VC advocates in general, and Forester in particular, and he flails with that axe throughout the book. I keep on intending to write a review of the book, but have not gotten around to it.

But my biggest objection to the book is the fear mongering. I don't have it in front of me, but I remember the closing paragraph of the book to be a good example (one of many, but the easiest to find) of this.

I do agree with Gene that it is better written - an easier and more enjoyable read - than is JF's EC. And I think we can all agree that Robert's chest thumping is much, much more subtle, than is Forester's.

Overall, I think he has some really good advice. The theme of cyclists needing to take responsibility for what happens to them is brilliant. But the fear mongering and anti-VC rhetoric greatly reduces its overall value.

[patc]

Found it to be a quite a bit better read than EC. And a bit more current... without the self inflating ego commentary of JF.

I loved it, and I appreciated that Hurst tended to present his opinions as just that - opinions - without pseudo-scientific data. Very good book, in fact I should read it again some time.

[Helmet Head]

I loved it, and I appreciated that Hurst tended to present his opinions as just that - opinions - without pseudo-scientific data. Very good book, in fact I should read it again some time.
Yes, you should read it again. And this time pay attention to Forester's "pseudo-scientific data" that he presents.

[noisebeam]

Reading multiple books/sources and thinking critically is the wise thing to do. No one book should be relied on.

Al

[Helmet Head]

Reading multiple books/sources and thinking critically is the wise thing to do. No one book should be relied on.
:beer:

By the way, an old thread on this book was just resurrected over in Commuting.

[John E]

I still recommend John Franklin's "Cyclecraft."

[Helmet Head]

I still recommend John Franklin's "Cyclecraft."
Three :beer: :beer: :beer: for the concept of the centerish "primary riding position".

[alanbikehouston]

As I continue reading Hurst's book, I'm getting a bit of a kick out of finding suggestions of survival techniques that I've kind of learned the hard way.

One such technique is the "fake right turn". My inner city neighborhood has intersections every hundred yards or so. At each of these intersections is a driver who is stoned, drunk, brain dead, or just generally dangerous. The cyclist gets to the intersection. The motorist to the cyclist's right stops...looks directly at the cyclist...makes no effort to move forward. If the cyclist sits and waits and waits, Ms. Stoned sits and waits. Just as the cyclist begins moves forward into the intersection, and is directly in front of the vehicle, "Ms. Stoned" hits the gas.

So, the need for the "fake right turn". The cyclist begins a right turn, riding to the right of Ms. Stoned's vehicle. At that point, Ms. Stoned hits the gas and rockets through the intersection. The cyclist follows her back into the intersection and continues on his original course. Being BEHIND Ms. Stoned is always safer than being in front of her.

Of course, the VC thing to do would be "assert my right to be on the road" and ride directly into her path. But, at my age, bones tend to be brittle. I'm too old to commit suicide riding the "VC way".

[Helmet Head]

Of course, the VC thing to do would be "assert my right to be on the road" and ride directly into her path. But, at my age, bones tend to be brittle. I'm too old to commit suicide riding the "VC way".
Incorrect.

The problem is that motorists have no idea whether you're going to stop, and rightfully so, because cyclists are in the habit of rolling stops. So when you slow down, but don't put your feet down, perhaps still slowly turning the cranks, he's not sure what you're doing. He waits. When he's finally tired of waiting, he takes off. Of course, that's only a moment after you decided to take off too.

The reason the "fake right turn" works is because he then knows, or thinks he knows, what you're doing (turning right).

The VC thing is to slow down, and take one of your feet off the pedal, preparing to place it on the ground - that also tells him what you're doing (stopping). Works every time. Heck, half the time they hit the gas before my foot even hits the ground... so I just clip right back in and take off. I call it "the stop".

Try it out and let me know how it works for you.

[alanbikehouston]

Incorrect.

The problem is that motorists have no idea whether you're going to stop, and rightfully so, because cyclists are in the habit of rolling stops. So when you slow down, but don't put your feet down, perhaps still slowly turning the cranks, he's not sure what you're doing. He waits. When he's finally tired of waiting, he takes off. Of course, that's only a moment after you decided to take off too.

The reason the "fake right turn" works is because he then knows, or thinks he knows, what you're doing (turning right).

The VC thing is to slow down, and take one of your feet off the pedal, preparing to place it on the ground - that also tells him what you're doing (stopping). Works every time. Heck, half the time they hit the gas before my foot even hits the ground... so I just clip right back in and take off. I call it "the stop".

Try it out and let me know how it works for you.

Try it out? If someone rode a bike in inner city Houston using YOUR suggested techniques, they would be dead within a week. Here in the 'hood, there is a war going on between motorists and cyclists. (There is also a war going on between "Motorist A" and "Motorist B"...that war is sometimes settled with gunfire.)

You seem to live in a fantasy world where motorists LOOK out for cyclists, love them, care for them, and politely defer to cyclists. In my neighborhood, the reality is most motorists hate cyclists...putting yourself in front of a car bumper requires a death wish.

[Helmet Head]

Try it out? If someone rode a bike in inner city Houston using YOUR suggested techniques, they would be dead within a week. Here in the 'hood, there is a war going on between motorists and cyclists. You seem to live in a fantasy world where motorists LOOK out for cyclists, love them, care for them, and politely defer to cyclists. In my neighborhood, the reality is most motorists hate cyclists...putting yourself in front of a car bumper requires a death wish.

Please reread my post. Since when does taking your foot off the pedal and stopping constitute "putting yourself in front of a car bumper"?

[Roody]

You seem to live in a fantasy world where motorists LOOK out for cyclists, love them, care for them, and politely defer to cyclists. In my neighborhood, the reality is most motorists hate cyclists...putting yourself in front of a car bumper requires a death wish.
Do you mean that most of your neighbors are deliberately aiming their cars at you? Or that they would gladly hit you if they thought they could get away with it? Or are they just worse drivers than average?

Why do you think the drivers in your area are more murderous or more careless than drivers in some other area?

[alanbikehouston]

Do you mean that most of your neighbors are deliberately aiming their cars at you? Or that they would gladly hit you if they thought they could get away with it? Or are they just worse drivers than average?

Why do you think the drivers in your area are more murderous or more careless than drivers in some other area?

Without a doubt, some motorists target cyclists in my neighborhood. Last Sunday, I was on a one way street that has five wide lanes, one of which is normally filled by parked cars. There was nothing going on downtown, so I was riding in the far left hand empty parking lane. Very few cars on the road...and each car had four wide empty lanes to chose from.

A car came up from behind me, the driver accelerated to about 50 mph and swerved in behind me. I cut for the curb just as he went by me, his driver door mirror missing my right shoulder by less than a foot. He then made a high speed left turn, getting out of sight before I could get his license number.

I have had similar incidents where a driver will swerve in close to my bike, and then go around the block, and come back and do it a second time. Usually a pickup truck. Often a KKK flag decal on the back window. Always a white male driver, often with a buddy or two, hooting and laughing at their "good joke".

With young female drivers, it seems to be some form of "brain lock". I'm at the intersection and so is she. If I wait a minute for HER to go, she refuses to go. But, when I get tired of waiting for her to go, and pedal into the intersection, as soon as I'm aligned with her bumper, she hits the gas.

I seriously doubt female drivers would deliberately target a cyclist, so their bizarre driving behavior must result from some disconnect between their brain and their right foot.

Austin is the most "bike friendly" part of Texas. But, while training, Lance has been assaulted by motor vehicles a number of times, usually by a guy in a truck. A couple of years ago, it was decided that Lance would have a security guy ride in a van behind his bike while training in Austin to protect him from vehicular assaults. A truck went around the security van and tried to run Lance off the road. Lance chased the truck down when it got caught in traffic up the road. Lance's security guy had to protect the truck driver from Lance.

There was a website in Austin that listed the names of cyclists in Austin who had been murdered by drivers while riding. And, for each cyclist, it listed whether the police arrested the motorist, and what the punishment was. The list was depressing to read, because in Texas, rarely does a motorist to go to jail for murdering a cyclist. The police response usually is "Why was that guy riding a bike on a road, anyway?"

[genec]

It's the Texas heat and humidity... it just "does things" to folks and makes 'em mean that way... ;)

[Roody]

Or more likely geopolitical forces.

[John E]

Or more likely geopolitical forces. There is alot of that going around. Having lived in California for many years, and the UK before that, Forester may never have encountered "bubba" motorists.

[John E]

Three :beer: :beer: :beer: for the concept of the centerish "primary riding position".

In slow traffic or with lots of gaps, I concur entirely. However, on 6-lane 55mph Palomar Airport Road, with its widely spaced intersections and often continuous flow of traffic, I simply take the (gasp) bike lane. Similarly, I completely avoided 2-lane 55mph Del Dios Highway while the bike lane was torn up and K-railed for construction. (Ah the joy of k-rail; there is no more effective motivator for bicyclists to take the in-your-face center of the main travel lane. :) )

[Helmet Head]

In slow traffic or with lots of gaps, I concur entirely. However, on 6-lane 55mph Palomar Airport Road, with its widely spaced intersections and often continuous flow of traffic, I simply take the (gasp) bike lane. Similarly, I completely avoided 2-lane 55mph Del Dios Highway while the bike lane was torn up and K-railed for construction. (Ah the joy of k-rail; there is no more effective motivator for bicyclists to take the in-your-face center of the main travel lane. :) )
No "however" is needed. What you are talking about is using the secondary lane position (near the outside edge of the roadway, in the demarcated bike lane if that's what happens to be there), in the presence of a faster "continuous flow of traffic". This is perfectly consistent with what Franklin, Forester, I and every VC advocate and LCI I have ever encountered would recommend. Even Dan G!

The only difference would be in the absence of same-direction traffic. In that situation, I would go back to the primary "centerish" position and monitoring traffic to my rear with my mirror, while I suspect you would stay in the bike lane, making that your primary riding position, contrary to what Franklin espouses.

[Helmet Head]

Okay, here is an example of how I think Hurst misrepresents vehicular cyclists in his book.

Starting at the bottom of page 142:

... a large contingent of serious urban cyclists are staunchly in favor of the sidewalk bans. Some of these are strict legalists with good intentions, and others [presumably lacking good intentions?] are vehicular cyclists who claim they would like to see every last off-street bike path rolled up and crushed into gravel but are turned into hypocrites every time they have to go downtown. Lots of idealists in this group.
I participate in several VC advocacy forums, and I have yet to encounter a single one who is opposed to off-street bike paths. That's not to say that there aren't any, but the picture Hurst paints here is quite misleading. In one statement he implies enough vehicular cyclists don't have good intentions, and are hypocritical "idealists" who oppose ALL bike paths, to warrant mentioning it. That is simply not the case.

As a sidenote, Robert reveals his apparent inability to see the practical benefits of developing and using ideology, and being an idealist, as is being discussed in the thread about the ban of cyclists on College in Fort Collins.

[Brian Ratliff]

HH: He must have been talking about someone else then; if you don't fit his group. If you fit his group, then he must have gotten the impression somehow. Too late to call foul after the impression has been given. Better to not make the impression in the first place.

I have other comments on the other thread.

As for ideology; I happen to share his view that strict ideology never survives for long in the real world. Where ideology is strictly followed, you get things like what happened in Germany in the 30's and what happened in the USSR in the 50's and what happened in Cambodia in the 70's and what is happening in the Middle East today. There is a practical benefit to form a world view and an ideology; but only if you know where it is non-ideal. Nature dictates the real world, not ideology. There are more than one ideology in the world, so, QED, nature follows none of them.

Sidenote: try not to switch comments from one thread to another, regardless of subject. It makes it very difficult to follow a conversation. Threads go off subject sometimes, but try to keep to the conversation line.

[Helmet Head]

Ok, here is another huge misrepresentation, on page 61:

However, the vehicular-cycling principle has a big hole in it: The strict vehicular cyclist who has elminated many of his or her own mistakes by riding lawfully will still remain quite vulnerable to the mistakes of others.
The clear implication is that one must veer from "strict" adherence to the VCP, in other words, one must sometimes not act like a vehicle driver, in order to be less vulnerable to the mistakes of others.

He goes on:

..riders who have spent decades and hundreds of thousands of miles in city traffic naturally adopt a style that is quieter, more conservative, and somehwat less trustful of others than that of the vehicular cyclists. It's amazing how a few trips to the MRI room will color one's justment of traffic laws and fellow road users.
Again, the implication is clear: acting like a vehicular driver will get you into the MRI room more often than if you adopt a "quieter, more conservative, and somehwat less trustful of others" methodology. Huh? How so? Why?

He goes on on the next page (62):

One of the big problems with the vehicular-cycling principle, or any principle of urban cycling, for that matter, is that it fails to account for the complexities, details and chaos of the city streets.
How does it do that? No answer. And look at what he uses for "evidence":


Evidence of this failure is provided in the fact that few experienced cyclists, even those who are vocal proponents of vehicular-cycling dogma [oh, no, that's not a biased slam on VC], apply it consistently in their everyday travels.
Okay, it's evidence. But it's very thin, and hardly constitutes proof. And it is entirely discounted by the fact that vehicular cyclists, like myself, do apply it consistently in our everyday travels.

And as for more misrepresentation, check this out:


They're not above using an off-sreet bike path if it's headed in the right direction
Vehicular cycling is about how to ride on public roadways. It has nothing to do with cycling on bike paths , or off-road mountain biking for that matter. This is not evidence of a "failure" in the VCP. He goes on:


They roll through stop signs [so do car drivers; :rolleyes:], treat red lights like yield signs, and filter past lines of stopped cars in traffic jams and at intersections [as do motor cyclists]
None of this is evidence of the VCP not accounting "for the complexities, details and chaos of the city streets." And how does treating red lights like yield signs reduce one's chance of having to get an MRI?

But from this this veil of an argument, Robert has the gall to conclude, "If cyclists were to suddently start living by the vehicular principle in all situations, disregarding the special privileges and de facto rules they have built for themselves over the decades, the advantages of riding a bike in the city would be gutted."

This is the strawman argument in its purest form. He has chosen to interpret "act like a vehicle driver" to mean "act like a car", and argues against that. This is a gross misrepresenation of VC. I don't believe it's malicious, however. It's quite obvious that Robert simply does not get it.

The travesty is that he gets it enough to be able to make his mischaracterizations of VC sound convincing to those with even less of an understanding of what it is.

[Helmet Head]

Brian, I'm trying to keep my comments about UC within a thread about UC so that they are easier to find in the future. I also did not want to take the other thread to far off topic.

He must have been talking about someone else then; if you don't fit his group.
It's not that I don't fit his group, it's that I don't know anyone who does.

Consider this statement:

Some have good intentions, but other racist Communists are Democrats who claim they would like to see every last [insert minority group person here] rolled up and crushed into mulch but are turned into hypocrites every time they.... Lots of idealists in this group.
Don't you see how such a statement is misleading about Democrats, especially for someone who knows nothing about Democrats?

[billh]

As I continue reading Hurst's book, I'm getting a bit of a kick out of finding suggestions of survival techniques that I've kind of learned the hard way.

One such technique is the "fake right turn". My inner city neighborhood has intersections every hundred yards or so. At each of these intersections is a driver who is stoned, drunk, brain dead, or just generally dangerous. The cyclist gets to the intersection. The motorist to the cyclist's right stops...looks directly at the cyclist...makes no effort to move forward. If the cyclist sits and waits and waits, Ms. Stoned sits and waits. Just as the cyclist begins moves forward into the intersection, and is directly in front of the vehicle, "Ms. Stoned" hits the gas.

So, the need for the "fake right turn". The cyclist begins a right turn, riding to the right of Ms. Stoned's vehicle. At that point, Ms. Stoned hits the gas and rockets through the intersection. The cyclist follows her back into the intersection and continues on his original course. Being BEHIND Ms. Stoned is always safer than being in front of her.

Of course, the VC thing to do would be "assert my right to be on the road" and ride directly into her path. But, at my age, bones tend to be brittle. I'm too old to commit suicide riding the "VC way".

I'm trying to picture this. Are you talking about 4-way stops, ie intersections with stop signs in all 4 directions? And the motorist is stopped at the intersecting street? What's wrong with taking turns? Well, I guess if you are going to be shot at . . .

[Hawkear]

I seriously doubt female drivers would deliberately target a cyclist, so their bizarre driving behavior must result from some disconnect between their brain and their right foot.BWAHAHAHAHA!!!

Tell that to the woman who deliberately rammed her car into me.

[chipcom]

Please reread my post. Since when does taking your foot off the pedal and stopping constitute "putting yourself in front of a car bumper"?

Since when does taking your foot off the pedal relate to VC? Perhaps you are confusing it with FC - Flintstone Cycling, where feet are used for braking. :p

VC would be to signal your intentions using the accepted hand signal or an accepted signaling device, not making up a signaling technique of your own. How about we remove the standard signaling devices from cars and let drivers make em up as they go too?

[chipcom]

Okay, here is an example of how I think Hurst misrepresents vehicular cyclists in his book.

Starting at the bottom of page 142:


I participate in several VC advocacy forums, and I have yet to encounter a single one who is opposed to off-street bike paths. That's not to say that there aren't any, but the picture Hurst paints here is quite misleading. In one statement he implies enough vehicular cyclists don't have good intentions, and are hypocritical "idealists" who oppose ALL bike paths, to warrant mentioning it. That is simply not the case.

As a sidenote, Robert reveals his apparent inability to see the practical benefits of developing and using ideology, and being an idealist, as is being discussed in the thread about the ban of cyclists on College in Fort Collins.

You seem to be worried more about the perception of VC in Robert's book, rather than any specific riding techniques or advice he might mention. Defending the brand to the end I see.

[cooker]

Robert Hurst posts here once in a while, and actually did today.

Did he start this thread? Just kidding.

[I-Like-To-Bike]

How about we remove the standard signaling devices from cars and let drivers make em up as they go too?
Yeah! Yeah! Cryptic eye ball gazing combined with head turning to indicate turning maneuvars, except when they don't. That's the ticket; should reduce traffic risk among the "competent" psychics by at least 80%!

[JohnBrooking]

Hurst's book is the only cycling book I've read to date, and I thought it was very good and helpful. Its biggest impact on me was a section on taking responsibility for your own safety, even when there is stupidity all around you. I can't quote it exactly right now because I can't find my copy, but I distinctly remember him talking of "hoarding" responsibility, gathering all of it that you can to yourself, and using it more wisely than those around you. That made a big impression on me.