Vehicular Cycling (VC) - Forester takes on BF Posters

Zeytoun apparently fails to understand that there is much more to VC riding than lane position. In any case, I was replying to the fanciful assertion about me and lane position.

But here are some obvious thoughts. The cyclist who overtakes on the right-hand side of a vehicle that can, and may, turn right is very foolish. In other words, here is a particular lane position that is very dangerous. And how about the cyclist who turns left from a position adjacent to the curb? Generally also very dangerous.

Edited by Moderators

Hm, this thread is long.

I'm ill-informed on this whole debate, however I'd like to mention that Forester uses at least one glaring logical fallacy in his piece:


This is Stanley Batt's standard piling of what he claims to be valid criticism upon more of the same. Here is his routine. There is no proof that disobeying the rules of the road is more dangerous than obeying them. Obeying the rules of the road is a very difficult task. Forester's measurements of the traffic behavior of student cyclists at the end of the course do not demonstrate learning. There is no proof that the general club cycling population rode in a vehicular manner. It goes on and on.
This is a "straw man" fallacy, where the debater essentially puts words in the opposition's mouth, propping up an argument (the straw man) and proceeds to knock it down/discredit it. However, the use of paraphrase, especially such statements as "it goes on and on" is a "discrediting" of an argument without actually examining the argument being proposed, therefore it's just a dismissal, in no way disproving the opposition's arguments, whatever they are.

I'm sure I could have explained that more clearly, but there you are.

Edited by Moderators

It is also recognized that few American cyclists obey the rules of the road, while a much greater proportion of those with club cycling experience do so. If the club cyclists show a car-bike collision rate per mile only 25% of that of the general public, it is reasonable to conclude that obeying the rules of the road had a great deal in preventing collisions.

Okay, John.

1)where did you come up with THAT data?

2) maybe its also reasonable to conclude 'club cyclists' ride in a group and there is safety in numbers.

3)There's little to compare between riders who drive the to a start point, ride recreationally in a club event, then drive home - and the average transportational cyclists riding solo in all conditions, day, night, low vis, snow, etc... on the roads.

3)I wasn't aware club cyclists were any better at stopping at stop signs than the rest of us.

4) can you send the peloton by my place about 8:30 tomorrow morning? I want to ride to work.

:roflmao:

N_C suggests that my cycling experience has been parochial. Here's a list:

England, Canada, California, Washington, Oregon, Arizona, Texas, Colorado, Iowa, Illinois, Ohio, Indiana, Tennessee, Florida, Georgia, Virginia, West Virginia, Maryland, Delaware, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New York, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New Hampshire,

... Forester uses at least one glaring logical fallacy in his piece ...
I'm sure I could have explained that more clearly...
I'm not sure which piece you're looking at. Can you give us a link to it?

skanking asks a rather naive question: "I really don't understand why you can't have both segregated facilities and lawful bicycle use in traffic at the same time. Why are these 2 ideas oppossed?"

The answer is in terms of resources in space, money, social attitude, and political will. Having both requires more space, more money, it requires two different social attitudes (vehicular cycling vs cyclist inferiority cycling, if you will), and sufficient political will to carry all of these pairs. Won't happen, hasn't happened anywhere that we know of.

I don't buy this. Why are the choice between "vehicular cycling" and "cyclist inferiority cycling"? For instance, in Portland, or at least the westside suburbs where I live, we have both, yet most of the cyclists you see are vehicular cyclists. Myself, I am a long time vehicular cyclist and have found a noticeable lessening of car-bike friction as roads have been widened to allow for bike lanes.

If skanking chose to read the Cyclist Proficiency Score Sheet he would have some idea of what is considered proficient traffic skill. Also, if he read the studies, they would inform him of the number of subjects and the statistical range of confidence. Until then, his comments are worthless.

N_C suggests that my cycling experience has been parochial. Here's a list:

England, Canada, California, Washington, Oregon, Arizona, Texas, Colorado, Iowa, Illinois, Ohio, Indiana, Tennessee, Florida, Georgia, Virginia, West Virginia, Maryland, Delaware, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New York, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New Hampshire,
I'm pleasantly surprised! You sound like a well-spoken, easygoing guy who's really got his head together... I have to apologize, I had assumed an unkind opinion of yourself, based entirely upon secondhand information. Helmet Head had convinced me through many months of incessant and tedious tirades that you were stubborn and blind to common sense. I guess it's not always best to take the messenger at his word. Now I've begun to wonder who's side he's really on... Anyway, my deepest apologies for assuming the worst; I'll be sure to stop by your website and learn more about what you have to teach! :D

... I ... have found a noticeable lessening of car-bike friction as roads have been widened to allow for bike lanes.I've noticed reduced social friction when roads have been widened (or re-striped) to allow for wide outside thru lanes.

N_C wonders about me in rather naive terms.

I advocate VC and a VC social policy because these are right for cyclists, providing the best combination of safety and effectiveness in bicycle travel that we know. American society does not believe in VC, and one of the social bodies that opposes VC is the bicycle advocating body. The peculiar thing about all of this is that the anti-motoring bicycle advocates base their strategy on a system that was invented by motorists to improve motoring regardless of the adverse effect on cyclists, a discriminatory system which was made politically acceptable only by frightening cyclists about same-direction motor travel. The psychological complications of arguing for one thing by means of arguments that oppose it, and all on the basis of no scientific evidence, is why you have the kind of discussion that is occurring on this list.

In any scientific issue, what must be evaluated is the weight of the evidence on each side. There is not perfect evidence for VC; there never is perfect evidence in any scientific controversy. However, there is no evidence whatever for the bikeway program and its supporting emotion.

actually, john, there IS proof - seen in cities around the world- that communities CAN increase trips by bike, markedly so, by the increase in bicycle-specific infrastructure integrated with the public rights of way.

Cities as far reaching as Brussels, Copenhagen, Victoria, Bogota, Portland, Berlin, Mineapolis, Denver- and many more - have all seen increases in transportational trips by bike. some cities in Europe approach 40 percent of trips by bicycle.

The desire I have is to see more people using bikes for transportation in america. Keeping rights to the roads is a paramount fight for cyclists, but it is not the only cause.

Encouraging bicycling thru the use of bike infrastructure integrated with public rights of way works, and can be developed to not encroach on cyclists' rights to the roads.

Cycling advocacy can have myriad causes that are not mutually exclusive.

Transportational cycling, for everyday trips, (most car trips in the US are less than five miles from a persons' home) SHOULD increase. you throw it out with your 40 year old bathwater. Marginalizing the implementation of public space improvements that increase transportational cycling damages cycling.

Increasing everyday use of bikes in America is a practical, worthwhile and noble cause for cyclists of all (jersey)stripes to endorse and embrace.


Welcome to bike forums.

The psychological complications of arguing for one thing by means of arguments that oppose it, and all on the basis of no scientific evidence, is why you have the kind of discussion that is occurring on this list.
You're right, we should look beyond our initial reactions to the swaggering and boorish presentation of the subject, look beyond our anger at being insulted and degraded by the messenger, and look instead to the qualities of the message. We should have ignored the way in which we were repeatedly clobbered about the head and shoulders with this message, and not let the messenger so completely derail our attempts to peacefully discuss it among ourselves in order to properly understand the message.

Welcome to Bike Forums!

I'm pleasantly surprised! You sound like a well-spoken, easygoing guy who's really got his head together... I have to apologize, I had assumed an unkind opinion of yourself, based entirely upon secondhand information. Helmet Head had convinced me through many months of incessant and tedious tirades that you were stubborn and blind to common sense. I guess it's not always best to take the messenger at his word. Now I've begun to wonder who's side he's really on... Anyway, my deepest apologies for assuming the worst; I'll be sure to stop by your website and learn more about what you have to teach! :D
How on Earth do you choose the incessant and tedious tirades of one person to cause you to conclude anything about anyone else, much less something as specific as some other particular person "is stubborn and blind to common sense"?

However, there is no evidence whatever for the bikeway program and its supporting emotion.

actually, john, there IS proof - seen in cities around the world- that communities CAN increase trips by bike, markedly so, by the increase in bicycle-specific infrastructure integrated with the public rights of way.

Cities as far reaching as Brussels, Copenhagen, Victoria, Bogota, Portland, Berlin, Mineapolis, Denver- and many more - have all seen increases in transportational trips by bike. some cities in Europe approach 40 percent of trips by bicycle.

The desire I have is to see more people using bikes for transportation in america. Keeping rights to the roads is a paramount fight for cyclists, but it is not the only cause.

Encouraging bicycling thru the use of bike infrastructure integrated with public rights of way works, and can be developed to not encroach on cyclists' rights to the roads.

Cycling advocacy can have myriad causes that are not mutually exclusive.

Transportational cycling, for everyday trips, (most car trips in the US are less than five miles from a persons' home) SHOULD increase. you throw it out with your 40 year old bathwater. Marginalizing the implementation of public space improvements that increase transportational cycling damages cycling.

Increasing everyday use of bikes in America is a practical, worthwhile and noble cause for cyclists of all (jersey)stripes to endorse and embrace.


boy, this forum is going to get ugly. john forester will now pontificate, ignore, and delude, and
"mr. head & the minions" will run psyops. :eek: scary!

N_C suggests that my cycling experience has been parochial. Here's a list:

England, Canada, California, Washington, Oregon, Arizona, Texas, Colorado, Iowa, Illinois, Ohio, Indiana, Tennessee, Florida, Georgia, Virginia, West Virginia, Maryland, Delaware, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New York, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New Hampshire,

Have you ever ridden in Sioux City, Sgt Bluff or Des Moines, Iowa? How about any place in Nebraska or South Dakota? The area I live in is where Iowa, Nebraska & South Dakota come together. I ride in all 3 places, sometimes in the same day & I grew up in Des Moines. And please do not tell me your experience of riding in Iowa is from riding on RAGBRAI. That great & fun ride is a creature all it's own that you should use to base how good or bad cycling is in Iowa. There are way to many variables.

Would you mind answering my other questions, why & what?

JF, one more thing where do you get all of this so-called expertese from? Are you formally educated in it, I mean from an accredited institution of learning. Are or were you a traffic planner, engineer or have you ever worked for a DOT in the United States, not Great Britain or some other country. Sorry that doesn't count. Comparing cycling in the U.S.A. to other countries is comparing apples to oranges. Let's keep this in the 50 U.S. states.

JF, want to hear something that will make you cringe? Just say so & I'll be glad to tell you.

JF, want to hear something that will make you cringe? Just say so & I'll be glad to tell you.
Now you've got me curious!:D

skanking asks a rather naive question: "I really don't understand why you can't have both segregated facilities and lawful bicycle use in traffic at the same time. Why are these 2 ideas oppossed?"

The answer is in terms of resources in space, money, social attitude, and political will. Having both requires more space, more money, it requires two different social attitudes (vehicular cycling vs cyclist inferiority cycling, if you will), and sufficient political will to carry all of these pairs. Won't happen, hasn't happened anywhere that we know of.
Who is this "we" you rather patronizingly refer to? To some extent it has happened where I live, for example. I don't think skanking's question is naive at all.

--J

I was editing this while Tom replied to it (see below).

Who is this "we" you rather patronizingly refer to? It has happened where I live, for example. I don't think skanking's question is naive at all.

--J
The we referred to, I can only presume, is him and his followers!

How on Earth do you choose the incessant and tedious tirades of one person to cause you to conclude anything about anyone else, much less something as specific as some other particular person "is stubborn and blind to common sense"?
It's like if someone just vomited pizza all over the inside of the car you're going to be stuck in for the next half hour. Unlikely as it may sound, you'd turn down stopping for lunch at a pizza joint, right?


Or if something really unusual happened, sometimes you've just got to cast out a line and see what you reel in. You're up late! I don't think I've ever seen you posting here this late on a weeknight. It's quite a coincidence, someone named John Forester joined the discussion, this very night! You just missed him, he disappeared only moments before you got here.

boy, this forum is going to get ugly. john forester will now pontificate, ignore, and delude, and
"mr. head & the minions" will run psyops. :eek: scary!
But it appears they're going to take turns. Helmet Head was up late tonight, posting until 11:03, extremely unusual for a weeknight. He took a 2 1/2 hour break before that, which happened to coincide exactly with the time John Forester joined the discussions. Man, what are the chances of that? One of the only times Helmet Head stays up this late on a weeknight, and it just happens to be the very same night John Forester joins! Oh, the cruel fate that he would take a break from the forum and miss out on this momentuous occasion by minutes! So close...

Why did each of these identities specifically avoid referring to each other, defend each other, or expand on the other's ideas? It's like they're consciously avoiding each other. Why didn't they log in at the same time? Will we ever see both of these names simultaneously under "Currently Active Users"?

Well, at least ILTB has the gonads to do it in an open forum and not hide behind a static HTML page with handpicked quotes to attack out of context.
Yes, you're right. It's impossible to respond to JF's "static HTML page" anywhere else on the internet. It's not like those criticized could start a Bikeforums.net thread to respond. :rolleyes: But he showed up and posted here anyway, so I guess the point is moot.


I don't agree that ILTB has a personal vendetta unless JF also has a personal vendetta, since he saw fit to 'out' him on his web site.
This is clearly a two-sided vendetta. Forester lets ILTB get under his skin. That's stupid given that ILTB's attacks rarely contain any substance. On the other side, ILTB, Bek, and sbhikes appear to think that Forester's ideas are so persuasive that they require rebuttal. If Forester were a clearly mistaken crank, there would be no need to respond.

Zeytoun states: "This is a very common error people make, confusing correlation for causation.
The correlation is club riding experience to fewer accidents. The causation he assumes is that it is the VC concepts of club riding that cause the fewer accidents."

There is a very great difference between correlation and causation, as I have frequently stated. One very great difference is that a reasonable causal connection has to exist for a correlation to be used as support for causation. We are discussing here only collisions between cyclists and motorists. It is recognized that obeying the rules of the road causes traffic to flow in patterns that do not cause collisions. Contrariwise, it is recognized that nearly all collisions are caused by one or both parties disobeying the rules of the road. It is also recognized that few American cyclists obey the rules of the road, while a much greater proportion of those with club cycling experience do so. If the club cyclists show a car-bike collision rate per mile only 25% of that of the general public, it is reasonable to conclude that obeying the rules of the road had a great deal in preventing collisions.
The same old, same old statistical house of cards built upon sophomoric risk analysis and fabricated and/or cherry picked data. It doesn't get anymore credible when repeated for the umpteenth time plus one.

If skanking chose to read the Cyclist Proficiency Score Sheet he would have some idea of what is considered proficient traffic skill. Also, if he read the studies, they would inform him of the number of subjects and the statistical range of confidence. Until then, his comments are worthless.
Skanking,

Welcome to the World Of Forester Brand Scientific Inquiry and Discussion.

But it appears they're going to take turns. Helmet Head was up late tonight, posting until 11:03, extremely unusual for a weeknight. He took a 2 1/2 hour break before that, which happened to coincide exactly with the time John Forester joined the discussions. Man, what are the chances of that? One of the only times Helmet Head stays up this late on a weeknight, and it just happens to be the very same night John Forester joins! Oh, the cruel fate that he would take a break from the forum and miss out on this momentuous occasion by minutes! So close...

Why did each of these identities specifically avoid referring to each other, defend each other, or expand on the other's ideas? It's like they're consciously avoiding each other. Why didn't they log in at the same time? Will we ever see both of these names simultaneously under "Currently Active Users"?

Nope. Not true.

I don't wonder that the discussion on this list is so disorganized. When intending to reply to a particular message, one cannot read the message to which one is replying. Or is there some hidden system for doing this? If so, please inform me by email to forester@johnforester.com

Simply use 'Reply with Quote'. Note that this forum is probably more interactive than you are used to. I'm not going to reply to your email address unless I want to discuss something with you privately, otherwise this is a public forum. Thank's for stopping by, hope to hear from you again soon - I sooo look forward to discussing your cyclist-phobia theory, which quite frankly I believe is pure horsepucky. ;)

skanking asks a rather naive question: "I really don't understand why you can't have both segregated facilities and lawful bicycle use in traffic at the same time. Why are these 2 ideas oppossed?"

The answer is in terms of resources in space, money, social attitude, and political will. Having both requires more space, more money, it requires two different social attitudes (vehicular cycling vs cyclist inferiority cycling, if you will), and sufficient political will to carry all of these pairs. Won't happen, hasn't happened anywhere that we know of.



Which world do you live in, John? Have you happened to notice that things have changed just a teeny bit from the 70s? We already DO have a combination of segregated facilities and lawful bicycle use in traffic. If the resources and political will did not exist, that would not be the case. It's a very simple concept - different infrastructure for different needs. Government has no problem spending money on transportational infrastructure - our roadways, AND on recreational infrastructure - segregated facilities. In some cases they spend money for facilities that serve the dual purpose of recreation and transportation. Perhaps Portland is a good example of one place where they understand that these facilities can be dual use. Here in NE Ohio, it's quite common to see cyclists both on the roads and on segregated facilities RIGHT NEXT TO EACH OTHER, RUNNING PARALLEL TO EACH OTHER.

I have managed to 'move past' the facilities debate and accept them as a fact of life that is preferred by a majority of cyclists - but of course you and I probably have a different definition of what a 'cyclist' is. Have you 'moved past' the facilities debate John? Have you accepted them, or does 'move past' mean ignore and oppose in your world?

Finally, please explain to me how a mother, riding a bike, toting a trailer with a young child, outside of the stress of traffic, is 'cyclist inferiority cycling'? Because she feels that traffic is stress? Guess what, MOST DRIVERS FEEL STRESS IN TRAFFIC - are they practicing 'motorist inferiority driving'?

So far your responses to others have not impressed me - perhaps you should let HH represent your views on cycling, at least he does a better job of it.

Now you've got me curious!:D

It isn't anything everyone here hasn't heard or doesn't already know about me, except JF or other newbies.

It is also recognized that few American cyclists obey the rules of the road, while a much greater proportion of those with club cycling experience do so.

Who recognizes this and where is the data that this recognition is based upon? I don't 'recognize' this, my experience shows me that club riders violate traffic laws at least as much, if not more, than the general public, especially in regards to stop signs/signals. So why should I take your word for it when my experience indicates otherwise. Indeed, your entire theory is invalid if you cannot back up the statement quoted above.

N_C suggests that my cycling experience has been parochial. Here's a list:

England, Canada, California, Washington, Oregon, Arizona, Texas, Colorado, Iowa, Illinois, Ohio, Indiana, Tennessee, Florida, Georgia, Virginia, West Virginia, Maryland, Delaware, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New York, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New Hampshire,

Does this include anything other than club rides and your 'experiments'?

In any scientific issue, what must be evaluated is the weight of the evidence on each side. There is not perfect evidence for VC; there never is perfect evidence in any scientific controversy. However, there is no evidence whatever for the bikeway program and its supporting emotion.

So you claim there is a conspiracy that frightens cyclists and drives them to prefer bikeways, so that preference and the fact that so many use bikeways isn't evidence, just supporting emotion. Does that about put it in a nutshell?

So why should I take your word for it when my experience indicates otherwise. Indeed, your entire theory is invalid if you cannot back up the statement quoted above.
OOh, OOH ChipCom Man! You wouldn't issue such a personal attack if you weren't vindictive and had a vendetta with Forester (IAW HH-speak.:) ) Or maybe your skepticism and rebuttal are further evidence that the Forester statements are "persuasive" IAW DC-speak.:rolleyes:


On the other side, ILTB, Bek, and sbhikes appear to think that Forester's ideas are so persuasive that they require rebuttal. If Forester were a clearly mistaken crank, there would be no need to respond.

Does this include anything other than club rides and your 'experiments'?
My take is that the breadth of Forester's cycling "experience" is irrelevant. He only sees what he wants and filters out the rest that doesn't fit into his neat cyclist dichotomy: the 1-5% (est.) of "competent club cyclists"/Certified Effective Cyclists who are "safe cyclists", or the unworthy untrained "incompetent"/"lawless" cycling lowlifes who make up the rest of the cyclists who are not "safe."

Does this include anything other than club rides and your 'experiments'?

I asked him what specific areas of Iowa, since myself & ILTB live here, he has ridden. I also suggested he not use RAGBRAI as a model to determine whether or not Iowa is a good or bad place to ride, to many variables on that ride.

You still ain't figured out how to understand what is said, rather than how it is said, have you? :rolleyes:
People have their own individual styles and mannerisms and last I looked, that ain't a crime - and dude, you (or I for that matter) are the last people who should be preaching political correctness.

Zing! :D Sorry, very late to the party, and still trying to catch up...

We have both (facilities & a right to the road) here in Toronto although the bike lanes or whatever you call them are incomplete. As long as there are no rules restricting cyclists to the bike lanes they are a benefit. They do just what JF claims they will do, which is address the "cyclist inferiority" fear haberdashery found in many large communities.

IMO if the public at-large has an un-justifiable fear of cycling with traffic it makes sense to address that fear if the intent is to raise the number of bicycle trips on our streets. This could lead (at least) to a snowball effect, one that most here recognize, that more cyclists on the road lead to safer conditions, and thereby lead to even more cyclists on the road.

It is certainly more effective to give the public a pacifier for its fears than to simply provide no comfort & tell them "Like it or Lump it(Drive)" & do nothing, or have available only a course that teaches "safe" cycling, because they may choose not to attempt bicycle trips otherwise & there are a great many benefits to be had from increasing bicycle trips, whether they replace car trips or not.

Certainly I feel safer on Toronto streets where the cyclist population is much larger than other large North American cities I've ridden in at length. I believe it is everything to do with the acclimatization that Toronto drivers have had with a good number of cyclists sharing the road, not bike lanes, but I believe that many of those same cyclists that provide the acclimatization may not have decided upon cycling as a transportational alternative (voluntary or not) without the notion that cyclists were somehow provided for with infrastructure in the city.

In short, failing to address a public misconception, or addressing same by simply telling the public it is wrong because it doesn't know the facts, is bad policy IMO. When enough people perceive there to be a problem, the problem has to be addressed whether it exists or not. To do otherwise would make the policymaker as guilty of denial & as irresponsible as the ones with the fanciful fear being ignored.

JF appears to want a world where transportational policies are built of science & empirical data alone, even though these too are questionable when you look at them by themselves. I don't think too many would argue that the application of said data is as varied & problematic as the emotional arguments for road policies, especially given the propensity of both sides to fudge in some way.

JF if you want so badly to see bikelanes eradicated, I'd say your best bet is to embrace them. Consider them training wheels for the future.* There won't be a need for them as cycling populations grow, and growing familiarity with safe practices will come with greater numbers, not LAB instructors or boring tomes explaining in only a few hundred pages how to avoid a right hook, though they have their place. I don't believe people are the lemmings you seem to see them as.

*If you're capable of permitting a future where bicycle transportation is a viable alternative, which it can be now for some & likely will be for many more in the future, & by the use of bikeways/lanes/etc.

There certainly is evidence for bikeway programs John, just not evidence you've demonstrated yourself capable of, not in an effective manner anyway unless your intent was to undermine support of your own work.

I have no doubt as to JF's experience. I'm a lot younger then he is so no doubt he has more life experience then me. Maybe even more experience at cycling then I do. But as others have suggested he seems to be stuck in the past & he lets emotion cloud his reasoning when it comes to what he is trying to accomplish & how he goes about presenting it. I would also seem he is not open to other suggestions & even if he were he still thinks his way is the only way.

As a younger person I see things differantly. I see a world where it is a good thing to have both on & off street seperate facilities & where streets are designed to accomidate all potential users, Complete Streets. I see the on & off street facilities being married or melded together to tranistion from one to the next in an easy & safe manner, taking into account ease of use & level of service, not to mention astetics.

He mentioned he has ridden in Iowa. I wonder how long ago, & I wonder if he has ridden in Des Moines or central Iowa. Despite the short commings of that area of Iowa, I can say this because I grew up there, it is a good model of combining both on street & off street facilities together.

I bet if he returned today to ride he would find things a lot better then he did before that is if he had any problems with it in the past. Who knows maybe his experience was a good one in Iowa. I wonder if even if it was good if he would still find unacceptable issues with it?

Zeytoun states: "This is a very common error people make, confusing correlation for causation.
The correlation is club riding experience to fewer accidents. The causation he assumes is that it is the VC concepts of club riding that cause the fewer accidents."

It is also recognized that few American cyclists obey the rules of the road, while a much greater proportion of those with club cycling experience do so. If the club cyclists show a car-bike collision rate per mile only 25% of that of the general public, it is reasonable to conclude that obeying the rules of the road had a great deal in preventing collisions.

JF, your own article refutes what you say here -- club cyclists,according to YOU, showed a 25% REDUCTION in accidents, not an accident rate of 25% that of the general public -- i read your article myslef, and i am drawing from it!

I am further disturbed by your single-mindedness about VC -- which, by the way, i will never embrace as you represent, even at gunpoint -- as the only way for cyclists to conduct themselves. it's like a quote from Scripture; the Messiah said, "he who is not with me is against me." i guess that makes you some sort of 'cycling messaiah', eh?

more like the cycling antichrist....

seek life elsewhere, preferably on four wheels, which allegiance you have yet to refute.

A friendly reminder from the Forum Mods: many of the participants in this thread obviously know each other from elsewhere (meaning outside Bike Forums). But please, when you discuss here, use Bike Forum screen names when referring to each other. Real name references will be removed, unless they're posted with other party's consent.

--Juha, a Forum Mod

I don't buy this. Why are the choice between "vehicular cycling" and "cyclist inferiority cycling"? For instance, in Portland, or at least the westside suburbs where I live, we have both, yet most of the cyclists you see are vehicular cyclists. Myself, I am a long time vehicular cyclist and have found a noticeable lessening of car-bike friction as roads have been widened to allow for bike lanes.

A few miles from my house, NCDOT rebuilt a low-volume road to provide a sidewalk path designated for bicycle use, and paved two narrow lanes with a raised center median, preventing drivers from safely passing cyclists using the roadway.

When cyclists complained that the new design created problems for cyclists operating in the vehicular manner, their concerns were dismissed by NCDOT as being limited to a few "elite" cyclists while the sidewalk path was intended to serve a larger population of cyclists who operate in what I call the "pedestrian" manner (Forester uses the term inferiority.)

This is one of the places where constrained resources encouraged the government to choose between supporting vehicular cycling and pedestrian-mode cycling. This zero-sum game doesn't always happen, but it disturbs me how my state and local government is increasingly favoring the pedestrian-on-wheels paradigm when given such a choice.

-Steve Goodridge

This is clearly a two-sided vendetta. Forester lets ILTB get under his skin. That's stupid given that ILTB's attacks rarely contain any substance. On the other side, ILTB, Bek, and sbhikes appear to think that Forester's ideas are so persuasive that they require rebuttal. If Forester were a clearly mistaken crank, there would be no need to respond.

it's wonderful to live in a country where opinions are allowed, right or wrong -- in your case, that ILTB rarely carries any substance; i don't agree, but i will (and have, by wearing the uniform) defend your right to say so.

the problem with part 2 of your statement is this, clearly mistaken crank or not, there are naive and uninformed people out there in droves who will hook their wagons to anyone who sounds smarter than they are, regardless of whether they actually are. for example (and DON'T TELL ME LATER I'M CALLING JF THIS), i give you osama bin laden.

So you claim there is a conspiracy that frightens cyclists and drives them to prefer bikeways, so that preference and the fact that so many use bikeways isn't evidence, just supporting emotion. Does that about put it in a nutshell?

Not a conspiracy. Just a bunch of individuals, like the Cary Police and Local Sherrif department pulling over cyclists for riding in narrow travel lanes and causing other drivers to slow down, and -what's the word - JAMs honking, yelling, throwing things, and passing too closely to cyclists to make a point, and some DJs from Clear Channel laughing about motorists deliberately endangering cyclists, and encouraging people to do more of the same.

No ringleader, just a cultural problem.

skanking asks a rather naive question: "I really don't understand why you can't have both segregated facilities and lawful bicycle use in traffic at the same time. Why are these 2 ideas oppossed?"

The answer is in terms of resources in space, money, social attitude, and political will. Having both requires more space, more money, it requires two different social attitudes (vehicular cycling vs cyclist inferiority cycling, if you will), and sufficient political will to carry all of these pairs. Won't happen, hasn't happened anywhere that we know of.

And some more from skanking: "How does advocating that people know the rules of the road when cycling in traffic result in opposition of all other types of cycling?" This not the real issue. As far as cycling on the roads in traffic is concerned, obeying the rules of the road is very necessary. All other types of cycling on the roads in traffic are dangerous and clumsy, and we need one social policy about cycling on the roads in traffic. What you do on offroad trails is immaterial and is outside the scope of the discussion.

And a bit more also from skanker: "What am I missing here? I understand his point that cyclists are a minority and the reality is that we need to learn to operate in the world as it is---but how does that translate into oppossition of efforts to change that reality?"

Two reasons: The first reason is that attempts to change from operating according to the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles are directly harmful to lawful, competent cyclists. We must not lose that right. The second reason is that there is no reasonable probability that anything bicycle advocates can do will eliminate the preponderance of private motor transportation. Since its results are both harmful and impossible to achieve, don't even contemplate it.


I don't know why I bother, but:

1. By "changing reality" I was referring to efforts to improve existing facilities to make them more user-friendly for cyclists--i was not referring to disobeying rules of the road.
2. I raised some legitimate, honest questions--and your response is that they are "outside of the discussion."
3. I do not disagree that cyclists must be vigilant and oppose attempts to prevent us from using the roadways and that when using the road, obeying the rules of the road is necessary
4. That being said, I know for a fact that in the dingy little blue-collar town in which I work, cycling, and especially commuting by bike, increased DRASTICALLY, when the city/state installed a paved rails to trails MUP running along the fox river from the suburbs into the city--so my experience contradicts all this "evidence" that has heretofore not been produced. I certainly know that the presence of this trail is what allows me commute---I use it every day. In fact, when I moved here, I looked for a place w/ easy access to the trail for that very reason. So I can say with certainty that this trail has resulted in at least one less car making a 10 mile commute. Several others here have made similar comments based on their own behavior and personal experience. How then can you state that using bicycle-specific facilities to decease motoring is "impossible."
5. What happens on offraod trails is certainly not "immaterial" to the discussion, as this entire debate centers around the notion that bicycling-specific facilities can and do in practice increase the number of cyclists


[edit]: What is interesing here is that I joined this discussion group within the last week and was very interested in learning about VC and its principles and applications. I have asked a number of honest questions seeking to understand more about VC. Instead of a reasoned response to my legitimate inquiries, my questions are labelled as "naive." In my experience, it is quite difficult to persuade individuals to accept your point of view when you insult them.

ILTB and John Forester's debate can be boiled down to two simple points of view: John Forester believes that encouraging public understanding of how to exploit basic vehicular traffic rules by bicycle will increase the safety, convenience, and use of bicycles for both utility and recreational travel. ILTB believes that the methods necessary to effectively promote vehicular cycling end up placing excessive restrictions on cyclists and stigmatize cyclists who operate contrary to the recommendations of vehicular cycling education without doing any public harm; the consequences being that these cyclists may possibly be blamed for collisions with negligent motorists, and that "carefree" or "casual" cycling may be diminished. ILTB has few substantive things to say about cycling technique because he believes cyclists should be left to their own devices since cycling is relatively harmless. Forester stretches to find evidence supporting vehicular cycling because he believes such support is needed to counter continuing government attempts to replace vehicular cycling with pedestrian-on-wheels cycling.

Add to this the fact that both are extremely opinionated and have been at it a long time.

I empathize with ILTB's view that cyclists should be left alone, but I also have seen first-hand state and local government attempts to replace vehicular cycling with pedestrian-on-wheels cycling. I don't care for either one's style of attacking their opponents.

-Steve Goodridge

bike infrastructure built into, integrated into public space and on public rights of way have been PROVEN to increase cycling in cities across the globe.

Why does John forester persist in his masquerade of no sense in increasing infrastructure that supports bicycling in a communities' transportation mix?


We have both (facilities & a right to the road) here in Toronto although the bike lanes or whatever you call them are incomplete. As long as there are no rules restricting cyclists to the bike lanes they are a benefit.


I know for a fact that in the dingy little blue-collar town in which I work, cycling, and especially commuting by bike, increased DRASTICALLY, when the city/state installed a paved rails to trails MUP running along the fox river from the suburbs into the city.

These are just a couple of anecdotal observations from cyclists, but the evidence is abundantly clear, - glaringly apparant, in fact - from cities in North America and abroad- that facilties infrastructure facilitates bicycling.

Some of us desire more transportational use of bikes, some like John Forester use 40 year old prejudices to discourage greater use of bikes in this country. shame on you, John.

Encouraging bicycling thru the use of bike infrastructure integrated with public rights of way works, and can be developed to not encroach on cyclists' rights to the roads.

Transportational cycling, for everyday trips, (most car trips in the US are less than five miles from a persons' home) SHOULD increase. John forester throws utility and transportational cycling out with his decades old bathwater. Marginalizing the implementation of public space improvements that increase transportational cycling damages cycling.

Increasing everyday use of bikes in America is a practical, worthwhile and noble cause for cycling advocacy. So is Sgoodri's desires to keep cyclists' rights to the road.

Integrated, on-road bike infrastructure along with other community enhancements to cycling, and cyclists rights to the road are NOT mutually exclusive.

Also, please explain the incessant use of these loaded terms like "anti-motoring." I myself drive. I need to drive often for my job. I am not anti-motoring. In fact, like most rational people, I recognize that our society is built around the automobile and that that is a fact of life. I also recognize that we as cyclists have to learn to adopt methods and habits that allow us to operate within this system. However, I see no reason why encouraging more people to cycle and not jump in their Hummer for a 10 minute commute to work is "anti-motoring." I do not beleive in such things as banning autmobiles; however, I do passionately believe that we should work hard to persuade people as individuals to voluntarily chose to cycle instead of drive when possible.

I have asked a number of honest questions seeking to understand more about VC. Instead of a reasoned response to my legitimate inquiries, my questions are labelled as "naive." In my experience, it is quite difficult to persuade individuals to accept your point of view when you insult them.

Very good point. I would encourage John Forester to read Ben Franklin's autobiography, which covers this subject very well. After all, Franklin basically won the revolutionary war by talking the French into fighting for the States.

Also, please explain the incessant use of these loaded terms like "anti-motoring."

I think only a small minority of regular cyclists are true "anti-motoring" advocates. However, the few true anti-motoring advocates are very vocal, and tend to support engineering measures that are bad for motorists even when they are harmful to cyclists, most specifically vehicular cyclists, who desire to use the same facilities and basic rules as the motorists.

I've seen one forum poster here who includes in his signature images of tacks, car tires, and a happy face. Need I point out what tacks on the roadway do to bike tires?

Actually, Forester quotes extensively from the statements and arguments quoted here, which he then responds to quite succinctly. Nothing "one sided" about it.


Except that no one can respond to his comments on his website. If he truly wanted something other than a one sided debate he would have come onto BF to make his comments.