Why do you agree/disagree with Forester?

[LittleBigMan]

Stick to actual quotes or deeds (documented,) if possible. Nobody cares if he's ugly, or his momma dresses him funny, or if he's your mentor, etc.

Thanks. :)

I'll start.

I think he needs to shave that ugly mess and lose the 'spenders. :D

[sbhikes]

It's clear he's got some emotional baggage leftover from some ancient battles he lost. So he threw the baby out with the bathwater.

I honestly believe he advocates for auto-centric development not because it's best for bicyclists, but because it's best for automobiles and probably because he thinks it's best for his investment portfolio. I think he really believes in the automobile as the engine of economic growth and that he long ago gave up on supporting transportational cycling, if he ever did.

Also, he's spawned some of the more obnoxious posters on this forum.

[LittleBigMan]

Also, he's spawned some of the more obnoxious posters on this forum.
Does that include me? :)

Hey, I'm keepin' an open mind, but I can "resonate" with the "motorists want cyclists out of the way" message. I'm not being argumentative, just tellin' it straight.

(Diane, maybe everyone else is just waiting to see who jumps in first. I give you a thumbs-up for not bein'
a-skeered. :D)

[sggoodri]

I disagree with whe way he presents his arguments to those whom he ought to persuade.

I agree with most of his technical assessments of the operational conflicts between the best set of operational rules for cycling, i.e. vehicular cycling, and bikeways inspired by a paradigm that keeps bicyclists out of the path of same-direction travel to the highest degree possible.

I disagree with the idea that it is necessary or beneficial to disparage all bikeway projects in order to defend and communicate the importance of vehicular cycling. I disagree with oversimplification of the purported agenda of bikeway advocates.

I agree with his observations about the most common causes of car-bike collisions, the ineffectiveness and hazards of many bikeway implementations, the economic realities of automobile-oriented development, the trend toward voluntary utility and recreation cycling by health-oriented cyclists, and the importance of protecting cyclists' right to use roadways according to vehicular rules.

These agreements and disagreements are based on my observations of cause/effect, my nearly 30 years of cycling, my research into work done in the bicycle transportation engineering area, and my work with transportation engineers and planners while serving on various local committees and stakeholders groups related to urban planning and nonmotorized transportation.

[randya]

you have more sense than most, Steve.

[Bekologist]

www.americandreamcoalition.org

[randya]

http://www.americandreamcoalition.org/forester.pdf

[LittleBigMan]

http://www.americandreamcoalition.org/forester.pdf

Bicycling is a great alternative to driving a car. But I don't think it's wise to think we can increase the popularity of cycling by reducing car use. Most cyclists also drive a car. It's the world we live in, like it or not.

We're going to have to learn how to mix cars and bikes on the road.

[I-Like-To-Bike]

Stick to actual quotes or deeds (documented,) if possible. Nobody cares if he's ugly, or his momma dresses him funny, or if he's your mentor, etc.

Thanks. :)

I'll start.

I think he needs to shave that ugly mess and lose the 'spenders. :D
Cute!

Start with http://www.johnforester.com/
All the fatally flawed risk analyses that ignore even rudimentary principles for establishing risk; i.e. accident severities or probability of exposure to the various events.

All the fabricated data, analyses and conclusions based on Forester's "reasonable assumptions" about "skilled" or "trained" cyclists and their "reasonably assumed" safety records or "reasonably assumed" cycling habits in comparison with "reasonably assumed" conclusions about other cyclists.

All the hysteria and over-the-top rhetoric about Forester personally saving cyclists' right to cycle on the streets and roads of the U.S. from the machinations of his large list of enemies and motorist-environmentalist conspiracies.

All the psycho babble about inferiority complexes and phobias based on Forester's own belief in his own interpretations of his own risk analyses.

All the cycling "history" and "scientific evidence" and straw man arguments published only by Forester or only found only in Forester's secret cache that can not be substantiated except by repetition of same and/or ad hominem arguments.

That's for starts. When the conclusions about cycling based on hot air rhetoric and bogus analysis are removed from Forester's work, all that is left are the suspenders, beard and arrogance.

[rando]

I disagree with his anti-facilities stance. facilities have a place in the transportation mix. well-designed facilities can help cyclists and motorists alike.

I disagree with his theories on the psychological problems surrounding bike lanes and those who like them.

I disagree with his definition of who is a competent cyclist.

I'll probably think of more.

about the only thing I can agree with him on is the following the rules of the road....

[John Forester]

It's clear he's got some emotional baggage leftover from some ancient battles he lost. So he threw the baby out with the bathwater.

I honestly believe he advocates for auto-centric development not because it's best for bicyclists, but because it's best for automobiles and probably because he thinks it's best for his investment portfolio. I think he really believes in the automobile as the engine of economic growth and that he long ago gave up on supporting transportational cycling, if he ever did.

Also, he's spawned some of the more obnoxious posters on this forum.

Diane, you have a very peculiar system of belief, to have reached such inaccurate beliefs not only with no evidence but contrary to the evidence that has been available for years.

I have never advocated auto-centric development.

Anyone who advocated anything because "it's best for automobiles" would be crazy. Automobiles, just like bicycles, have no feelings.

My investment portfolio? How much money do you think there is in bicycle transportation engineering? About $100,000 in a financially conservative mutual fund, when I am 77 years old and still working. Not enough to change anyone's mind, these days. And, I tell you, I put professional ethics so far above financial gain that, three times in the employment stages of my career, I quit or was fired for refusing to do things that I knew were unethical.

Believing that the automobile is the engine of economic growth? Don't be silly; I know far more economics than that.

Giving up, or never supporting, bicycle transportation? I rode for transportation for many years, starting in 1938 and continuing whenever the opportunity offered. Cycling to work down the Berkeley hills on foggy mornings, and returning with the 1,000 foot climb every evening. Cycling through the heavy traffic of Silicon Valley in the mornings, and returning in the evenings along the hilly route for the pleasure of it. With Dorris and her two daughters, we were a family who all rode for transportation, commuting to work and to school, and others. Towing a trailerful of groceries, too. As well as cycling for sport. My writings, explicitly aimed at protecting cyclists' rights to operate as drivers of vehicles, are all in support of bicycle transportation.

I can't help it if your thought processes reach the inaccurate beliefs that they have. All I can say is that those thought processes are so inaccurate that nobody should give them credibility.

[John Forester]

I disagree with his anti-facilities stance. facilities have a place in the transportation mix. well-designed facilities can help cyclists and motorists alike.

I disagree with his theories on the psychological problems surrounding bike lanes and those who like them.

I disagree with his definition of who is a competent cyclist.

I'll probably think of more.

about the only thing I can agree with him on is the following the rules of the road....

You disagree with my definition of who is a competent cyclist, yet you agree with me about following the rules of the road. When my definition of a competent traffic cyclist is one who follows the rules of the road.

Amazing things one reads in this discussion!

[donnamb]

I disagree with his theories on the psychological problems surrounding bike lanes and those who like them.
I've got major problems with that, as does every mental health professional I work with that I told about this. The result of their knowledge that someone is twisting and perverting psychological diagnosis for what they see as a political/engineering/religious issue? They're all supportive of cycling facilities, including bike lanes, now. They tell their colleagues, too. They tend to be consistent voters, as well.

[LittleBigMan]

...I rode for transportation for many years, starting in 1938 and continuing whenever the opportunity offered. Cycling to work down the Berkeley hills on foggy mornings, and returning with the 1,000 foot climb every evening. Cycling through the heavy traffic of Silicon Valley in the mornings, and returning in the evenings along the hilly route for the pleasure of it. With Dorris and her two daughters, we were a family who all rode for transportation, commuting to work and to school, and others. Towing a trailerful of groceries, too. As well as cycling for sport. My writings, explicitly aimed at protecting cyclists' rights to operate as drivers of vehicles, are all in support of bicycle transportation.
I appreciate that. I can relate to that. I'm glad you posted it. :)

It's too bad so many of your critics don't see you as a human being with valuable experience and a heart.

(I know, the personal cost of what I just said, it will put me in hot water, but I don't care.)

[rando]

You disagree with my definition of who is a competent cyclist, yet you agree with me about following the rules of the road. When my definition of a competent traffic cyclist is one who follows the rules of the road.

Amazing things one reads in this discussion!

John, you have said in the past that only incompetent cyclists would use bike lanes; or that bike facilities are only of use to incompetent cyclists, or that bike lanes are made for incompetent cyclists, or some such... this is what I disagree with in your characterization of what a competent cyclist is. my contention is that competent cyclists can and do use bike facilities. I have seen you conjure a much stricter definition of competent than what you posted above. if your view has changed, good. if this is just more semantic stepdancing, Bad!

[I-Like-To-Bike]

I appreciate that. I can relate to that. I'm glad you posted it. :)

It's too bad so many of your critics don't see you as a human being with valuable experience and a heart.

(I know, the personal cost of what I just said, it will put me in hot water, but I don't care.)
Your fawning over Forester's characteristics as a human being with a heart won't get you in any hot water. Your idea that it would only clarifies your lack of understanding about what the intrinsic problems are with Forester Brand Cycling Advocacy and Forester Brand Educational/Training Materials.

[rando]

yeah, littlebigman. there is no happy middle ground with this guy.

I know you said you couldn't ride a bike on a road until you read his book, but still.:rolleyes:

[Brian Ratliff]

...
Anyone who advocated anything because "it's best for automobiles" would be crazy. Automobiles, just like bicycles, have no feelings.


This is a red herring. You know it.

I thought you were better than that.

[I-Like-To-Bike]

This is a red herring. You know it.

I thought you were better than that.
What do you need to convince you of the obvious?

[LittleBigMan]

yeah, littlebigman. there is no happy middle ground with this guy.

I know you said you couldn't ride a bike on a road until you read his book, but still.:rolleyes:
Rando, that's not what I said. You should know that. Somehow, this second-hand misquote is getting convenient recycling.

What I did say was that his writings changed my view to encourage me to ride my bike on roads where I previously supposed it wasn't feasable. It could have been anyone's encouragement that fell into my lap, and I'd be praising them for their encouragement, instead. It's not like riding a bike on the road involves a secret formula. At least I can say that Forester, despite whatever shortcomings others say he has, helped me.

Some people find that laughable. Go for it, I never claimed to be anything but a regular person who rides a bike.

[rando]

Rando, that's not what I said. You should know that. Somehow, this second-hand misquote is getting convenient recycling.

What I did say was that his writings changed my view to encourage me to ride my bike on roads where I previously supposed it wasn't feasable. It could have been anyone's encouragement that fell into my lap, and I'd be praising them for their encouragement, instead. It's not like riding a bike on the road involves a secret formula. At least I can say that Forester, despite whatever shortcomings others say he has, helped me.

Some people find that laughable. Go for it, I never claimed to be anything but a regular person who rides a bike.

Okay, sorry for the misquote! thanks for clarifying. Hurst did the same for me.

[LittleBigMan]

Hurst did the same for me.
Thanks, I might read a bit.

:)

[John Forester]

I've got major problems with that, as does every mental health professional I work with that I told about this. The result of their knowledge that someone is twisting and perverting psychological diagnosis for what they see as a political/engineering/religious issue? They're all supportive of cycling facilities, including bike lanes, now. They tell their colleagues, too. They tend to be consistent voters, as well.

Well, of course. They are typical Americans, with that perverted view of cycling and its dangers. That's why they think that support of bike lanes is normal. However, note one of the immediately previous postings by someone else, claiming that Americans don't believe that cyclists have the right to use the roadways. I have always written that the cyclist-inferiority superstition, in its stronger versions, meets all the criteria for a phobia except rarity. That is, it is an irrational exaggeration of the fear of same-direction motor traffic that causes people to choose actions that are harmful to them.

[John Forester]

John, you have said in the past that only incompetent cyclists would use bike lanes; or that bike facilities are only of use to incompetent cyclists, or that bike lanes are made for incompetent cyclists, or some such... this is what I disagree with in your characterization of what a competent cyclist is. my contention is that competent cyclists can and do use bike facilities. I have seen you conjure a much stricter definition of competent than what you posted above. if your view has changed, good. if this is just more semantic stepdancing, Bad!

My views have not changed. I have made statements such as bike lanes were intended to keep incompetent cyclists at the side of the roadway, that they were made because most cyclists are incompetent. These are the statements that I heard from the original bikeway designers, and I see no reason to think that they were dissimulating. After all, what worse admissions could they make? Then the anti-motoring bicycle advocates joined in by arguing that bike lanes made cycling safe for incompetent bicycle riders. And now there's all this opposition to vehicular cycling expressed right here in conjunction with advocacy of bike lanes.

In short, the arguments presented by anti-motoring bicycle advocates demonstrate the close connection between bike lane advocacy and incompetent cycling.

Remember my instruction, presented here several times although first written decades ago? That is, when cycling on a street with a bike lane, ride properly and ignore the bike-lane stripe. When one rides properly, sometimes one is in the bike lane, sometimes one is out of the bike lane. So what?

Don't try to catch me in your semantic muddles; it won't work.

[randya]

Well, of course. They are typical Americans, with that perverted view of cycling and its dangers. That's why they think that support of bike lanes is normal. However, note one of the immediately previous postings by someone else, claiming that Americans don't believe that cyclists have the right to use the roadways. I have always written that the cyclist-inferiority superstition, in its stronger versions, meets all the criteria for a phobia except rarity. That is, it is an irrational exaggeration of the fear of same-direction motor traffic that causes people to choose actions that are harmful to them.
You are so wrong about this. Americans who self-identify as motorists DO NOT support the installation of bike lanes. I've participated in plenty of transportation planning projects at the advisory committee level and almost universally, motorists oppose bike lanes because they feel that bike lanes take space in the right-of-way away from motorists. Motorists absolutely DO NOT support bike lanes because they believe they get bicyclists out of the way of motorists, that's just a load of crap.

OTOH, bicyclists support bike lanes because a lot of cyclists understand that cycling in the bike lane relieves a lot of the stress of having to bicycle in the travel lane, at the whim and behest of highly unpredictable and frequently aggressive and dangerous motorists.

[invisiblehand]

Hey LBM,

You are nuts for starting this thread ... ;-)

-G

[sbhikes]

I've got major problems with that, as does every mental health professional I work with that I told about this. The result of their knowledge that someone is twisting and perverting psychological diagnosis for what they see as a political/engineering/religious issue?
I used to be a mental health professional and I understand exactly what you mean. It is unfortunate that Forester does this and that he cannot recognize that it is wrong.

[donnamb]

Well, of course. They are typical Americans, with that perverted view of cycling and its dangers. That's why they think that support of bike lanes is normal. However, note one of the immediately previous postings by someone else, claiming that Americans don't believe that cyclists have the right to use the roadways. I have always written that the cyclist-inferiority superstition, in its stronger versions, meets all the criteria for a phobia except rarity. That is, it is an irrational exaggeration of the fear of same-direction motor traffic that causes people to choose actions that are harmful to them.
Nope. With the exception of the 2 bike commuters in the office, they don't really care about developing a view of cycling besides a general desire not to harm anyone when they're driving a car. They don't really care about cycling facilities one way or the other, either. What they do care about are the clients they help in the course of their work. Untrained and ignorant people with socio-political and religious agendas twist psychology and the principles of the mental health profession to further their aims, and it is the legitimately mentally ill who pay the price. You trivialize mental illness and contribute to its social stigma when you invent phobias and engage in armchair diagnosis of large groups of people. Trivialization and stigma are tremendous barriers for the mentally ill to receive the treatment they need to be stable, healthy, and prevent risk to their lives and sometimes the lives around them.

My non-cycling coworkers have decided to support cycling facilities which include bike lanes because they believe that anyone who would distort and warp definitions of mental illness to further an agenda - any agenda - must be so unethical and callous of the welfare of other human beings that their aims should be opposed. It's not about bike lanes - they would oppose any aim that would twist definitions of mental illness in such a fashion.

[LittleBigMan]

Hey LBM,

You are nuts...
You got that part right.

:beer:

Hey, it keeps us up at night... :D

(..I'm on the east coast, folks, it's late here! :eek: )

[sggoodri]

You are so wrong about this. Americans who self-identify as motorists DO NOT support the installation of bike lanes. I've participated in plenty of transportation planning projects at the advisory committee level and almost universally, motorists oppose bike lanes because they feel that bike lanes take space in the right-of-way away from motorists. Motorists absolutely DO NOT support bike lanes because they believe they get bicyclists out of the way of motorists, that's just a load of crap.

OTOH, bicyclists support bike lanes because a lot of cyclists understand that cycling in the bike lane relieves a lot of the stress of having to bicycle in the travel lane, at the whim and behest of highly unpredictable and frequently aggressive and dangerous motorists.

Where I live, motorists have most strongly supported bikeways in the form of sidewalk-type bike paths. They prefer these over bike lanes, because by getting double-duty out of the sidewalk, the full width of the roadway can be devoted to getting as many travel lanes as possible for motor vehicles. These motorists also support mandatory sidepath-use laws, in order to ensure that no cyclists remain in the narrow travel lanes. This is how the bikeway system in my area of the country developed for decades, and it continues to be a battle, with many sidewalk bikeways still being proposed, designed, and built.

Fortunately, cyclists have recently begun to convince a younger, more open minded generation of local traffic engineers and planners that cycling on the roadway according to vehicular rules is better than sidewalk/sidepath cycling. These engineers have started to shift from the sidewalk/sidepath bikeway designs to wide outside lanes and striped bike lanes. The motorists support either design, since both reduce the perception of delay by bicycle traffic. However, many frontage property owners oppose the on-roadway space additions, because they encroach more into their property when added to a road widening project. If the property owner opposition threatens to prevent the widening of the road to add travel lanes usable by motorists, the motorists often side with the property owners and promote sidewalk bike paths instead of the WOLs/bike lanes. if the property owners' political power is weak, the motorists support the on-road bike lanes, since they know some cyclists won't ride on the sidewalks without the mandatory-sidepath-use ordinance enforced. I have seen this process repeat itself with several thoroughfare widening projects in my city while serving on our planning and zoning board.

Locally, the strongest support from the cycling community was for wide outside lanes on the thoroughfares. The polls of my own cycling club have always turned out a strong majority in favor of wide outside lanes instead of striped bike lanes. Most cyclists will accept anything that provides wider total space, but there is a majority here who find operational problems with the way bike lanes have been implemented and unmaintained, at least locally.

John Forester has always said that cyclists prefer more space on the roadway, that this extra space reduces their stress, and it encourages more cycling. He promotes wide outside lanes as the specific implementation, rather than adding a stripe to the same space to demarcate a bike lane. A majority of the experienced cyclists I know agree with him, and I've never been able to find a report of an overtaking collision in one of our local wide outside lanes, so that's what our local standard is for new and widened thoroughfares.

[sggoodri]

Question: When does an irrational phobia affect a large percentage of the population, including intelligent people?

Answer: When it is a socially-reinforced taboo that serves the interests of the political majority.

Taboos are created when those with power take a small amount of observable truth and twist it into a proscription reinforced by fear. It survives as long as those smart and powerful enough to debunk it are not motivated enough to bother identifying the true causal relationships involved. It's simpler to let the taboo stand ("kids, stay out of the road, or you'd get hit by a car!") if you don't have a vested interest in violating it in order to exercise greater personal freedom.

This is how I describe the American fear of roadway cycling in different terms from John Forester. It is not an individual phobia, but a socially perpetuated one that affects intellegent people, who should have no shame in having posessed it, but once enlightened, should at least try to understand the phenomenology in more scientific terms. Yes, there is danger to be concerned about, but it can be managed, if one is interested. Most Americans just aren't interested.

And so, we have the irony of people who don't think certain types of bikeways actually do anything for safety still using the taboo of roadway cycling as a justification for building those bikeways, which in turn only reinforces the taboo. Perhaps, as some of us believe, dismantling the taboo and replacing it with the best science that we can manage with the available resources would be a more effective way of encouraging cycling by those who care enough to actually do it. Then, we could concetrate on engineering in terms of effectiveness at improving safety, efficiency, and long-term enjoyment, rather than basing our engineering on opinion polls of the taboo-afflicted novice cycling population.

[Bekologist]

(steve- you should go take a trip with your bike to portland, dude.)

i ride in traffic, i have no fears of doing so, AND i support bike lanes.

mr forester's dismissive stchick doesn't stick to me. I'm a vehicular cyclist that mixes it up in traffic daily, relishes mixing it up with traffic, AND I support bike specific infrastructure that makes communities more bikeable for more people. unlike forester's dismissive rants, bike infrastructure has POSITIVE effects on communities.

look at portland, minneapolis, denver, bogota, copenhagen, delft; cities all over the world have increased bikeability, improved liveability and community, thru the use of bike specific infrastructure integrated into community transportation plans.

there's no disputing the bikeability of portland, the increase in cyclists and cycling there thru infrastructure. yet forester continues to foist his rusty trumpet against this type of planning- john forester is the anti-cyclist.

I don't support forester's views of the rest of the american bicyclists, his spiel doesn't represent cyclists in america, and he gets pimped out by the american dream coalition.

[randya]

Where I live, motorists have most strongly supported bikeways in the form of sidewalk-type bike paths. They prefer these over bike lanes, because by getting double-duty out of the sidewalk, the full width of the roadway can be devoted to getting as many travel lanes as possible for motor vehicles. These motorists also support mandatory sidepath-use laws, in order to ensure that no cyclists remain in the narrow travel lanes. This is how the bikeway system in my area of the country developed for decades, and it continues to be a battle, with many sidewalk bikeways still being proposed, designed, and built.

Fortunately, cyclists have recently begun to convince a younger, more open minded generation of local traffic engineers and planners that cycling on the roadway according to vehicular rules is better than sidewalk/sidepath cycling. These engineers have started to shift from the sidewalk/sidepath bikeway designs to wide outside lanes and striped bike lanes. The motorists support either design, since both reduce the perception of delay by bicycle traffic. However, many frontage property owners oppose the on-roadway space additions, because they encroach more into their property when added to a road widening project. If the property owner opposition threatens to prevent the widening of the road to add travel lanes usable by motorists, the motorists often side with the property owners and promote sidewalk bike paths instead of the WOLs/bike lanes. if the property owners' political power is weak, the motorists support the on-road bike lanes, since they know some cyclists won't ride on the sidewalks without the mandatory-sidepath-use ordinance enforced. I have seen this process repeat itself with several thoroughfare widening projects in my city while serving on our planning and zoning board.

Locally, the strongest support from the cycling community was for wide outside lanes on the thoroughfares. The polls of my own cycling club have always turned out a strong majority in favor of wide outside lanes instead of striped bike lanes. Most cyclists will accept anything that provides wider total space, but there is a majority here who find operational problems with the way bike lanes have been implemented and unmaintained, at least locally.

John Forester has always said that cyclists prefer more space on the roadway, that this extra space reduces their stress, and it encourages more cycling. He promotes wide outside lanes as the specific implementation, rather than adding a stripe to the same space to demarcate a bike lane. A majority of the experienced cyclists I know agree with him, and I've never been able to find a report of an overtaking collision in one of our local wide outside lanes, so that's what our local standard is for new and widened thoroughfares.
The difference in my experience and your experience has a lot to do with the characteristics of the built environment and the amount of available ROW space. I live in an already dense pre-automobile inner urban area, where there is no additional room to expand roadway rights-of-way, and where, ironically, motorists oppose bike lanes on the grounds that they take ROW space away from motorists, and I am therefore often forced to ride vehicularly on arterial streets; whereas it sounds like you live in a post-automobile city, outer urban or surburban area where the rights-of-way are wider and the space for WOLs, bike lanes or sidepaths is available, and motorists advocate for them.

The thing is, John assumes the motoring environment is static, where the motorists have no emotions and cyclists can just insert themselves into the traffic stream to be accepted and integrated by the motorists, when in fact nothing is further from the truth. Since the 70's people are relying more and more on their private vehicles, the roads have gotten more congested, and there are more driver distractions and more instances of inappropriate motorist behavior. Cell phones, SUVs and 'road rage' did not exist when Effective Cycling was first published. John takes no account of the potential detrimental effects on cyclists, both psychological and physical, of potential daily negative interactions with motorists resulting from the necessity of having to share the same limited roadway space.

[sggoodri]

The difference in my experience and your experience has a lot to do with the characteristics of the built environment and the amount of available ROW space. I live in an already dense pre-automobile inner urban area, where there is no additional room to expand roadway rights-of-way, and where, ironically, motorists oppose bike lanes on the grounds that they take ROW space away from motorists, and I am therefore often forced to ride vehicularly on arterial streets; whereas it sounds like you live in a post-automobile city, outer urban or surburban area where the rights-of-way are wider and the space for WOLs, bike lanes or sidepaths is available, and motorists advocate for them.


I agree. In built-up areas where curbs cannot be moved, motorists oppose bike lanes because building such requires removal of a normal travel lane or on-street parking.


The thing is, John assumes the motoring environment is static, where the motorists have no emotions and cyclists can just insert themselves into the traffic stream to be accepted and integrated by the motorists, when in fact nothing is further from the truth. Since the 70's people are relying more and more on their private vehicles, the roads have gotten more congested, and there are more driver distractions and more instances of inappropriate motorist behavior. Cell phones, SUVs and 'road rage' did not exist when Effective Cycling was first published. John takes no account of the potential detrimental effects on cyclists, both psychological and physical, of potential daily negative interactions with motorists resulting from the necessity of having to share the same limited roadway space.

I believe that many vehicular cycling advocates, John and myself included, believe that motorist harassment of cyclists operating in line with same-direction traffic is a product of a cyclist-inferiority culture that must be challenged and reversed, and that encouraging public understanding of vehicular cycling practice is a step toward undoing that cyclist-inferiority attitude of motorists. I believe that if enough cyclists operate in travel lanes, according to the law, and asserting themselves in narrrow lanes, the motoring population will habituate to this over time.

In any case, if you live in a city where the curbs won't change location and the lanes are narrow, you can oppose motorists by promoting bike lanes, which motorists can never use, in return for fewer travel lanes, or by promoting vehicular cycling, allowing motorists to have more lanes but requring them to slow when cyclists are ahead of them. The second is better for motorists, but requires that they be polite to cyclists. Perhaps more cyclist advocates should approach pro-motoring organizations in order to try to convince them that getting motorists to be more polite to cyclists using the normal travel lanes is actually in motorists' best interest, so that they are allowed to use more of the public right of way.

Here in the suburbs where I live, the road mileage is doubling every ten years. We have lots of opportunities to build wide outside lanes, or bike lanes, or whatever, but we also have lots of overburdened narrow rural-design roads with 45-55mph speed limits providing the only links between trip endpoints. So, we advocate both engineering improvements and cultural evolution.

[LittleBigMan]

I believe that if enough cyclists operate in travel lanes, according to the law, and asserting themselves in narrrow lanes, the motoring population will habituate to this over time.
+1.

Every lane is a bike lane. We can agree on that.

[Bekologist]

"harassment of cyclists is a product of cyclist inferiority culture?" OH, now that takes the cake, steve.

[sggoodri]

"harassment of cyclists is a product of cyclist inferiority culture?" OH, now that takes the cake, steve.

What's your issue? If American motorists thought that cyclists had an equal right to the travel lane, rather than an inferior right, then they would be much less likely to harass cyclists. This is the case in many countries where cyclists are not considered inferior users of ordinary, narrow roadways, and routinely require motorists to change lanes to overtake them, with much less fuss from the motorists.

[Bekologist]

I find your language about auto centric america turned into 'cyclist inferiority' a telling admission on your part, steve. did you read about 'cyclist inferiority' in one of john forester's books?

[Bekologist]

I agree, however, that the element of public awareness camapigns about cyclists' rights to the road should be an important part of bicycling advocacy. no city will ever become 100% bike laned, that is not even considered desireable by bike infrastructure advocates.

I believe (as do you, correct?) that increasing bikeability of roads to be an important facet of transportation planning.

[John Forester]

The difference in my experience and your experience has a lot to do with the characteristics of the built environment and the amount of available ROW space. I live in an already dense pre-automobile inner urban area, where there is no additional room to expand roadway rights-of-way, and where, ironically, motorists oppose bike lanes on the grounds that they take ROW space away from motorists, and I am therefore often forced to ride vehicularly on arterial streets; whereas it sounds like you live in a post-automobile city, outer urban or surburban area where the rights-of-way are wider and the space for WOLs, bike lanes or sidepaths is available, and motorists advocate for them.

The thing is, John assumes the motoring environment is static, where the motorists have no emotions and cyclists can just insert themselves into the traffic stream to be accepted and integrated by the motorists, when in fact nothing is further from the truth. Since the 70's people are relying more and more on their private vehicles, the roads have gotten more congested, and there are more driver distractions and more instances of inappropriate motorist behavior. Cell phones, SUVs and 'road rage' did not exist when Effective Cycling was first published. John takes no account of the potential detrimental effects on cyclists, both psychological and physical, of potential daily negative interactions with motorists resulting from the necessity of having to share the same limited roadway space.

As always, you do not know the subject about which you are pontificating. You do not know where I have lived and cycled, and your conclusions about those matters are false.

[John Forester]

I agree, however, that the element of public awareness camapigns about cyclists' rights to the road should be an important part of bicycling advocacy. no city will ever become 100% bike laned, that is not even considered desireable by bike infrastructure advocates.

I believe (as do you, correct?) that increasing bikeability of roads to be an important facet of transportation planning.

Yes, of course. But the changes advocated by bicycle advocates in this discussion group are not devoted to bikeability in any rational way. Rather, they reduce the bikeability of the roads to which they are applied, because the complicate the rules of the road and make cycling more difficult, and therefore more dangerous. Bikeability improvements should be devoted to improving the ability of cyclists to operate properly, rather than encouraging improper operation. There's no magic to doing things right, except that most on this list would rather do things improperly.

[Bekologist]

john, your stretching for conclusions. and being derisively insulting as well.

more reason to disagree with you.

[sggoodri]

I find your language about auto centric america turned into 'cyclist inferiority' a telling admission on your part, steve. did you read about 'cyclist inferiority' in one of john forester's books?

I don't use the term "cyclist inferiority" outside of this thread's context, where we are talking about John Forester's words and actions. They are obviously his words, with which I agree in this context, but not the words that I would normally use to describe the issue.

As I have said before, I prefer the term "taboo": A proscription maintained by social reinforcement and fear of both direct consequences and social disapproval. It is not the individual who is ill, but the culture.

Tell an individual that their difficulties are based on their own superstition and inferiority complex, and they will get mad at you. Tell them that their difficulties are based on an oppressive, unjust culture that doesn't treat them as they should, and they might just get mad enough at that cuture to try to change it.

As a cycling advocate and certified cycling instructor (LCI 1690) I must challenge people to find room for improvement in their cycling technique, and that includes looking at their own attitude about their legitimacy on the road. However, I think that goes easier if they can save face by blaming elements of our society for their lack of sense of entitlement that has handicapped their cycling.

[Bekologist]

i had NO IDEA cyclists such as yourself considered traffic cycling 'taboo', steve ;)

[LittleBigMan]

In some cases, new places to ride have given me more options. In other cases, new places to ride have taken away from bikeable road space by the addition of debris-filled areas. Where I could once ride comfortably, I now had less room to do so.

Although this would be considered an issue about sweeping the road by some, the reality is that the road does not get swept. So, rather than enjoying the facility that's been built primarily for my benefit, I must contact authorities to correct a situation that they created.

Athough I appreciate the gesture by the authorities in creating for me a comfortable place to ride, the reality of it falls far short of their intention. I don't blame them for this, because they don't understand my needs as well as I do.

So, in many cases, addition of new bicycle infrastructure has created for me more problems than it has solved. This is a bit frustrating, and though this frustration does not drive me to oppose all bicycle facilities everywhere, it does cause me to question the wisdom of trusting those whose primary focus and intention is to facilitate motorized transport to understand my specific needs as a cyclist and address those needs appropriately.

[sbhikes]

Yes, of course. But the changes advocated by bicycle advocates in this discussion group are not devoted to bikeability in any rational way.

I provided this list of changes I wouldlike to see. I don't understand why you have a problem with it.

Ease of use for bicycles means that the roads don't pose difficulties in navigating. Things like double right turn on-ramps -- now you've got to cross a football field of accellerating, lane-changing traffic just to keep going straight? Or lights that don't last long enough to get all the way through an intersection, even if you can trigger the light. Or how about crossing acres of asphalt just to get to a left turn lane where everyone is going 55 mph in the lanes you have to cross, and will get up to 35 or 40 in the turn lane as they approach the light for the turn.

Maybe the ubercyclists are up for this, but mere mortals who would like to get home to their children won't tolerate such risks. Most cyclists I know won't tolerate this kind of roadway development, but this is state-of-the art out in sprawluburbia.

[John Forester]

I provided this list of changes I wouldlike to see. I don't understand why you have a problem with it.

Originally Posted by sbhikes
Ease of use for bicycles means that the roads don't pose difficulties in navigating. Things like double right turn on-ramps -- now you've got to cross a football field of accellerating, lane-changing traffic just to keep going straight? Or lights that don't last long enough to get all the way through an intersection, even if you can trigger the light. Or how about crossing acres of asphalt just to get to a left turn lane where everyone is going 55 mph in the lanes you have to cross, and will get up to 35 or 40 in the turn lane as they approach the light for the turn.

Maybe the ubercyclists are up for this, but mere mortals who would like to get home to their children won't tolerate such risks. Most cyclists I know won't tolerate this kind of roadway development, but this is state-of-the art out in sprawluburbia.

I provided this list of changes I wouldlike to see. I don't understand why you have a problem with it.

I don't have a problem with it (sic). I have a great problem with your attitude in injecting these problems into what has been a discussion of bike lanes, which clearly cannot solve these problems.

[John Forester]

I don't use the term "cyclist inferiority" outside of this thread's context, where we are talking about John Forester's words and actions. They are obviously his words, with which I agree in this context, but not the words that I would normally use to describe the issue.

As I have said before, I prefer the term "taboo": A proscription maintained by social reinforcement and fear of both direct consequences and social disapproval. It is not the individual who is ill, but the culture.

Tell an individual that their difficulties are based on their own superstition and inferiority complex, and they will get mad at you. Tell them that their difficulties are based on an oppressive, unjust culture that doesn't treat them as they should, and they might just get mad enough at that cuture to try to change it.

As a cycling advocate and certified cycling instructor (LCI 1690) I must challenge people to find room for improvement in their cycling technique, and that includes looking at their own attitude about their legitimacy on the road. However, I think that goes easier if they can save face by blaming elements of our society for their lack of sense of entitlement that has handicapped their cycling.

I agree with Steve on this. Indeed, we have always agreed on the mechanism, although not on the description. We have agreed because we both recognize that this is a social attitude created by the motoring establishment for the convenience of motorists, and we agree that the typical bicycle advocate is carrying out the desires of the motorists with respect to advocating facilities that, to the motorist, keep bicycles out of his way. The difference is in whether one places more emphasis on the individual or on society. The phobia is the individual manifestation of the taboo; the taboo can exist only when a large proportion of individuals possess the phobia. Although a taboo, in general, has a bit more to it than does the phobia. The concept of taboo implies that the major punishment for disobeying it comes from supernatural forces, but it also implies that society, through its members, will provide additional punishment, be it administered for the correction of the violator or for the protection of society against the supernatural force.

I just don't know whether it is better to address the individual or society. The individual has the power, supposedly, to change his attitude and therefore his actions. Might it be better to tell the individual that he should collect his courage to violate society's foolish attitude about cycling in traffic? Well, I have been doing that for years, actions which many of you on this list consider ineffective. And society will not be changed unless some individuals have a different attitude. That is why I have concentrated on traffic professionals, because the social attitude conflicts with their professional duties and ethics and because they are in the best position for individuals to create change. It is all a very difficult problem.

[Bekologist]

oregon and portland, specifically, has gone far to create parity for bicyclists, john. probably more so than any other american city at this time. their riding numbers are up, the indexed accident rate for bicyclists is down, concurrent with bike infrastructure, bike lanes, sharrows, bike boulevards, roadway and street improvements that encourage cycling.

if you disagree with enhancements to road infrastructure like those seen in portland, i disagree with your point of view.

Portland or Detroit? which is more bikeable?

And John, your character and tone is so terrlbly disagreeable, I'd disagree with you just on general principles. I wonder if you got booted from the LAB seat because of your abrasive, insufferable personality?

[sggoodri]

The concept of taboo implies that the major punishment for disobeying it comes from supernatural forces, but it also implies that society, through its members, will provide additional punishment, be it administered for the correction of the violator or for the protection of society against the supernatural force.

I just don't know whether it is better to address the individual or society. The individual has the power, supposedly, to change his attitude and therefore his actions.

I often underestimate the degree to which some people attribute phenomena to supernatural forces, but when I speak about modern taboos, I mean fears related to phenomena accepted to be of natural causes but which are not understood. The modern taboo about incest remains; people understand that it is rooted in natural phenomena even if they don't fully understand the genetic issues involved, and ordinarily don't really care unless they happen to fall in love with a step-relative or other cousin of no close genetic link. In these cases learned people fear the social disapproval far more than the consequences for their offspring.

Getting people to give up their fear requires developing a great deal of mutual respect and trust. It requires showing them that their fear is preventing them from getting something that they want, and that they can learn to make new distinctions between those things that can actually harm them and those that are unlikely to. This requires lots of small steps and successes. The EC/LAB classes are designed this way. However, we know we cannot recruit people into learning vehicular cycling either formally or informally by making them feel insulted by its proponents. It appears that the wrong approach only galvanizes the skeptics. The "I know more than you" method is sure to fail; a more gentle Socratic approach seems to have promise.