Vehicular Cycling (VC) - Do you want John Forester Advocating for you?

I want john forester to stay the hell out of 21st century bike advocacy in any city, patc. he's the anti-cyclist. I don't feel sorry for him at all, he did some good back in the 70's, had his day in the sun, and now its the time for him to place his pathetic notions against bike infrastructure out to pasture and embrace new standards and infrastructure that will increase cycling and cyclists' safety in cities.

he should be shoving off, stepping aside, and letting the new guard handle things. we can take care of riding and ridership without you, john. don't fret. you did good. but your spiel is now damaging cycling advocacy, and you know it.

Go right ahead and experiment with people's lives, in some gradual way that risks little, and has the results recorded in proper scientific manner...
Like your theories and classes?

I want john forester to stay the hell out of 21st century bike advocacy in any city, patc. he's the anti-cyclist. I don't feel sorry for him at all, he did some good back in the 70's, had his day in the sun, and now its the time for him to place his pathetic notions against bike infrastructure out to pasture and embrace new standards and infrastructure that will increase cycling and cyclists' safety in cities.

he should be shoving off, stepping aside, and letting the new guard handle things. we can take care of riding and ridership without you, john. don't fret. you did good. but your spiel is now damaging cycling advocacy, and you know it.

Me, damaging advocacy for cyclists? While you are advocating submitting to the motorists with their ideas of cyclist inferiority justifying pushing cyclists off to the side of the road, or off the road? As I have been writing all along, only a twisted mind could get itself to think that submitting to the domination of motorists is rational support for cyclists.

Someday the roads will be dominated by bicyclists and there will be a 'car lane' in the gutter off to the right. Someone please post the picture of this, I did a quick search and couldn't find it.
:)

Forester can't adapt, he's a dinosaur. Wake up! things are changing. not sure if your diatribe to me was meant to be an insult, I couldn't make much sense of it. I value your past contributions to cyclist safety, but if you can't adapt and move on it's not of much use to us now.

I had commented on somebody else's advocacy of bikeways in the following terms: "Go right ahead and experiment with people's lives, in some gradual way that risks little, and has the results recorded in proper scientific manner..."

To which sbhikes rather nastily replied:
Like your theories and classes?

Yes, indeed. The instructional results of my cycling classes were documented, in fact they have the best documentation of any such classes that have been reported. If you think that you can do better, then roll up your sleeves and do it. (With acknowledgment to Bernard K. Forschner, author of "Rules for Referees")

As for my theories, the physical part of my theories is standard traffic engineering and human factors. If you want to question those, then learn the subjects first. As for my theory of why you, in particular and those like you, refuse to accept standard engineering knowledge, well, it is the best theory that has been proposed. If you want to propose a different theory that accounts for your obtuseness against recognized knowledge, then go to it and present it to all of us.

i really wonder where you've concocted all this 'submitting to the drivers with bicyclist inferiority complex' nonsense, john.

bike specific infrastructure has been proven, in cities around the world, to increase cycling, benefit cyclists AND decrease accident rates. Bike specific infrastructure integrated with public roads gets more riders out mixing it up with cars. Riding a bike accomodated road is possible by a vehicular cyclist; indeed, thousands of vehicular cyclists in the northwest use bike lanes daily.

john, i don't want you advocating 'for' cyclists anymore, if you're convinced bicyclists, as a group, need only 'standard traffic engineering' on high speed, narrow laned arterials is to mix it up with traffic. you are now working against advancing bicycling and bicyclist safety in america, john.

And don't get me wrong, john, I ride plenty of narrow laned, high speed arterials without any 'inferiority' complex stopping me!

Forester can't adapt, he's a dinosaur. Wake up! things are changing. not sure if your diatribe to me was meant to be an insult, I couldn't make much sense of it. I value your past contributions to cyclist safety, but if you can't adapt and move on it's not of much use to us now.

Adaptation implies improvement. People such as yourself have not presented any systematic knowledge that provides safer cycling with greater convenience. In fact, the items that you advocate are worse than the previous standard and are bad for cyclists. I see no reason to adapt in the sense of accepting worse. If you had presented evidence that your designs reduced the accident rate or made cycling more convenient, along with the reasons why these claims are met, then I would have been first to advocate such a program. But, in more than thirty years of trying, your school has failed to modify the motorists' designs to shove cyclists off the roadways into facilities that benefit cyclists in the important respects of safety and convenience. I have good theoretical reasons why that is not possible, but I don't rely on such theories because your side has never even come close to demonstrating the converse.

You seem to think that you get a little private space in which you are protected from the world, but you don't get even that. Why not? Just look at the facts. Whenever motor traffic has a need to cross or to enter your little garden, it does so and there's nothing that you can do to stop it.

john, bike specific infrastructure in communities that gets more riders out riding and riding on public streets has the proven effect of decreasing the indexed accident rate for bicyclists. it's become common knowledge among traffic and civic engineers, dude. Quoting Neil Peirce, a syndicated Washington Post columnist from TODAY'S column...

"Experience in cities such as copenhagen and portland shows safety for bike riders actually rises as there are more and more riders and the auto world learns to share the roadways with them."

calling bike lanes 'little gardens', john- how CUTE!

My two cents approach:

I like bicycling facilites, and ride within the law almost all of the time when they are not available (I've been known to blow a stop sign at an empty intersection though :) ).

I have been riding a lot of my young life, though I'm sure many if not most of the people here have racked up far more miles.

How's this?

Riding bikes is fun!!!:) :) :) :D :D :D :D :p

Bekologist, I don't agree with a lot of Forester's approach either, but you're a little on the angry side. Maybe you need to go take a ride. I'm always in a good mood after I excercise (endorphins).

rode quite a few hours today, running errands on my bike transportationally. took a drawbridge grate travel lane, also rode a walkway. rode in a few bike lanes and even a MUP.

but you know what, I didn't ride long enough. should of kept riding.

I'm coming off an almost 500 mile week last week :) , feeling a little low in the miles :D

Your right, 500 miles is a bit low. Real cyclists average at least 100 miles a day...

Seriously though, that's impressive. I'm hoping to bump up my mileage tis summer, once track season is over. Doubt I'll match you though :eek:

...have not presented any systematic knowledge that provides safer cycling with greater convenience....If you had presented evidence that your designs reduced the accident rate or made cycling more convenient...
The Portland data is pretty clear, John. In the last ten years utilitarian cyclists have quadrupled (or more) in numbers, and the crash rate has remained constant. That means cycling is safer, and the bike lanes and other infrastructure improvements have made cycling more convenient. Wake up and smell the roses, no one wants to bicycle in arterial motor vehicle traffic if they have a safer alternative. And cyclists arent being 'shoved off the roads', either, traffic lanes are being removed or narrowed and converted to bicycle lanes in the inner city. I know that doesn't sit well with your friends in the American Dream Coalition, but too bad for them.

The Portland data is pretty clear, John. In the last ten years utilitarian cyclists have quadrupled (or more) in numbers, and the crash rate has remained constant. That means cycling is safer, and the bike lanes and other infrastructure improvements have made cycling more convenient. Wake up and smell the roses, no one wants to bicycle in arterial motor vehicle traffic if they have a safer alternative. And cyclists arent being 'shoved off the roads', either, traffic lanes are being removed or narrowed and converted to bicycle lanes in the inner city. I know that doesn't sit well with your friends in the American Dream Coalition, but too bad for them.

There's no evidence from the Portland data that bike lanes have had any safety effect at all. There is no means to separate their effect from all the other things done, and things that have happened. Traffic engineering provides no reason to expect that bike lanes would reduce the accident rate. In fact, bike lanes contradict the well tested rules of the road for drivers of vehicles, and therefore are immediately suspect as contributing to collisions.

In other words, there is no evidence to support your contention that "no one wants to bicycle in arterial motor vehicle traffic if they have a safer alternative", presumably in this context, a bike lane. As I have said repeatedly, nobody, anywhere, has ever provided evidence that bike lane systems reduce collisions, or any reason, based on traffic engineering knowledge, to suppose that they might. It is you people who are making the claim, not me, and after decades of trying you haven't managed to find any. It is only reasonable to conclude, that with all the present evidence against the presumed accident reduction of bike lanes, the probability of ever finding evidence that they do significantly reduce collisions is so small as to be vanishing.

MS, I did ride Seattle to Portland, and about 135 miles in that city last week, :D in addition to some prep miles and my daily commuting.

I wanted to check out the Portland bike scene, and can unequivocally state that I've ridden the blue bike lanes there. I've seen em, ridden 'em, checked it out. John Forester, not so sure....

actually, john ,the data is in, and it's become common knowledge among bike advocates and traffic and civic engineers. even with newspapermen. you may not be quite up to speed....

Quoting Neil Peirce, a Washington Post columnist, from his syndicated column from April 16, 2007...today....

"Experience in cities such as copenhagen and portland shows safety for bike riders actually rises as there are more and more riders and the auto world learns to share the roadways with them."

Am I the only one who feels very, very sorry for this guy? (As long as he stays the hell away from my city, anyway.)

I understand your opinion that you should feel very sorry for me. Trying to discuss an engineering matter with people who either do not understand engineering knowledge and the scientific process, or, just as likely, have no engineering knowledge to impart, yet who maintain the most irrational opinions, is extremely trying. If you people had put up reasonable facts and arguments, there would be some substance to the discussion, but you haven't.

:roflmao::roflmao::roflmao:

you think it's just engineers that understand bicycling, john? :roflmao:

I DO feel sorry for you now, but still, get the heck out of the way, dude. you're sabotaging bicycling advocacy now, and hindering increasing populist bicycling in america.

Providing bike lanes increases ridership. If ridership increases and accidents stay constant, the anecdotal evidence is very strongly in favor of the bike lanes contributing to the increase in bicycle use and in turn, the safety improvement.

On the other hand, perhaps it's not the bike lanes after all, but rather the fact that there are simply more cyclists on the road....but wait, more cyclists can be correlated to the provision of more bike lanes...which means that providing more bike lanes results in more cyclists, which results in more motorist awareness, wich results in safer conditions for cycling. Conclusion: providing facilities really does work!!!

Considering the fact that there is absolutely no evidence in favor of your theories, you should stop being so optuse.

Build it and they will come appears to hold water in this case; the presence of more bike lanes leads to an increase in cycling; the presence of more bicyclists makes motorists more aware; and thus the bicyclists are safer.

I've ridden the streets of Portland extensively both before and after the increase in bike lane miles and, while the bike lanes certainly aren't a panacea, and the engineering of the bike lanes hasn't been completely perfected yet, the bike lane designs continue to improve and are most certainly a vast improvement over preexisting conditions.

If you were just a little more reasonable, understanding and open-minded, you and your acolytes wouldn't be subject to the kind of criticism and derision you are receiving here and elsewhere.

I understand your opinion that you should feel very sorry for me. Trying to discuss an engineering matter with people who either do not understand engineering knowledge and the scientific process, or, just as likely, have no engineering knowledge to impart, yet who maintain the most irrational opinions, is extremely trying. If you people had put up reasonable facts and arguments, there would be some substance to the discussion, but you haven't.
Well that is a mouthful isn't it? So tell us what was that engineering knowledge and scientific process you used to make Reasonable Assumptions about what characteristics/skill sets are possessed and used by "skilled riders", how you identified whom the skilled riders were, how you determined where they ride and how those riding locations and times are different or more "dangerous" than that of "unskilled" riders, or how the skilled riders handled those"dangerous" locations and dangerous commuting scenarios any differently or safer than any other cyclists. I must have missed your response.

Me, damaging advocacy for cyclists? While you are advocating submitting to the motorists with their ideas of cyclist inferiority justifying pushing cyclists off to the side of the road, or off the road? As I have been writing all along, only a twisted mind could get itself to think that submitting to the domination of motorists is rational support for cyclists.

I don't understand why you cling to this falacy that motorists want bike lanes in order to push cyclist off the road. You yourself came to Santa Barbara to speak for an organization which opposes bike lanes because they push cars out of the way.

Someday the roads will be dominated by bicyclists and there will be a 'car lane' in the gutter off to the right. Someone please post the picture of this, I did a quick search and couldn't find it.
:)


http://clients.patcroteau.com/pat/carlane2.jpg

I understand your opinion that you should feel very sorry for me. Trying to discuss an engineering matter with people who either do not understand engineering knowledge and the scientific process, or, just as likely, have no engineering knowledge to impart, yet who maintain the most irrational opinions, is extremely trying. If you people had put up reasonable facts and arguments, there would be some substance to the discussion, but you haven't.

Well, you're good at twisting words, I'll give you that, particularly at using emotional language to manipulate discussion. Have you considered going into politics?

Have you considered going into politics?
Please, no!

:eek:

You seem to think that you get a little private space in which you are protected from the world, but you don't get even that. Why not? Just look at the facts. Whenever motor traffic has a need to cross or to enter your little garden, it does so and there's nothing that you can do to stop it.

No, JF, that's NOT what I think. it's a stripe of paint, a lane, not a magic bubble. saying that's what bike facilities advocates think and that's why they advocate for them is a straw man argument with no basis in fact. and you're right, some designs are flawed, and in 30 years trhere has not been much progress in this country in this area, (with a few notable exceptions, including Portland). AND there has not been much progress on your "side" either. otherwise bunches of EC trained cyclists would be happily mixing it up with traffic. and I apologize for calling you a dinosaur. I'm frustrated with what appears to be the VC party line of no compromise and no forward movement.

I don't understand why you cling to this falacy that motorists want bike lanes in order to push cyclist off the road. You yourself came to Santa Barbara to speak for an organization which opposes bike lanes because they push cars out of the way.

False. sbhikes, you don't even know what's happening in your own city. Santa Barbara Safe Streets is opposed to traffic calming features such as curb bulbouts and mini-roundabouts, which are dangerous for cyclists. That's their platform, read it at sbsafestreets.org, and that is the background of my speech.

It is correct that SBSS accepts the motoring city and likes the flexibility that it provides, while you hope, so you have posted, that bicycle traffic will outnumber motor traffic. Given the choice of cycling in a modern city, or of cycling in a city operated according to your dream, I prefer the modern city. And, probably, I would prefer living in the modern city to living in a city operated according to your dream, simply because of the impracticality of both your present beliefs and of what you have described as your dream.

However, the difference between us as to urban design is irrelevant to the present questions of bicycle transportation in the environment in which we live and must operate. Cyclists fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles. Nothing that has been presented by your side disproves that conclusion. Indeed, your side has not even tried to disprove it.

http://clients.patcroteau.com/pat/carlane2.jpg
This is exacty what motorists need to understand!

(notice the overhanging trees up ahead...I love it!!! :D)

False. sbhikes, you don't even know what's happening in your own city. Santa Barbara Safe Streets is opposed to traffic calming features such as curb bulbouts and mini-roundabouts, which are dangerous for cyclists. That's their platform, read it at sbsafestreets.org, and that is the background of my speech.
Unlike you, I live in Santa Barbara and know more about the organization than what the SB Safe Streets web site says about itself.

Unlike you, I live in Santa Barbara and know more about the organization than what the SB Safe Streets web site says about itself.
I always find it amusing when the armchair internet jocks think they know more about the cycling environment in your home town than you do.

:D

There's no evidence from the Portland data that bike lanes have had any safety effect at all. There is no means to separate their effect from all the other things done, and things that have happened. Traffic engineering provides no reason to expect that bike lanes would reduce the accident rate. In fact, bike lanes contradict the well tested rules of the road for drivers of vehicles, and therefore are immediately suspect as contributing to collisions.

John does have a point that if several changes occured simultaneously then the marginal effects of each change is difficult to measure. By your own accords, ridership has increased at the same time these facilities have been implemented while accidents have remained constant. Suppose that there are only two effects: increase in ridership and bike lanes. It could be that the increase in ridership decreased accidents by 40% while bike lanes increased it by 10% resulting in an overall decrease.

Understanding these individual effects and their interactions are important for a more effective policy elsewhere.

While I believe that traffic engineering is important, at least from what I gather as a casual observer*, there are other elements important for cyclists that a discussion limited to traffic engineering appears to omit. In other words, a facility that is somewhat more dangerous in engineering theory could be safer net of these other considerations.

As I have written earlier, I think that people generally use the word "prove" too loosely. But I do not believe that we are completely clueless in our understanding of the issues either. Like a doctor with a sick patient, I believe that in areas some action is needed soon, we need to apply some ideas experiementally, make careful observations regarding the effects, and be unafraid to change our minds later.

* As opposed to someone who does this for a living.

While I believe that traffic engineering is important, at least from what I gather as a casual observer*, there are other elements important for cyclists that a discussion limited to traffic engineering appears to omit. In other words, a facility that is somewhat more dangerous in engineering theory could be safer net of these other considerations.

I think the whole safety phobia is hyperbole. Sure, a few facilities (and by that I don't only mean bike lanes) are so poorly designed as to be dangerous - every city has a known street or intersection with a high rate of collisions. And sure, a few facilities (and by that I don't only mean bike lanes) should go on textbooks as great, safe designs. Most of the time, however, the zealots are grossly exaggerating any safety concern to manipulate people. And the discussion ignores other things important to cyclists. Convenience, speed, comfort - those are all important too, and in some cases worth sacrificing marginal differences in safety.

But of course the anti-facility baying of the VCers has nothing to do with what cyclists want (we're just deluded after all) or what is important to us. These people just care about their own personal ego trips. Those of us who actually have experience riding on a daily basis don't matter to them.

My name is Pat, and I have a cyclist superiority complex. I believe cycling is a better mode of transportation in urban centerers. I believe cycling is better for the individual and for society. I demand traffic loops that detect bikes. I demand mandatory bike racks at all business and residential developments. I demand bike racks on busses, and bike lockers at bus stations. I demand MUPs, green-ways, and bike lanes. I will not let some soap-box preacher with no life interfere in my fight for cycling facilities.

I think the whole safety phobia is hyperbole. Sure, a few facilities (and by that I don't only mean bike lanes) are so poorly designed as to be dangerous - every city has a known street or intersection with a high rate of collisions. And sure, a few facilities (and by that I don't only mean bike lanes) should go on textbooks as great, safe designs. Most of the time, however, the zealots are grossly exaggerating any safety concern to manipulate people. And the discussion ignores other things important to cyclists. Convenience, speed, comfort - those are all important too, and in some cases worth sacrificing marginal differences in safety.

Perhaps. But if the selling point is that X is safer--I have run into several people who strongly claim that bike lanes are safer ceteris paribus--and it turns out that X is less safe, then we have a real problem. Note that I wrote "bike lanes" because of the context of earlier posts, not because you mean bike lanes.

Convenience, speed, and safety can be measured directly (not too sure about comfort). Whether you believe that the people on either side of the debate are zealots or not, we should all be for a better understanding of the costs and benefits of various policies. Although the discussion here harps on the safety issue, it is the case that convenience and speed appears as part of the VC argument elsewhere. In large, I suspect that riding VC on any road is probably faster for many trips than limiting oneself to roads with facilities.

Anyway, I agree that design choices should consider factors other than safety.

-Geof

EDIT: In bold.

I think the whole safety phobia is hyperbole. Sure, a few facilities (and by that I don't only mean bike lanes) are so poorly designed as to be dangerous - every city has a known street or intersection with a high rate of collisions. And sure, a few facilities (and by that I don't only mean bike lanes) should go on textbooks as great, safe designs. Most of the time, however, the zealots are grossly exaggerating any safety concern to manipulate people. And the discussion ignores other things important to cyclists. Convenience, speed, comfort - those are all important too, and in some cases worth sacrificing marginal differences in safety.

But of course the anti-facility baying of the VCers has nothing to do with what cyclists want (we're just deluded after all) or what is important to us. These people just care about their own personal ego trips. Those of us who actually have experience riding on a daily basis don't matter to them.

My name is Pat, and I have a cyclist superiority complex. I believe cycling is a better mode of transportation in urban centerers. I believe cycling is better for the individual and for society. I demand traffic loops that detect bikes. I demand mandatory bike racks at all business and residential developments. I demand bike racks on busses, and bike lockers at bus stations. I demand MUPs, green-ways, and bike lanes. I will not let some soap-box preacher with no life interfere in my fight for cycling facilities.
+100

:beer:

But of course the anti-facility baying of the VCers has nothing to do with what cyclists want (we're just deluded after all) or what is important to us. These people just care about their own personal ego trips. Those of us who actually have experience riding on a daily basis don't matter to them.
Pat, you say:

"...the anti-facility baying of VCers has nothing to do with what cyclists want..." But all cyclists do not always want the same things you want. Yet their preferences are just as important as yours.

"These people just care about their own personal ego trips." Being labeled a "VCer" does mean one is on an "ego trip."

"Those of us who actually have experience riding on a daily basis don't matter to them." Being a "VCer"
doesn't mean one lacks daily riding experience.

Pat, you say:

"...the anti-facility baying of VCers has nothing to do with what cyclists want..." But all cyclists do not always want the same things you want. Yet their preferences are just as important as yours.

Exactly, I couldn't have said it better. A big challenge for any advocacy group - and I've been part of several - is trying to represent an entire community. Even as an individual I try to shape my arguments - be they letters to city councillors or questions at public info sessions - to recognise that. So, for example, a group advocating for cyclists in a city needs to advocate for a wide range of things - bike lanes for those who want them, MUPs/bike-ways for others, and simply good street design (inc. adjusted traffic loops) for others. Of course there will be overlap, some people will have multiple priorities while others may have only one. No one said being part of an advocacy group is easy. I have even adocated for things I did not want, in recognition that others in my community did.

Now have a look-see at the posts around here. Do you think everyone here is willing to advocate comprehensively for all cyclists, understanding that wants, desires, and opinions or what is "best" vary? People like John Forrester sure don't - they advocate for their own view to the exclusion of others.

Now have a look-see at the posts around here. Do you think everyone here is willing to advocate comprehensively for all cyclists, understanding that wants, desires, and opinions or what is "best" vary?
I'd be extremely surprised were this the case, Pat. Sad.

Pat, you are spot on. thanks for saying it.

I had posted a message but realized that I read something wrong in Pat's post so I deleted it.

[edit] For those who may have read my post, I misread a statement of Pat's by adding a word that he did not write.


So, for example, a group advocating for [more] cyclists in a city needs to advocate for a wide range of things - bike lanes for those who want them, MUPs/bike-ways for others, and simply good street design (inc. adjusted traffic loops) for others.

I add the word "more" as shown in bold and brackets which changes the meaning of his statement quite a bit.[edit]

Exactly, I couldn't have said it better. A big challenge for any advocacy group - and I've been part of several - is trying to represent an entire community. Even as an individual I try to shape my arguments - be they letters to city councillors or questions at public info sessions - to recognise that. So, for example, a group advocating for cyclists in a city needs to advocate for a wide range of things - bike lanes for those who want them, MUPs/bike-ways for others, and simply good street design (inc. adjusted traffic loops) for others. Of course there will be overlap, some people will have multiple priorities while others may have only one. No one said being part of an advocacy group is easy. I have even adocated for things I did not want, in recognition that others in my community did.

Now have a look-see at the posts around here. Do you think everyone here is willing to advocate comprehensively for all cyclists, understanding that wants, desires, and opinions or what is "best" vary? People like John Forrester sure don't - they advocate for their own view to the exclusion of others. This is the type of argument Ellsworth Toohey would make. Classic.

By the same unprincipled reasoning, political leaders who are pro-choice should be writing and passing laws banning abortions, because it is their job to represent the views of all of their constituents, not just their own.

I suppose you would argue political leaders who want to support and expand gay rights should also write and pass laws consistent with the views of the homophobes in their districts.

I didn't think so. :rolleyes:


Do you think everyone here is willing to advocate comprehensively for all cyclists, understanding that wants, desires, and opinions or what is "best" vary? People like John Forrester sure don't - they advocate for their own view to the exclusion of others. I, for one, do not advocate for the views of any particular group of people. I advocate for certain objective principles, period.

Now have a look-see at the posts around here. Do you think everyone here is willing to advocate comprehensively for all cyclists, understanding that wants, desires, and opinions or what is "best" vary? People like John Forrester sure don't - they advocate for their own view to the exclusion of others.
This is worth saying again. Thanks for saying it.

Exactly, I couldn't have said it better. A big challenge for any advocacy group - and I've been part of several - is trying to represent an entire community. Even as an individual I try to shape my arguments - be they letters to city councillors or questions at public info sessions - to recognise that. So, for example, a group advocating for cyclists in a city needs to advocate for a wide range of things - bike lanes for those who want them, MUPs/bike-ways for others, and simply good street design (inc. adjusted traffic loops) for others. Of course there will be overlap, some people will have multiple priorities while others may have only one. No one said being part of an advocacy group is easy. I have even adocated for things I did not want, in recognition that others in my community did.

Now have a look-see at the posts around here. Do you think everyone here is willing to advocate comprehensively for all cyclists, understanding that wants, desires, and opinions or what is "best" vary? People like John Forrester sure don't - they advocate for their own view to the exclusion of others.
I commend you on your broad perspective.

But what about advocates who advocate their own view to the exclusion of others, like those who put skinny bike lanes next to uneven gutter pan joints?

The difference between Forester and those who advocate substandard bike lane designs is that the advocates of poor bike lane designs have the blessing of the same powers that think motoring is the best way to get around, and cycling is a politically-practical afterthought. The result is too often leftovers for cyclists.

I would support an all-encompassing bicycle transportation plan in the US that included bike lanes and bike paths, combined with the full recognition that cyclists have an equal right to roads without bike lanes, so long as bike lanes and paths were maintained to the same high standard we expect for the motoring public. (Which, in turn, means I am not restricted to a bike lane or path when one is present, any more than a vehicle with more than one occupant is restricted to a high-occupancy-vehicle (HOV) lane.)

U-build-it, I'll use it--if I feel like it. :)

This is the type of argument Ellsworth Toohey would make. Classic.

By the same unprincipled reasoning, political leaders who are pro-choice should be writing and passing laws banning abortions, because it is their job to represent the views of all of their constituents, not just their own.

I suppose you would argue political leaders who want to support and expand gay rights should also write and pass laws consistent with the views of the homophobes in their districts.

I didn't think so. :rolleyes:

I, for one, do not advocate for the views of any particular group of people. I advocate for certain objective principles, period.
I really don't think you get it at all, how dense are you?

:rolleyes:

This dense:
http://www.thomasarmstrong.co.uk/images/NetBuild/Dense_Blocks_-_web.JPG

I commend you on your broad perspective.

I come by it honestly - life forced me to grow up.


But what about advocates who advocate their own view to the exclusion of others, like those who put skinny bike lanes next to uneven gutter pan joints?

I doubt advocates put bike lanes anywhere, usually cities hire construction crews for that. No, I'm not being silly - it is important to know that there is always a gap, sometimes a canyon, between what is advocated for and what is delivered.

Individuals (as opposed to groups/organizations) tend to advocate for what they personally believe in, or personally want. That's not a problem. The problem occurs when advocates take it on themselves to advocate against what others are working for from a position of disrespect - "You're not smart enough to know what's good for you/You're deluded/Being emotional". That effectively becomes anti-advocacy.

To use your example: someone who objects to all bike lanes could say, "I can't support your proposed bike lane on Main St., because it is far too skinny and is next to an uneven gutter pan. I won't block your other bike lane proposals, and I am willing to explain why I object to this one." Another person could come along and talk for hours about the "evils of bike lanes" - he may or may not change the Main St. proposal, but he will effectively harm all bike advocacy.


The difference between Forester and those who advocate substandard bike lane designs is that the advocates of poor bike lane designs have the blessing of the same powers that think motoring is the best way to get around, and cycling is a politically-practical afterthought. The result is too often leftovers for cyclists.

Sorry, this is just the type of political hyperbole that makes people like Forester lose all credibility in my eyes. If, and I stess the if, cyclists end up with "leftovers" it is because (a) we are a minority among road users and (b) destructive people like Forester mess up the advocacy efforts of local groups.


I would support an all-encompassing bicycle transportation plan in the US that included bike lanes and bike paths, combined with the full recognition that cyclists have an equal right to roads without bike lanes, so long as bike lanes and paths were maintained to the same high standard we expect for the motoring public.

So basically you would support every cycling plan for a Canadian city I have ever read. Be careful what you wish for, though - the "same high standards" might not be very high at all! Around here the pathways are in considerably better condition than most streets.

I would support an all-encompassing bicycle transportation plan in the US that included bike lanes and bike paths, combined with the full recognition that cyclists have an equal right to roads without bike lanes, so long as bike lanes and paths were maintained to the same high standard we expect for the motoring public. (Which, in turn, means I am not restricted to a bike lane or path when one is present, any more than a vehicle with more than one occupant is restricted to a high-occupancy-vehicle (HOV) lane.)


So basically you would support every cycling plan for a Canadian city I have ever read. Be careful what you wish for, though - the "same high standards" might not be very high at all! Around here the pathways are in considerably better condition than most streets.
Pat, I guess we are like blind men describing an elephant. I'm working on an entirely different end.

Where I live, most newer streets are very wide and smooth, cycling is no problem for me with no bike lanes or paths. When they add bike facilities, I avoid them because they are far less attractive than the road, whether due to design or maintenance issues. I don't do it because I'm thick as a brick, I do it because for me, it's the obvious better choice. But I don't look down on those who do use those facilities. They're just not for me--they are not a necessity for me, nor are they very useful to me.

And there are exceptions, of course. There is a really nice path near my job, but again, it's not necessary, just nice. :)

So I don't consider some advocates in my area who claim that those bike facilities are necessary to make bicycling safe represent my cycling needs at all, and perhaps they don't even understand my needs or preferences. But there are also many cyclists in my area that do understand my preferences.

I say I would support certain broad-based advocacy approaches because I recognize other cyclists have other wants. But I also have mine, so it's a compromise. But I won't compromise on leftovers... ;)

the key phrase in your statement, little big man, is "cycling is no problem for me with no bike lanes or paths."

you think JF helped make your riding possible; in contrast, cities around the world have seen the positive benefits bike infrastructure has made to bicycling counts and rider safety.

I DO NOT want john forester advocating for cyclists anymore. his complaints are decades out of date, he is Don Quixote. Advocates can help secure and maintain our rights to the roads in all 50 states all the while increasing bike infrastructure that increases bicycling, without his moldy arguments sticking up the works.

John, you did good decades ago; time to step aside.

the key phrase in your statement, little big man, is "cycling is no problem for me with no bike lanes or paths."

you think JF helped make your riding possible; in contrast, cities around the world have seen the positive benefits bike infrastructure has made to bicycling counts and rider safety.

I DO NOT want john forester advocating for cyclists anymore. his complaints are decades out of date, he is Don Quixote. Advocates can help secure and maintain our rights to the roads in all 50 states all the while increasing bike infrastructure that increases bicycling, without his moldy arguments sticking up the works.

John, you did good decades ago; time to step aside.
Yes, the key part of my statement was that cycling without bike lanes or paths was my own personal preference, and does not represent everyone.

But I don't think it's all about John Forester. As many have pointed out before, riding in the street is not a new concept that he came up with. He himself has always said that the vehicular principles of cycling were already in practice by cyclists and that he did not invent them. He just saw a bad trend, as automobile use began to dominate, towards shoving cyclists aside to make way for motorists, and this shaped the positions he holds today.

The opposition to John Forester's views come into play when he opposes bicycle facilities at a conceptual level. I don't think Mr. Forester and his opponents will ever agree on that issue. This is enough in your mind to justify him "stepping aside;" clearly, not everyone agrees with you.

However, when it comes to personal attacks against John Forester or anyone else, it has nothing whatsoever to do with any relevant issues at hand. All personal attacks do is water down one's arguments by coloring them as personal and prejudicial.

this thread is specifically about john forester, in case you hadn't noticed, little big man....

dude is Don Quixote, fighting imaginary battles from long ago, his dim rememberances of bike advocacy in the seventies stunting and retarding positive bike advocacy efforts in the 21st century.

And there are exceptions, of course. There is a really nice path near my job, but again, it's not necessary, just nice. :)

Nothing wrong with building faccilities just because they are nice! I think "nice" stuff goes a long way to making a city livable.

I am a big supporter of bike facilities - which includes "just roads" and everything else. I also support consideration for pedestrians, in-line skaters, etc. Road should never be built with the assumption that only car traffic will use them, and I think that urban centres will see a decline of car traffic in the next few decades anyway.

In my daily riding I use few bike-specicific faccilities. One road could use them, but its a narrow road with no room to expand, so that won't happen. A big part of my commute is on a parkway - wide lane, trees, etc. There is a parallel MUP, but I can go faster on the road. I see cyclists on both the road and the MUP every day, and while I mostly use one I will advocate for both because both are used.

And I have plenty of bike parking at work, both provided by the landlord and by the city. I made sure of that before signing the lease!


I say I would support certain broad-based advocacy approaches because I recognize other cyclists have other wants. But I also have mine, so it's a compromise. But I won't compromise on leftovers... ;)

Good attitude.