Vehicular Cycling (VC) - Forester's talk: The Management of Bicycle Transportation

John Forester (http://johnforester.com) spoke at Google (http://google.com)'s headquarters (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&q=1600+Amphitheatre+Pky,+Mountain+View,+CA+94043+(Googleplex)&sll=37.27183,-121.991921&sspn=0.007172,0.011405&ie=UTF8&ll=37.421951,-122.08379&spn=0.003579,0.005702&t=h&z=18&om=1) in Mountain View California, on the occasion of Bike To Work Day, celebrated May 17 2007 in Silicon Valley (http://svbcbikes.org) and the San Francisco Bay Area (http://bayareabikes.org). He was part of our ongoing Tech Talks (http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=techtalks) series of invited guest speakers on a variety of engineering (and other) topics.

His topic was The Management of Bicycle Transportation. You can watch the video here (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6082181397382918705).

(Sorry, no bowtie. Ties scare people at Google ;) )

Is there a transcript avaiable?

Video is blocked here at, uh, work.

59 minutes long... I'll look at it later.

Can someone give a synopsis, I don't have 59 minutes to spare in my busy schedule! :)

Can someone give a synopsis, I don't have 59 minutes to spare in my busy schedule! :)
Same old, same old. PM me and I can send an MP3 audio file.

How was his talk received? Did the geniuses at Google agree with what he had to say?

How was his talk received? Did the geniuses at Google agree with what he had to say?Certainly the geniuses liked it just fine, the rest of them had some questions though :p

You can tell from the Q&A at the end that he raised a lot of issues that got a lot of people thinking. The Q&A time continued for another hour after the camera was turned off. Some listeners went away satisfied and some didn't. The discussion continued on internal cycling email lists, where some points were clarified and others were disputed.

The company's culture is strongly driven by engineering criteria, analytics and empirical metrics. Forester's points on traffic engineering were well received because they were well supported by data. Some questioned the culturally specific applications, and weren't satisfied with answers of the form "USA isn't the Netherlands."

Some questioned the culturally specific applications, and weren't satisfied with answers of the form "USA isn't the Netherlands."Yea, I'll bet. :D

I'd be interested to know how Forester's psychological theories (such as cyclist inferiority phobia theory) were recieved.

As we all know, Forester has impeccable credentials in the fields of psychology and social science. :rolleyes:

The first bit of his talk was kind of interesting on how cities formed along fixed cargo transit facilities (water and rail) and then with the advent of the automobile and free roaming routes the city became obsolete.

He handled the cyclists inferiority complex rather well as he did not use that term at all but rather stated that there were two possibilities, because the motoring establishment wanted us out of the way OR for misplaced concern for our safety such and such happened (laws, bike lanes and what ever else would fit in that mold.)

It was kind of interesting as I got a better insight on how he got to the conclusions he has. As for me I am still skeptical and waiting for more and better studies on the subject.

I finally got a chance to listen to the whole thing... there really are no visuals in it, so audio was fine. (I watched and listened... no point in watching though).

The one thing that stands out in that speech (beyond the words I have read so many times before) is the Cross study... the one thing that Forester insists defeats all Bike Lanes... and yet only he has a copy... grabbed as it were, off a table before it could be "buried."

Why can't he make his copy public? Why can't the data in that study be brought before "the court of public opinion?' Why is it that only Forester has the only copy... and that it seems to represent the core of some of his anti-bike lane stance.

...with the advent of the automobile and free roaming routes the city became obsolete.
This is total hogwash! Like the bicycle itself, older pre-automobile cities or city cores are highly efficient both energy and space wise. The automobile did not make the city obsolete, but it certainly caused incredible damage to cities. Rediscovering the inner pre-automobile city should be the goal of every major metropolitan area in the world that doesn't want to be swallowed up in endless automobile congestion and pollution.

I finally got a chance to listen to the whole thing... there really are no visuals in it, so audio was fine. (I watched and listened... no point in watching though).

The one thing that stands out in that speech (beyond the words I have read so many times before) is the Cross study... the one thing that Forester insists defeats all Bike Lanes... and yet only he has a copy... grabbed as it were, off a table before it could be "buried."

Why can't he make his copy public? Why can't the data in that study be brought before "the court of public opinion?' Why is it that only Forester has the only copy... and that it seems to represent the core of some of his anti-bike lane stance.

I suggest that you look up the literature. There are two Cross studies. The first was of car-bike collisions in Santa Barbara County, funded by the California Office of Traffic Safety, which is a fief of the California Highway Patrol. This area was convenient for Cross because he lives there, so he could examine every site without lengthy travel. That is the one that Cross presented to the California Statewide Bicycle Committee, and which was suppressed because I pointed out that it completely disproved the bikeway hypothesis. As I have often said, I received a copy, as did all present, and kept it. Once character recognition software became available, I posted a copy on my website, and it has been there for several years. Under Articles/Safety/Cross01.

The second Cross study, with the widely distributed four state "national" sample, was made under contract DOT-HS-4-00982 with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Titled "A Study of Bicycle/Motor-Vehicle Accidents: Identification of Problem Types and Countermeasure Approaches." It was published in two volumes in September 1977. The technical report documentation page states: "No restrictions. This document is available to the public through the National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Virginia."

As I have often said, I received a copy, as did all present, and kept it. Once character recognition software became available, I posted a copy on my website, and it has been there for several years. Under Articles/Safety/Cross01.

Full link:
http://www.johnforester.com/Articles/Safety/Cross01.htm

This is total hogwash! Like the bicycle itself, older pre-automobile cities or city cores are highly efficient both energy and space wise. The automobile did not make the city obsolete, but it certainly caused incredible damage to cities. Rediscovering the inner pre-automobile city should be the goal of every major metropolitan area in the world that doesn't want to be swallowed up in endless automobile congestion and pollution.

So what if older cities are efficient in terms of energy and space. The fact is that they are inefficient in terms of human needs. Most people would rather live and work elsewhere, and with automotive transportation they have the ability to better meet their desires. This is the world in which we cyclists live and operate; we need to work out how best to use and enjoy cycling in the world in which we live.

Yea, I'll bet. :D

I'd be interested to know how Forester's psychological theories (such as cyclist inferiority phobia theory) were recieved.

As we all know, Forester has impeccable credentials in the fields of psychology and social science. :rolleyes:

Don't be so silly. You need to recognize that issues of personal transportation involve quite serious consideration of social science principles.

The second Cross study, with the widely distributed four state "national" sample, was made under contract DOT-HS-4-00982 with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Titled "A Study of Bicycle/Motor-Vehicle Accidents: Identification of Problem Types and Countermeasure Approaches." It was published in two volumes in September 1977. The technical report documentation page states: "No restrictions. This document is available to the public through the National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Virginia."
Link:
http://www.worldcatlibraries.org/wcpa/top3mset/4045935#div-item-purchase

Based on current trends in population and migration, more people will live urban areas then rural ones by 2008.

Based on current trends in population and migration, more people will live urban areas then rural ones by 2008.
Non sequitur???

Context please...

If, by the way, you're thinking about rural vs. urban roads, the definitions have more to do with immediate characteristics (frequency of intersections, lighting at night, etc.) rather than the type of area it's in. So you can have a "rural" road in the suburbs for example, and maybe even in the city (like a road going through Golden Gate park in San Francisco might be considered "rural" in these studies).

...we need to work out how best to use and enjoy cycling in the world in which we live.
The status quo is not immutable, and with increasing traffic congestion, global warming and higher levels of awareness of all the negative health effects caused by our dependence on automobiles - everything from respiratory problems caused by atmospheric emissions of combustion byproducts, to injury/fatality accidents, to groundwater contamination related to environmental releases of fuels from filling stations - not to mention foreign wars of imperialism to secure our future oil supply, it only makes good sense to reexamine our current dependence on and love affair with the personal motor vehicle.

One of your most serious problems is your inability to see beyond 'the world in which we live' and to imagine something better.

The status quo is not immutable, and with increasing traffic congestion, global warming and higher levels of awareness of all the negative health effects caused by our dependence on automobiles - everything from respiratory problems caused by atmospheric emissions of combustion byproducts, to injury/fatality accidents, to groundwater contamination related to environmental releases of fuels from filling stations - not to mention foreign wars of imperialism to secure our future oil supply, it only makes good sense to reexamine our current dependence on and love affair with the personal motor vehicle.

One of your most serious problems is your inability to see beyond 'the world in which we live' and to imagine something better.

The question is not that of imagination; it is that of present reality and future prediction. I suggest to you that for the next three years, at least, barring a catastrophe such as a real war, cycling conditions will remain much the same. Therefore, there is no need for the cyclist to bother much about the future. I quite understand that conditions will change over the long term; they always have. But how they will change, and what effect those changes will have on cyclists, is unknown. Suppose that one effect is what you hope, a reduction in motoring. Well, from your point of view, that makes things better for cyclists, who will not really have to do anything different.

In other words, whatever the future might bring, there's nothing that the cyclist need to do about it today, and since he can't predict very accurately what the changes will be and how the rest of society will handle them, there's nothing that he need plan to do.

You evidently think differently, but if you do you have never presented a plan as to what to do about the future as far as cycling is concerned. I suppose, thinking about this discussion now, that you have the opinion that changes in bicycle transportation will cause the future to turn into what you hope for. All I can say is that at no time since the 1890s has bicycling had that amount of social power. I see no reason why it will in the near future.

The biggest problem with the automobile is that it isn't a Vespa. Why do people feel they need to cart around 4000lbs of totally uncool metal when 500lbs of very cool Vespa will do the trick?

John,

I enjoyed your talk. However, I was wondering how you might address some concerns that a skeptical audience member might have regarding your talk's focus on cyclist behavior.

Many cyclists who do ride properly still feel unsafe due to inappropriate behavior by motorists in the form of unsafe movements such as too-close passing at too-high speed, and feel extremely unwelcome in the travel lanes due to harassment from motorists, particularly in places where most lanes are narrow. These cyclists do not feel empowered to change this situation as individuals. What can or should be done by cyclist advocacy groups or by the government to reduce these discouraging events?

I think the answer is important for vehicular cycling, because the bikeway proponents promise that they have a solution to this in the form of bikeways where cyclists cannot delay motorists and presumably will not or cannot be passed too closely, or which supposedly use pavement markings to educate motorists that cyclists belong on roadways. Bikeway proponents promise to "do something" for existing lawful cyclists; what proactive steps can vehicular cycling advocates or the government take to effectively address the discouraging effect of unfriendly motorists on existing roads? How can we better communicate our empathy to these upset cyclists and demonstrate that we have a strategy to address their concerns?

- Steve Goodridge

All I can say is that at no time since the 1890s has bicycling had that amount of social power. I see no reason why it will in the near future.
You don't live in Portland, or Vancouver BC, or Amsterdam, or Bogata, or any other city that has more than 1 or 2% bike usage. You're way too pessimistic about the future and apparently way too set in your beliefs to think 'outside the box' for even one instant.

mossy john can't demonstrate such a strategy.

john, the bicycling transportation movement is really taking off, dude. haven't you been keeping up? you seem solidly stuck in the past.

one fundamental point you're missing the boat on, though, mossy- most comtemporary bicycling advocates want to INCREASE bicycling, not reduce motoring.

build it and they will ride.

You don't live in Portland, or Vancouver BC, or Amsterdam, or Bogata, or any other city that has more than 1 or 2% bike usage. You're way too pessimistic about the future and apparently way too set in your beliefs to think 'outside the box' for even one instant.

Mostly foolish assumptions. I have cycled frequently in Portland and Vancouver (where I was paraded by an escort of police motorcyclists as a distinguished visitor, when I would have rather just cycled in from the airport like any other unknown cyclist), and I know a lot about Amsterdam. I know nothing about Bogota. Your belief that Amsterdam's bikeways promote cycling is entirely wrong; the bicycling mode share declined over the bikeway era. Vancouver doesn't need bikeways; for decades it had a strong cycling community (strong for North American cities). Neither does Portland. However, Portland has been trying to redesign itself on the Amsterdam model of very inconvenient motoring, and, because it started from the usual NA low cycling mix, it has increased cycling, but to still only a small portion of the total area personal transportation travel.

I find that your belief in the great good produced by these small increases (not counting the reduction in Amsterdam) in bicycle transportation to be naive and disingenuous. You say that I am "[W]ay too pessimistic about the future and apparently way too set in your beliefs to think 'outside the box' for even one instant."

I presume that you mean that I have conventional thoughts, in that I understand the utility of personal motor transport and the urban changes that it has allowed people to make. In that I am conventional, as, of course, are most people. I therefore presume that you have other ideas. As for pessimism, you may mean that in two ways. First, that I think that the present system has sufficient utility that it will continue unless there is some great change in circumstances. Whereas you apparently believe that the great change desired by the anti-motoring community is around the corner. The second interpretation of your claim of pessimism are my statements that the cycling community does not have the political power to produce the urban changes desired by the anti-motoring community. Well, despite thirty years of trying to produce such changes, it hasn't managed much yet. And don't say that it was the cycling community that produced the changes in Portland; many other and much stronger forces worked on that.

mossy john can't demonstrate such a strategy.

john, the bicycling transportation movement is really taking off, dude. haven't you been keeping up? you seem solidly stuck in the past.

one fundamental point you're missing the boat on, though, mossy- most comtemporary bicycling advocates want to INCREASE bicycling, not reduce motoring.

"The bicycle transportation movement is really taking off"? Into greater flights of fancy? While it has engaged in much greater activity, it hasn't produced significant results after decades of trying.

I understand that the current argument is to increase bicycling, just another rephrasing of the anti-motoring agenda because, of course, motoring has increased over the bikeway era. I say that the current phrasing of the argument is obviously false, because the bicycling advocates do not encourage cycling in general, but only bikeways for bicycle transportation, which, given the current facts, means that the bicycle miles come from motoring miles. (Though, if truth be known, a more likely market is the mass transit riders, because in many cases bicycling provides shorter trip times than does mass transit.) A further bit of evidence is the commonality between bicycle advocates and mass transit advocates, which, considering that these are competing modes of personal transportation, would seem unlikely except for the fact that both compete with motoring.

At this point in history, the personal motor vehicle is more responsible for degradation of, rather than enhancements to, the quality of life. If you can't accept this, you are deeply in denial.

I am not unrealistic enough to expect all use of personal motor vehicles to cease, but IMHO the continued elevation of the personal motor vehicle to its current untouchable, iconic status will turn out to be extremely detrimental to society in the long run (many would say it already has had this affect).

To turn back this trend, for starters, among other things, mandatory congestion pricing should probably be implemented in urban areas nationally ASAP. Vulnerable user laws, which protect pedestrians, cyclists, scooterists, motorcyclists and others who must use the same roadway system as the motorists, by increasing penalties for motorists who threaten, harm or kill vulnerable users would also be another positive step in the right direction.

By refusing to reevaluate the assumptions upon which our current transportation system is based, you are part of the problem, rather than part of the solution, John.

John,

I enjoyed your talk. However, I was wondering how you might address some concerns that a skeptical audience member might have regarding your talk's focus on cyclist behavior.

Many cyclists who do ride properly still feel unsafe due to inappropriate behavior by motorists in the form of unsafe movements such as too-close passing at too-high speed, and feel extremely unwelcome in the travel lanes due to harassment from motorists, particularly in places where most lanes are narrow. These cyclists do not feel empowered to change this situation as individuals. What can or should be done by cyclist advocacy groups or by the government to reduce these discouraging events?

I think the answer is important for vehicular cycling, because the bikeway proponents promise that they have a solution to this in the form of bikeways where cyclists cannot delay motorists and presumably will not or cannot be passed too closely, or which supposedly use pavement markings to educate motorists that cyclists belong on roadways. Bikeway proponents promise to "do something" for existing lawful cyclists; what proactive steps can vehicular cycling advocates or the government take to effectively address the discouraging effect of unfriendly motorists on existing roads? How can we better communicate our empathy to these upset cyclists and demonstrate that we have a strategy to address their concerns?

- Steve Goodridge

Steve, these are all good questions. You address the following feelings by some vehicular cyclists: "[They] feel unsafe due to inappropriate behavior by motorists in the form of unsafe movements such as too-close passing at too-high speed, and feel extremely unwelcome in the travel lanes due to harassment from motorists, particularly in places where most lanes are narrow." You ask: "These cyclists do not feel empowered to change this situation as individuals. What can or should be done by cyclist advocacy groups or by the government to reduce these discouraging events?"

I am going to start with a discouraging comment before going to encouraging comments. Of course, they do have the individual power to do something about this feeling. Get used to the situation and don't let it bother you. That sounds cruel, I know, but there are those of us who have been used to this situation all our cycling lives, and we don't bother much about it. What constitutes too close and too fast is very subjective. If one feels guilty, the intensity of the experience increases. And, when the situation warrants, take the lane, let the motorists honk, and don't increase the intensity of your emotions by feeling guilty about it.

I have often said that I prefer close overtaking by an 18-wheeler with a professional driver to being overtaken at somewhat greater distance by a passenger car towing a trailer. I trust the professional driver much more than the amateur driver who only occasionally tows a trailer.

To move on to encouraging comments. The situations described are the result of the cyclist-inferiority superstition. That influences the emotions of the cyclist, as described above, and it also influences the emotions of some motorists and the acts of the politician and traffic engineer. Changing this will be a long-term project; that's inescapable.

One first stage is individual change as described above. The next stage ought to be a change by the cycling organizations to advocate a policy of vehicular cycling by lawful and competent cyclists. Yeah, fat chance of that happening, it appears. However, it would certainly help if at least one cycling organization, new or old, responded to vehicular cycling members by advocating a policy of vehicular cycling. By and large, the California Association of Bicycling Organizations does this, in contrast to the other bicycle advocacy organizations in the state. But we vehicular cyclists need a national presence that can influence both politicians and the motoring organizations.

A third way, not another stage as I would see it, is to become active in influencing professional traffic-engineering opinion at either, or both, the local and the highest levels. This involves arguing the engineering principles that bikeways contradict known standard traffic-engineering practices while wide outside lanes do not have that disadvantage. And arguing, particularly at the local level, that the public should expect bicycle traffic on all roadways except freeways, so that all roadways should be designed to accommodate some expected level of bicycle travel. That accommodation might be wide outside through lanes or it might be just acceptance that cyclists will take a narrow outside through lane when that is what is supplied. The local traffic engineer needs to make it clear to the local politicians that these are the only reasonable options, and that wide outside through lanes take no more space than do bike lanes without the disadvantages of bike lanes. It is up to the politicians to decide how best to accommodate bicycle traffic, either with wide outside lanes or with narrow lanes and a possibly a reduced speed limit.

At this point, it is up to the local cyclists to persuade some politicians that this is the best course, and to then generate support for the politicians who accept this view, so that this gets into the official local planning documents.

This is a long course, but vehicular cyclists should recognize that vehicular cycling, being so valuable for the cyclist, is worth a long effort to preserve and to become official bicycle transportation policy.

Mossy, a guy with your intelligence, with such adamant, skewed denial about bicyclings' dynamic and growing nature in america and around the world.

's sad, really.

mossy john, lobbying for close, agressive passes by drivers, stiff upper lipped & thick skinned bicyclists, and the dream to keep more bicyclists away from the roads with his insistence on liscensing versus infrastructure.

sad. i'd call it pathetic, and that's NOT an insult.

mossy john, lobbying for close, agressive passes by drivers, stiff upper lipped & thick skinned bicyclists, and the dream to keep more bicyclists away from the roads with his insistence on liscensing versus infrastructure.

sad. i'd call it pathetic, and that's NOT an insult.

You must be crazy to conclude that my posting was intended to do what you mistakenly believe that it does.

I dunno, Mossy, my opinion of your dystopian view doesn't seem too far off the mark, buddy.



Get used to the situation and don't let it bother you. That sounds cruel, I know, but there are those of us who have been used to this situation all our cycling lives, and we don't bother much about it. What constitutes too close and too fast is very subjective.......

The next stage ought to be a change by the cycling organizations to advocate a policy of vehicular cycling by lawful and competent cyclists. Yeah, fat chance of that happening.....

you seem more than a little out of touch with modern cycling, mossy.

Ever read Cervantes, John? you see windmills when you think about bike infrastructure, eh?

Your diatribe is very much how I characterize it.

mossy john, lobbying for close, agressive passes by drivers, stiff upper lipped & thick skinned bicyclists, and the dream to keep more bicyclists away from the roads with his insistence on liscensing versus infrastructure.
While there is a lot of benefit in empowering the individual to keep on truck’n as it were. It does seem that this “I’m only going to deal with the half of the problem I can control.” has evolved to “there is no other half to this problem,” or at best “there is nothing we can do about the other half.” and that is a shame.

Mossy, a guy with your intelligence, with such adamant, skewed denial about bicyclings' dynamic and growing nature in america and around the world.

's sad, really.

I read frequent newspaper articles about the increase in motoring in many parts of the world. I do not see such articles about greater than some local effect concerning bicycle transportation. It appears to me that the increase in motoring far exceeds any increase in cycling. What data do you offer to support your claim?

At this point in history, the personal motor vehicle is more responsible for degradation of, rather than enhancements to, the quality of life. If you can't accept this, you are deeply in denial.

I am not unrealistic enough to expect all use of personal motor vehicles to cease, but IMHO the continued elevation of the personal motor vehicle to its current untouchable, iconic status will turn out to be extremely detrimental to society in the long run (many would say it already has had this affect).

To turn back this trend, for starters, among other things, mandatory congestion pricing should probably be implemented in urban areas nationally ASAP. Vulnerable user laws, which protect pedestrians, cyclists, scooterists, motorcyclists and others who must use the same roadway system as the motorists, by increasing penalties for motorists who threaten, harm or kill vulnerable users would also be another positive step in the right direction.

By refusing to reevaluate the assumptions upon which our current transportation system is based, you are part of the problem, rather than part of the solution, John.


Well, as long as you base all your arguments on the amount of anti-motoring they contain, I see nothing particularly valuable for cyclists in them. The two subjects, cycling and anti-motoring, are distinct.

You claim that: "At this point in history, the personal motor vehicle is more responsible for degradation of, rather than enhancements to, the quality of life. If you can't accept this, you are deeply in denial." Well, that's one point of view. However, it is a minority view, as evidenced by the large proportion of populations who have adopted, and are adopting, motoring lifestyles. All that I argue for cyclists is what is best for cyclists in this world that we live in.

Your recommendation for vulnerable road user laws is arguable. However, it seems to me, that the problem is that our society considers that cyclists are inferior and that cycling is far more dangerous than it is (the two thoughts go together), so that cyclists are seen as natural victims, that what happens to them is their own fault. I have seen that in incident investigations I have performed. It appears to me that if cyclists were considered to be equal to motorists, much of that attitude would be corrected. It also is obvious to me that the actions that you recommend are based on the cyclist inferiority attitude, and therefore are counterproductive.

Many cities in Japan have a 40% cyclist mode split and most of that cycling is done on the sidewalks. Amsterdam and Copenhagen have similar cyclist mode splits, having developed extensive bikeway networks.

The US has a paltry 1% cyclist mode split, and yet some fools still insist that cycling should only be done with motorists, on roads designed for motorists, and by the rules established for motorists (those motorist-specific rules having come about out of necessity due to the extremely harmful nature of motor vehicles when incorrectly used).

I diagnose you, John Forester, with a terminal case of motorist superiority disorder.

While there is a lot of benefit in empowering the individual to keep on truck’n as it were. It does seem that this “I’m only going to deal with the half of the problem I can control.” has evolved to “there is no other half to this problem,” or at best “there is nothing we can do about the other half.” and that is a shame.

wow, exactly!

Many cities in Japan have a 40% cyclist mode split and most of that cycling is done on the sidewalks. Amsterdam and Copenhagen have similar cyclist mode splits, having developed extensive bikeway networks.

The US has a paltry 1% cyclist mode split, and yet some fools still insist that cycling should only be done with motorists, on roads designed for motorists, and by the rules established for motorists (those motorist-specific rules having come about out of necessity due to the extremely harmful nature of motor vehicles when incorrectly used).

I diagnose you, John Forester, with a terminal case of motorist superiority disorder.

You state the current situation in Japan, Amsterdam, and Copenhagen as if it was always that way. The ONLY reason cycling in those cities is done on the sidewalks and bikeways is because of an INCREASE in automobile travel. This is what Forester is talking about. The fact that most cyclists in the US are so happy to be given the same treatment that was forced upon cyclists in these other countries is beyond comprehension to me, then again, I don't feel as though I am an inferior road user.

While there is a lot of benefit in empowering the individual to keep on truck’n as it were. It does seem that this “I’m only going to deal with the half of the problem I can control.” has evolved to “there is no other half to this problem,” or at best “there is nothing we can do about the other half.” and that is a shame.

Continuing to operate as though cyclists are inferior road users will only continue to erode cyclists' rights to use the roadways as vehicle drivers. Cycling as if you are not inferior, and ignoring the current trend for motorists to consider to cyclists as inferior, is a lot more practical than accepting that cyclists are inferior and operating as such, that is, if you feel that your rights to the road are important.

hey, Mossy, you didn't read "building a better bike lane" from the May 4, 2007 Wall Street Journal ?


I do not see such articles about greater than some local effect concerning bicycle transportation.


just pretending to not have heard the news about bicycling increasing worldwide, and nations' efforts to reduce carbon loading by taxing and reducing motoring concurrent with increasing bicycling, mossy, doesn't make it so.

It just means you are in denial.

hey, Mossy, you didn't read "building a better bike lane" from the May 4, 2007 Wall Street Journal ?




just pretending to not have heard the news about bicycling increasing worldwide, and nations' efforts to reduce carbon loading by taxing and reducing motoring concurrent with increasing bicycling, mossy, doesn't make it so.

It just means you are in denial.

Yes, I have read it, and there is nothing there saying that bicycling is increasing faster than motoring. In fact, no statistics with world-wide source. I see no reason to agree with your claims, and, whatever your claim happens to be, it has nothing to do with working for the welfare of cyclists, which is my direction.

Many cities in Japan have a 40% cyclist mode split and most of that cycling is done on the sidewalks. Amsterdam and Copenhagen have similar cyclist mode splits, having developed extensive bikeway networks.

The US has a paltry 1% cyclist mode split, and yet some fools still insist that cycling should only be done with motorists, on roads designed for motorists, and by the rules established for motorists (those motorist-specific rules having come about out of necessity due to the extremely harmful nature of motor vehicles when incorrectly used).

I diagnose you, John Forester, with a terminal case of motorist superiority disorder.

You argue that: "[S]ome fools still insist that cycling should only be done with motorists, on roads designed for motorists, and by the rules established for motorists." If that is actually a foolish position, then you must have very good evidence that a better system exists. Please describe to us an actual system, not on roads and not following the rules of the road, that enables cyclists to travel with no longer times for the same trip and with lower accident rate than is available to vehicular cyclists using the present roads. Put up or shut up.

I dunno, Mossy, my opinion of your dystopian view doesn't seem too far off the mark, buddy.



you seem more than a little out of touch with modern cycling, mossy.

Ever read Cervantes, John? you see windmills when you think about bike infrastructure, eh?

Your diatribe is very much how I characterize it.

I don't worry whether or not I agree or disagree with what you consider to be modern cycling. You and your associates are repeating the same old foolishness that was created by motorists decades ago to handle what they saw, first, as the problem of incompetent cyclists and, second, as those cyclists plugging up their roads. If any of you people had been able to design and produce a system that enables cyclists to travel with no greater trip times and a lower accident rate than vehicular cyclists can achieve on the present roads, then there would be some factual basis for your arguments. As it is, you haven't progressed beyond the motorist-created cyclist-inferiority system of 1940 and the motorist-created cyclist-inferiority-based bikeway system of 1970. Since you have not created anything of value, your arguments have no basis beyond your own superstitions.

Cycling on the roads with the rights and duties of drivers of vehicles provides the best bicycle transportation system that is available. I don't say that that cannot be improved, but the present bikeway program and its basis in superstition militates against improvements that facilitate vehicular cycling.

....many of us call BULL on your analysis as to 'best', mossy. it is NOT best, unless you consider america's 1 perent mode split really what is best for bicycling.

Why are you so adamantly anti-bicycling, john? you marginalize and seek to keep cycling in america stunted by your dogged insistence the roads as they are designed are best for bicycling.

John, you DO know how to ride in a bike lane, dontycha? remember, vehicular cyclists can operate in a bike lane, vehicularily.

I find your misstatements and doggerel about bicycling pathetic.

john, studies have abundantly shown what you deny. you are in denial as to the efficacy of bike infrastructure. all your damnification doesn't nullify the efficacy of bike infrastructure in increasing transportational bicycling, getting riders off sidewalks and onto the roads, improving cyclists' road visibility and positioning, and reducing the indexed crash rates for bicyclists.

your denial reeks of canned logic and diatribe.

who says cycling is increasing faster than motoring? that is not anyone's claim.

worldwide, efforts are underway to INCREASE bicycling as transportation. bike infrastructure works to increase bicycling in communities.

how ol' mossy can attempt to skew it otherwise really is astounding in its' blind denial.

maybe Johns' POV and talk at Google should have been titled
"John F's marginalization of bicycling transportation"

or "efforts to ****** american bicycling"

mossy, you honestly think something you purport happened in 1940 actually has some impact on 21st century american redesign of public rights of way with cyclists in mind as road users? :roflmao:

not to mention the fact that VC has done such a stellar job of getting large numbers of all kinds of people out there on roadways, riding vehicularly!:rolleyes: I suggest mass hypnosis to try and exorcize the demons of inferiority from the public's minds.

....many of us call BULL on your analysis as to 'best', mossy. it is NOT best, unless you consider america's 1 perent mode split really what is best for bicycling.

Why are you so adamantly anti-bicycling, john? you marginalize and seek to keep cycling in america stunted by your dogged insistence the roads as they are designed are best for bicycling.

John, you DO know how to ride in a bike lane, dontycha? remember, vehicular cyclists can operate in a bike lane, vehicularily.

I find your misstatements and doggerel about bicycling pathetic.

Neither you nor any of your associates have developed a practical system of bicycle travel that provides as short travel times and lower accident rates than riding in the vehicular style on good roads. Those are the reasonable criteria for what is best for cyclists. You argue that this is not best for "bicycling". What is this "bicycling" to which you refer? I don't argue that the roads as they are designed are best for cyclists; they could be better. However, neither you nor any of your associates have produced a better design, only one that has the disadvantages of encouraging confusion that produces additional danger, denigrates the learning of better behavior and, of course, that produces hate mail such as that which you write.