http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/london/6277086.stm

Green experts ban cycling to work

TfL are keen for more people to cycle in London
A firm which advises councils on green transport has come under fire for banning its staff from cycling to work. Jacobs Engineering Group has sent an email to employees advising them to drive or use public transport.

The firm, which has advised Transport for London (TfL) on sustainable transport, said it wanted to protect staff from road accidents.

TfL said it found Jacobs's attitude "bizarre" and had urged the firm to rethink the ban.

'Hypocritical' move

Jacobs said cycling would only be permitted when it was essential for the job, such as carrying out surveys along river banks and towpaths.

On its website, Jacobs states: "In the area of cycling, we can offer expert resources at every stage from cycle policy and promotion through to the detailed design and implementation of cycle schemes."

The company's work for TfL has included monitoring the effects of the London congestion charge.

A TfL spokesman said it was committed to encouraging Londoners to use their bikes as much as possible.

"Our serious investment in growing cycling has seen journeys by bike on soar by 83% since 2000," she said.

She said investment in safety improvements had led to a 28% fall in the number of cyclists killed or injured since the mid-nineties.

London Assembly member Jenny Jones, who advises the mayor on green transport, said TfL should consider cancelling its contracts with Jacobs.

She said: "It is hypocritical to offer advice on promoting cycling, but at the same time ban your staff from using bikes.

"If Jacobs does not understand how important cycling is to TfL, we need to ask whether they are the right sort of company to work with."

Jacobs was unavailable for comment.

*************************************************************

I wonder if this is any more hypocritical than the writer of "Effective Cycling" working with a group that promotes an auto centeric viewpoint for development...

http://www.americandreamcoalition.org/
Note the speakers bureau: http://www.americandreamcoalition.org/forester.html

Must be a result of "cyclist inferiority syndrome... "

or

Company President lost 15 seconds of his time driving behind an employee cyclist as they both commuted into work.
Solution: Keep cyclist from getting in motorist way by banning cycling.

I wonder if this is any more hypocritical than the writer of "Effective Cycling" working with a group that promotes an auto centeric viewpoint for development...

http://www.americandreamcoalition.org/
Note the speakers bureau: http://www.americandreamcoalition.org/forester.html

I'd say it's about the same, except that a cyclist "advocate" that actually advocates for automobiles is a little bit worse than a hypocrite.

Company President lost 15 seconds of his time driving behind an employee cyclist as they both commuted into work.
Was the cyclist riding vehicularly?

I wonder if this is any more hypocritical than the writer of "Effective Cycling" working with a group that promotes an auto centeric viewpoint for development...

http://www.americandreamcoalition.org/
Note the speakers bureau: http://www.americandreamcoalition.org/forester.html

This company ban on employees commuting by bike is hypocritical. What the author of 'Effective Cycling' does is far far worse.

This company ban on employees commuting by bike is hypocritical. What the author of 'Effective Cycling' does is far far worse.

The minds of those who argue as you do are pictures of emotional illogical irrationality. Cyclists need good roads with equitable operating procedures and the standard skills of operating accordingly. That is what I work for, and only people with twisted minds would consider that hypocritical.

You bicycle advocates, on the other hand, are working your guts out in promoting the system that was designed to discriminate against cyclists and to limit their operating space, being based on the principle that bicycle riders don't really belong on the roadway because, so the excuse goes, they are incapable of doing so. Advocacy for cyclists you think that is? Nothing could be more hypocritical than your arguments, and you either cannot understand that, or you refuse to do so for ideological reasons associated with opposition to motoring. Doubly hypocritical that, first for being against the interests of cyclists, second for being controlled by the cyclist-inferiority superstition that was invented by motorists.

The minds of those who argue as you do are pictures of emotional illogical irrationality. Cyclists need good roads with equitable operating procedures and the standard skills of operating accordingly. That is what I work for, and only people with twisted minds would consider that hypocritical.

You bicycle advocates, on the other hand, are working your guts out in promoting the system that was designed to discriminate against cyclists and to limit their operating space, being based on the principle that bicycle riders don't really belong on the roadway because, so the excuse goes, they are incapable of doing so. Advocacy for cyclists you think that is? Nothing could be more hypocritical than your arguments, and you either cannot understand that, or you refuse to do so for ideological reasons associated with opposition to motoring. Doubly hypocritical that, first for being against the interests of cyclists, second for being controlled by the cyclist-inferiority superstition that was invented by motorists.
Classic Forester on cycling advocacy! Recommend that the mods assign a special place for this post and steer all posters (and mods) to it when they try like the dickens to be even-handed conciliators and urge all bicyclists to join hands with the Forester clan to sing Kumbaya.

jhon foresterr, what a fraud.

The minds of those who argue as you do are pictures of emotional illogical irrationality. Cyclists need good roads with equitable operating procedures and the standard skills of operating accordingly. That is what I work for, and only people with twisted minds would consider that hypocritical.

You bicycle advocates, on the other hand, are working your guts out in promoting the system that was designed to discriminate against cyclists and to limit their operating space, being based on the principle that bicycle riders don't really belong on the roadway because, so the excuse goes, they are incapable of doing so. Advocacy for cyclists you think that is? Nothing could be more hypocritical than your arguments, and you either cannot understand that, or you refuse to do so for ideological reasons associated with opposition to motoring. Doubly hypocritical that, first for being against the interests of cyclists, second for being controlled by the cyclist-inferiority superstition that was invented by motorists.

John why might a company in the UK "which advises councils on green transport" communicate to employees "advising them to drive or use public transport?"

Could it be that "cycling advocates" see such acts and realize that apparently even green firms nor "cycling experts" are not even really working for "good roads with equitable operating procedures" when "advocates" here can clearly see such things as "automobile promotion" which leads to urban freeway like conditions including 50MPH+ roads, promoted by certain land use developers. And in this specific case, also a "green transit" firm that suggests that it's employees NOT ride cycles to work?

Specifically the American Dream Coalition states: "...your car is designed to be most effective at speeds of 50 to 60 miles per hour. Actions that reduce speeds below this level will lead to more pollution."

ADC states "The American Dream Coalition supports automobility and all the benefits it provides." They also decry the use of traffic calming.

Does that sound like an environment or a directive that promotes safe cycling?

Hi John, Long time no see, you won't remember me.

Jacobs Engineering - I think I'm still listed as a part time employee. They allow cycling to work here in TN. But I can see how an individual office could put out diametrically opposed viewpoints. Jacobs (not alone in the corporate world) can be quite fragmented in their approach to things. Amazingly un-integrated in their presentation to the outside world. Many of these companies are quite capable of presenting opposite viewpoints for different clients. And this really isn't a problem. Their job, like the job of a lawyer, is to evaluate and present their client's viewpoints or advance their client's missions. Real conflicts arise when a client wants some specific thing promoted, but the job is to do a neutral and balanced analysis. An attorney can strongly and powerfully defend a client accused of harassment while simultaneously developing an internal anti-harassment policy. Similarly, Jacobs can develop bicycle stuff while having an internal policy that's anti-bicycle. It just looks weird from the outside.

I'd be more concerned at the attempt to invade employees' private decisions outside the office when those decisions involve legal acts that do not place the company at risk. That's a much more interesting issue than some silly incongruence of positions advanced for a client and internal policies.

Similarly, Jacobs can develop bicycle stuff while having an internal policy that's anti-bicycle. It just looks weird from the outside.

I'd be more concerned at the attempt to invade employees' private decisions outside the office when those decisions involve legal acts that do not place the company at risk. That's a much more interesting issue than some silly incongruence of positions advanced for a client and internal policies.

Darn right it looks strange... rather like Nokia saying their employees shouldn't carry cell phones.

You are right though that the more interesting issue is "the attempt to invade employees' private decisions." Gee, how socialistic of them. But the reality is that this sort of thing is done all the time... drug testing for instance is a similar "invasion of privacy."

John why might a company in the UK "which advises councils on green transport" communicate to employees "advising them to drive or use public transport?"

Could it be that "cycling advocates" see such acts and realize that apparently even green firms nor "cycling experts" are not even really working for "good roads with equitable operating procedures" when "advocates" here can clearly see such things as "automobile promotion" which leads to urban freeway like conditions including 50MPH+ roads, promoted by certain land use developers. And in this specific case, also a "green transit" firm that suggests that it's employees NOT ride cycles to work?

Specifically the American Dream Coalition states: "...your car is designed to be most effective at speeds of 50 to 60 miles per hour. Actions that reduce speeds below this level will lead to more pollution."

ADC states "The American Dream Coalition supports automobility and all the benefits it provides." They also decry the use of traffic calming.

Does that sound like an environment or a directive that promotes safe cycling?

Does Jacobs Engineering promote safe cycling? I have no knowledge of what they advocate. However, since most bicycle advocacy and the corresponding actions are ill-thought-out results of the cyclist-inferiority superstition, I think it likely that the report that they advised their London employees to not cycle to work has some substance to it. As I have been writing for decades, bike planning is a mess that has neither theoretical nor empirical basis. The results that it has produced are largely those from appealing to the cyclist-inferiority superstition.

As for the American Dream Coalition, their goal is to support automotive mobility against the attacks upon it. They have no incentive to oppose bicycle transportation, and they oppose those aspects of bike planning that happen to be bad for cyclists, because those things happen to be bad for motorists also. Which is why I sometimes talk to them and their audiences.

There are a few things that typical bicycle advocates should get right, but have so far largely refused to do so.

The first is that the automotive suburbia has grown up because people want to live that way and the car provides the ability to do so. It happens to be true that the automotive suburbia and its life style provide fewer opportunities for bicycle transportation than did the streetcar city, and those opportunities involve longer travel distances, for which higher cycling speeds are desirable. There's little that bicycle advocates can do about that; we need to work out how best to cycle in automotive suburbia, and influence the desirable improvements within that framework. I think that it is unrealistic to expect to replace any transportationally significant part of that motoring with bicycle transportation.

The second is that the proper way to cycle on the roadway is according to the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles. I notice that most of the discussants on these lists say that they ride accordingly, although they also advocate facility designs that are based on the opposite principle of cyclist-inferiority. There are only two reasons for such hypocrisy. One is that they actually believe that cyclists are inferior roadway users, despite their own contrary actions. The other is that they recognize that the general public, suffering as it does from the cyclist-inferiority superstition, can be attracted to cycling only by facilities whose magical powers counteract the superstition.

The third is that the facilities that are based on the cyclist-inferiority superstition are as they are because they were designed by motorists to make motoring more convenient, with the twin excuses that cycling in traffic is exceedingly dangerous and requires untypical levels of ability. Both of these are false, being nothing but the cyclist-inferiority superstition.

Real bicycle advocacy needs to be directed at improving the level of cyclist competence to that expected of normal drivers, persuading society and government that vehicular operation actually is the proper way, and advocating those roadway designs and improvements that are adapted to accommodating lawful, competent cyclists.

Does Jacobs Engineering promote safe cycling? I have no knowledge of what they advocate. However, since most bicycle advocacy and the corresponding actions are ill-thought-out results of the cyclist-inferiority superstition, I think it likely that the report that they advised their London employees to not cycle to work has some substance to it. As I have been writing for decades, bike planning is a mess that has neither theoretical nor empirical basis. The results that it has produced are largely those from appealing to the cyclist-inferiority superstition.

As for the American Dream Coalition, their goal is to support automotive mobility against the attacks upon it. They have no incentive to oppose bicycle transportation, and they oppose those aspects of bike planning that happen to be bad for cyclists, because those things happen to be bad for motorists also. Which is why I sometimes talk to them and their audiences.

There are a few things that typical bicycle advocates should get right, but have so far largely refused to do so.

The first is that the automotive suburbia has grown up because people want to live that way and the car provides the ability to do so. It happens to be true that the automotive suburbia and its life style provide fewer opportunities for bicycle transportation than did the streetcar city, and those opportunities involve longer travel distances, for which higher cycling speeds are desirable. There's little that bicycle advocates can do about that; we need to work out how best to cycle in automotive suburbia, and influence the desirable improvements within that framework. I think that it is unrealistic to expect to replace any transportationally significant part of that motoring with bicycle transportation.

The second is that the proper way to cycle on the roadway is according to the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles. I notice that most of the discussants on these lists say that they ride accordingly, although they also advocate facility designs that are based on the opposite principle of cyclist-inferiority. There are only two reasons for such hypocrisy. One is that they actually believe that cyclists are inferior roadway users, despite their own contrary actions. The other is that they recognize that the general public, suffering as it does from the cyclist-inferiority superstition, can be attracted to cycling only by facilities whose magical powers counteract the superstition.

The third is that the facilities that are based on the cyclist-inferiority superstition are as they are because they were designed by motorists to make motoring more convenient, with the twin excuses that cycling in traffic is exceedingly dangerous and requires untypical levels of ability. Both of these are false, being nothing but the cyclist-inferiority superstition.

Real bicycle advocacy needs to be directed at improving the level of cyclist competence to that expected of normal drivers, persuading society and government that vehicular operation actually is the proper way, and advocating those roadway designs and improvements that are adapted to accommodating lawful, competent cyclists.

John, two comments... you have always addressed cyclist inferiority syndrome as primarily an American issue... and usually contrast drivers here with drivers "over there." The response of the Jacobs company shows that drivers "over there" also seem to be infected with cyclist inferiority syndrome... How can that be?

And how comfortable do think even experienced cyclists will be with cycling on roads that are built to ADC "standards:" Specifically the American Dream Coalition states: "...your car is designed to be most effective at speeds of 50 to 60 miles per hour. Actions that reduce speeds below this level will lead to more pollution."

Now we are not talking freeways here with wide shoulders and plenty of room to ride... we are talking at best, WOL multilaned roads... without bike lanes. I won't deny that these roads can be ridden... but the class of rider that will enjoy these, is rare indeed.

You yourself state in Effective Cycling that negotiation with fast moving drivers can be difficult. (this is paraphrased... I don't have my copy of EC handy at the moment.)

sorry, john, but vehicular cyclists can ride vehicularily in a bike lane, dude.

vehicular cyclists can advocate for bike specific infrastructure as well, to make suburbia more bike-friendly for more of the public.

get off your high horse - it's fradulent.

Nice troll gene!

:beer:

Nice troll gene!

:beer:

Yeah? Doesn't seem to be catching much...

One would think a "consulting firm" that recommends "green transportation solutions" and then tells it's employees not to ride bikes... might be a bit controversial.

One would think the writer of "Effective Cycling" working with a group that believes all cars should move at 50-60MPH, might be a bit controversial.

Kind of like waging war for peace.

Yeah? Doesn't seem to be catching much...

One would think a "consulting firm" that recommends "green transportation solutions" and then tells it's employees not to ride bikes... might be a bit controversial.
I think it is useful to wait for a clear description of what exactly the firm is telling its employees about transportation requirements. Are they addressing how employees are to get about the city when on company business, or how the employee is "permitted" to commute to and from work? All I've read is a lot of guesswork and speculation about alleged insurance company edicts; facts are few.

I think it's totally unAmerican to tell people what to do on their off-hours. But corporate takeover of our entire lives, including our once Democracy is nearly complete. Seems to be spreading to Brittain as well.

I think it is useful to wait for a clear description of what exactly the firm is telling its employees about transportation requirements. Are they addressing how employees are to get about the city when on company business, or how the employee is "permitted" to commute to and from work? All I've read is a lot of guesswork and speculation about alleged insurance company edicts; facts are few.

OK this is from the London Times... so it again is a second hand source of info:


From The Times
July 6, 2007

Green transport specialist tells its workers to 'get off your bikes'

Ben Webster, Transport Correspondent


One of Britain's biggest engineering companies has banned staff from travelling on bicycles or motorbikes after declaring them too dangerous.

Jacobs Babtie advises local authorities on sustainable transport projects - including how to get more people to switch from four wheels to two.

It has told staff at its 36 offices across Britain that they must drive or use public transport. They can use bicycles only if they are working away from roads, such as on canal towpaths.

In an e-mail to all employees, a copy of which has been obtained by The Times, the company's health and safety manager says: "It's patently obvious that if you are struck by a wayward vehicle when you are on a bicycle or motorbike you are going to be more severely affected than if you were in a car. The reason for this policy is to protect our employees from other vehicles on the road.

There will be a few limited exceptions when employees will be permitted to travel by bicycle, but that would be when that mode of transport is required to undertake the job, for example, carrying out surveys along river banks and tow paths."

The ban on cycling on company business has infuriated several staff, who have been cycling without any serious safety incidents for years. They believe the ban is partly the result of conditions in the company's insurance policy. The e-mail acknowledges that staff are unhappy about the ban and admits it "could be construed as being at odds with our environmental policy and the requirement to be environmentally responsible".

It also acknowledges the concerns among employees that the company will lose important contracts because the ban "will not please our environmentally friendly clients".

One of Jacobs' biggest customers is Transport for London, which has a target of achieving a fivefold increase in the level of cycling by 2025, and this weekend will host the opening races in the Tour de France.

TfL paid Jacobs £6 million last year for various projects, including monitoring the impact of the congestion charge and measuring how many people have switched from driving to walking or cycling.

On its website, Jacobs states: "In the area of cycling, we can offer expert resources at every stage from cycle policy and promotion through to the detailed design and implementation of cycle schemes."

Jenny Jones, the green transport adviser to Ken Livingstone, the Mayor of London, said TfL should consider cancelling its contracts with Jacobs. She said: "It is hypocritical to offer advice on promoting cycling but at the same time ban your staff from using bikes. If Jacobs does not understand how important cycling is to TfL, we need to ask whether they are the right sort of company to work with."

A TfL spokesman said: "We find the attitude of Jacobs bizarre and we will be urging them to rethink this decision. TfL is committed to encouraging Londoners to get on their bikes whenever and wherever possible. Our serious investment in growing cycling has seen journeys by bike on soar by 83 per cent since 2000. The number of number of cyclists killed or seriously injured has fallen by 28 per cent since the mid to late 1990s."

In Britain, 146 cyclists were killed last year compared with 203 in 1996.

Kevin Mayne, the director of the Cyclists Touring Club, said: "Banning cycling on health and safety grounds is ironic; forcing people off their bikes and into cars just reduces their fitness and increases the danger they pose to other road users. Jacobs' policy shows a complete lack of understanding of transport risk assessment. For TfL and local authorities to pay a company which bans cycling for advice on sustainable transport is like asking the lunatics to help run the asylum."

A US medical study found that people who cycled regularly beyond their mid30s lived on average two years longer. The British Medical Association has said that the health benefits of cycling far outweigh risks.

The Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety said that Jacobs should give its employees training in how to be safer cyclists rather than banning them from cycling.

Jacobs refused to comment.

Of course with that last line, this is pretty much a closed deal.

Now about that "cycling expert" that is consulting to a group that doesn't believe in traffic calming and insists that autos must move at 50-60MPH...

Having read the group's mission statement, (which is pretty much "zoom zoom") and what the "expert" has on record as his "testimony," I would have to wonder about the "cycling expert's" motives.

What it comes down to for me is this... if these are "friends..." I'd hate to see the "enemies."

Specifically the American Dream Coalition states: "...your car is designed to be most effective at speeds of 50 to 60 miles per hour. Actions that reduce speeds below this level will lead to more pollution."

ADC states "The American Dream Coalition supports automobility and all the benefits it provides." They also decry the use of traffic calming.

In truth, minimum pollution per mile for typical ICE cars moving at constant speed is obtained closer to 30-35 mph, not 50-60. With electric drive, it is even slower.

Stop-and-go traffic does increase pollution per mile for normal ICE cars, but much of this increase can be overcome with hybrid engines. Replacing stop signs with roundabouts (traffic calming?) can result in less speed variance and improve efficiency for all drivers.

Since Americans choose many of their travel habits based on travel time rather than distance, one should also consider the pollution per hour of travel rather than per mile of travel when speculating what pollution effects may result due to changes in average travel speeds.

While I certainly support freeways and well designed cross-town arterials, it is my observation that many surface streets are overdesigned, with design speeds far in excess of what is appropriate for their surrounding land uses. For instance, when building a street that will go between a middle school and a park complex that includes a skate park and popular greenway link, is a 50 mph design speed appropriate? If a street ends in "T" intersections at both ends, each with a single turn lane in each direction, does the street really need to be five lanes in between?

These are the questions I keep posing to our local traffic engineers. Some of them are starting to listen.

One would think the writer of "Effective Cycling" working with a group that believes all cars should move at 50-60MPH, might be a bit controversial.

You don't say....

OK this is from the London Times... so it again is a second hand source of info:



Of course with that last line, this is pretty much a closed deal.

Now about that "cycling expert" that is consulting to a group that doesn't believe in traffic calming and insists that autos must move at 50-60MPH...

Having read the group's mission statement, (which is pretty much "zoom zoom") and what the "expert" has on record as his "testimony," I would have to wonder about the "cycling expert's" motives.

What it comes down to for me is this... if these are "friends..." I'd hate to see the "enemies."

Not just that but this consulting company doesn't seem to hold much faith in the results of its own advice. How good can they if their consultations don't provide results good enough for the company to stand behind with its actions? I'd fire them if it was my decision.

Just like I fire John Forester about every day I go for a bike ride :roflmao:

In truth, minimum pollution per mile for typical ICE cars moving at constant speed is obtained closer to 30-35 mph, not 50-60. With electric drive, it is even slower.

Stop-and-go traffic does increase pollution per mile for normal ICE cars, but much of this increase can be overcome with hybrid engines. Replacing stop signs with roundabouts (traffic calming?) can result in less speed variance and improve efficiency for all drivers.

Since Americans choose many of their travel habits based on travel time rather than distance, one should also consider the pollution per hour of travel rather than per mile of travel when speculating what pollution effects may result due to changes in average travel speeds.

While I certainly support freeways and well designed cross-town arterials, it is my observation that many surface streets are overdesigned, with design speeds far in excess of what is appropriate for their surrounding land uses. For instance, when building a street that will go between a middle school and a park complex that includes a skate park and popular greenway link, is a 50 mph design speed appropriate? If a street ends in "T" intersections at both ends, each with a single turn lane in each direction, does the street really need to be five lanes in between?

These are the questions I keep posing to our local traffic engineers. Some of them are starting to listen.

I do believe you've got it... now perhaps someone can explain it to the folks over at ADC. And "that book" author...

that author suffers from a terminal case of motorist superiority disorder. pathalogical obsession with a 'cars first and foremost' mentality; strikingly unfitting for a self-ascribed bike advocate.

A curious contradiction....and not at all flattering.

sorry, john, but vehicular cyclists can ride vehicularily in a bike lane, dude.

vehicular cyclists can advocate for bike specific infrastructure as well, to make suburbia more bike-friendly for more of the public.

get off your high horse - it's fradulent.

Why do you repeat the same silly claim time after time, when you have never demonstrated its relevance. For that matter, you have never qualified that claim as logic would require, and as has been discussed many times on this list. It is obvious that you can read and write; it is the thought process between that is defective.

Do you mean that a vehicular cyclist can sometimes ride properly in a bike lane? The rest of us have agreed that that is so. Do you mean that a vehicular cyclist can always ride in a bike lane (and remain in the vehicular manner), if one is present? The rest of us have agreed that that is not so. Do these qualifications reach your understanding? If not, in what way do you disagree? And what is the relevance of these thoughts to the discussion of vehicular cycling, or to bike-lane advocacy?

I'd say it's about the same, except that a cyclist "advocate" that actually advocates for automobiles is a little bit worse than a hypocrite.

Don't read much, do you, Diane? How many times have I written in these discussions that the motoring establishment attempted to limit cyclists' use of the roadway and that I led the cyclists in their opposition to those efforts? And how do you explain that you, hypocrit that you are, ardently promote exactly what the motoring establishment invented as a means of discriminating against you?

That you cannot understand what has been written time after time in plain English is just another demonstration of the cyclist-inferiority phobia.

The first is that the automotive suburbia has grown up because people want to live that way and the car provides the ability to do so. It happens to be true that the automotive suburbia and its life style provide fewer opportunities for bicycle transportation than did the streetcar city, and those opportunities involve longer travel distances, for which higher cycling speeds are desirable. There's little that bicycle advocates can do about that; we need to work out how best to cycle in automotive suburbia, and influence the desirable improvements within that framework. I think that it is unrealistic to expect to replace any transportationally significant part of that motoring with bicycle transportation.


And that my friends is the nature of the disputes on this forums. I'm not 18 anymore, but forgive me if I haven't become completely cynical and still believe people can make a difference and change the system. Mr. Forester, with all due respect, you seem to be suffering from defeatist inferiority syndrome---having fought the system and lost, you are so convinced that things cannot be changed that you have now become a defender of the system. Forgive me for harboring the "totally irrational" view that it is the motorist lobby whose interests and aims are antithetical to cyclists rights rather than the cyclists themselves.

John, two comments... you have always addressed cyclist inferiority syndrome as primarily an American issue... and usually contrast drivers here with drivers "over there." The response of the Jacobs company shows that drivers "over there" also seem to be infected with cyclist inferiority syndrome... How can that be?

And how comfortable do think even experienced cyclists will be with cycling on roads that are built to ADC "standards:"

Now we are not talking freeways here with wide shoulders and plenty of room to ride... we are talking at best, WOL multilaned roads... without bike lanes. I won't deny that these roads can be ridden... but the class of rider that will enjoy these, is rare indeed.

You yourself state in Effective Cycling that negotiation with fast moving drivers can be difficult. (this is paraphrased... I don't have my copy of EC handy at the moment.)

I know of no standards for road design promoted by the American Dream Coalition.

You say that the class of cyclist that will enjoy riding on multi-lane roads with wide outside lanes is rare, indeed. But, you imply by the introduction of the phrase "without bike lanes", many more will enjoy cycling on these roads. However, there is no practical distinction between the two conditions; the distinction is that the person who feels inferior to cars thinks that the bike-lane stripe has some magical effect. The trouble with believing in magic is that those who place their faith in magic both lose the incentive to operate according to facts and spread the superstition around. That is much worse when it is the government who spreads this superstition. And, of course, the superstition was originally invented by motorists precisely to keep cyclists in what motorists considered to be their proper place.

And now for the British comparison. For more than twenty years I have observed the rot of cyclist inferiority and bike planning growing in Britain, driven by the same anti-motoring forces active here. Indeed, the foremost bike planner in America received his law degree in Britain and worked for years for one of the British anti-motoring organizations before coming to the USA, leading the bike planning organization and the League of American Bicyclists at different times.

Yes, I state that negotiating for lane changes in traffic that is moving more than 15 mph faster than the cyclist is difficult, and that when such is required it is best to time your move between platoons of traffic. However, this is completely irrelevant to a discussion of bike lanes.

what a fraud.

And that my friends is the nature of the disputes on this forums. I'm not 18 anymore, but forgive me if I haven't become completely cynical and still believe people can make a difference and change the system. Mr. Forester, with all due respect, you seem to be suffering from defeatist inferiority syndrome---having fought the system and lost, you are so convinced that things cannot be changed that you have now become a defender of the system. Forgive me for harboring the "totally irrational" view that it is the motorist lobby whose interests and aims are antithetical to cyclists rights rather than the cyclists themselves.

Your argument is both inaccurate and illogical. It is inaccurate in that I have not become a defeatist through my battles (some won, some lost) against the motoring establishment. Of course, I have always held that, had cyclists not joined the bikeway advocates, we would have beaten the motoring establishment over the bikeways restrictions.

What changes do I think it impossible for cyclists to make? I think that it is impossible for cyclists to destroy suburbia and the suburban life style. I have studied transportation all my life, and I understand the forces that both motivated suburbia and allowed suburbia to grow as it has. If anyone on these lists thinks otherwise, I would like to see some evidence of such change. That is why I say that cyclists need to work out how best to cycle in urban environments of which a large proportion is suburbia. I think that some redirection may be produced in the areas still under growth, in the way of requiring better road connections. The probability that areas with almost-new roads can have their road systems rebuilt is vanishingly small. Even in Florida, where they built what are rural slums with insufficient infrastructure have great difficulty in bringing themselves up to a reasonable standard.

Now consider what I think you might consider to be one of your key thoughts: "Forgive me for harboring the "totally irrational" view that it is the motorist lobby whose interests and aims are antithetical to cyclists rights rather than the cyclists themselves." Haven't you been reading my essays all through these discussions? You totally agree with me that it is the motoring establishment (as I call it) that opposes cyclists rights to use the roadways. What ought to puzzle you is the extent to which bicycle advocates spend so much of their effort in promoting exactly what the motoring establishment designed to limit cyclists rights. It is no wonder that bicycle advocates have such a difficult time applying logic to their efforts when they are strongly advocating exactly the program that opposes their interests.

What ought to puzzle you is the extent to which bicycle advocates spend so much of their effort in promoting exactly what the motoring establishment designed to limit cyclists rights. It is no wonder that bicycle advocates have such a difficult time applying logic to their efforts when they are strongly advocating exactly the program that opposes their interests.

What puzzles me is why you continue to defend the motoring lobby's system of 1950s suburban America when it is that very system that threatens cyclists' interests.

Furthermore, in case you haven't noticed, many major metropolitan areas are experiencing a surge of suburbanites who are returning to the cities. Everywhere you go some old factory or wharehouse is being converted into highrise lofts or apartments. Thus, I do see evidence of people rejecting the suburbia paradigm. As more people move back to the cities, transportational systems will need to be redesigned to take into account this change.

What puzzles me is why you continue to defend the motoring lobby's system of 1950s suburban America when it is that very system that threatens cyclists' interests.

Furthermore, in case you haven't noticed, many major metropolitan areas are experiencing a surge of suburbanites who are returning to the cities. Everywhere you go some old factory or wharehouse is being converted into highrise lofts or apartments. Thus, I do see evidence of people rejecting the suburbia paradigm. As more people move back to the cities, transportational systems will need to be redesigned to take into account this change.
Not to mention that lots of places have to fight against the developers who foist all this suburbia upon communities, whether the communities want it or not. Did it even occur to anyone that suburbia isn't necessarily giving the people what they want but actually the maximum profit-making way to develop the land?

I know of no standards for road design promoted by the American Dream Coalition.

You say that the class of cyclist that will enjoy riding on multi-lane roads with wide outside lanes is rare, indeed. But, you imply by the introduction of the phrase "without bike lanes", many more will enjoy cycling on these roads. However, there is no practical distinction between the two conditions; the distinction is that the person who feels inferior to cars thinks that the bike-lane stripe has some magical effect. The trouble with believing in magic is that those who place their faith in magic both lose the incentive to operate according to facts and spread the superstition around. That is much worse when it is the government who spreads this superstition. And, of course, the superstition was originally invented by motorists precisely to keep cyclists in what motorists considered to be their proper place.

And yet motorists also believe in the superstition of lines... depending heavily on their guidance daily... especially that thin line in the middle of the road. Bike lanes may not be anywhere perfect... as with other traffic control devices, some trial and error may be required to tune them. (note the experiments with new traffic lights now occuring in El Cajon... as an instance of other traffic control devices, still being refined)

However sir, this conversation is not about bike lanes... it is about realizing and embracing the differences between motor traffic and human powered traffic, and recommending road engineering that allows sharing of the road. The 50-60 mile per hour recommendations of the ADC, while not yet "standards" per se, are part of their charter. Therefore, these speed limits will be pushed as an agenda by this group until they have achieved satisfaction. No, it is not yet a formal standard, but it is their declared direction... their modus operandi, sir. Surly you can see that. (they declare it in their introductions.) Surly you also understand the issues of a cyclist negotiating with fast motorists... as you agree in your quotes below.


And now for the British comparison. For more than twenty years I have observed the rot of cyclist inferiority and bike planning growing in Britain, driven by the same anti-motoring forces active here. Indeed, the foremost bike planner in America received his law degree in Britain and worked for years for one of the British anti-motoring organizations before coming to the USA, leading the bike planning organization and the League of American Bicyclists at different times.


So effectively the "Vehicular Style" appears to not have "staying power" in spite of a history of it working fine on British streets in the past.

And below you admit that if motorists are moving much faster than cyclists, life is "difficult" for cyclists (to paraphrase). Why then endorse a group that counters cyclists and motorists working together in Harmony as a true Vehicular system should be?

Yes, I state that negotiating for lane changes in traffic that is moving more than 15 mph faster than the cyclist is difficult, and that when such is required it is best to time your move between platoons of traffic. However, this is completely irrelevant to a discussion of bike lanes.
Just for clarification... we were not talking about bike lanes. We are talking about people and businesses that declare support for cyclists or cycling and then work against cyclists and cycling by their actions and endorsements.

And that my friends is the nature of the disputes on this forums. I'm not 18 anymore, but forgive me if I haven't become completely cynical and still believe people can make a difference and change the system. Mr. Forester, with all due respect, you seem to be suffering from defeatist inferiority syndrome---

Well said.

I'm 35, and I have seen a great many changes, changes which impact me directly, in my few decades of life. These changes came because people fought the status quo, argued their case, and refused to give up. The system can be changed, and it really disheartening to see a so-called advocate like Forester repeatedly claim otherwise. It is also very dishonest.

Never listen to the "can't be done" types. If they had their way, we would still be living in trees.

I think it's totally unAmerican to tell people what to do on their off-hours. But corporate takeover of our entire lives, including our once Democracy is nearly complete. Seems to be spreading to Brittain as well.

The action by Jacobs Engineering Co. referred to cycling while in the course of business, not cycling outside of business hours.

JF says cars supposedly run best at 50-60 mph. Best for whom? Perhaps they need to be geared down or better made so they can be efficient and a pleasure to drive at speeds that don't kill so many pedestrians, cyclists, animals and children on their way to school.

This is motorist-centric thinking at its finest example. Let's see. We have a machine. It works best this way. Let's design our entire community, economy and way of life around its optimal conditions. Let's ignore that the machine kills so many people every day. Let's pretend it doesn't harm the environment in its making and use. Let's pretend we didn't kill 10s of thousands of people trying to secure a source for its fuel. And let's call anybody who doesn't agree with us superstitious or terrorist.

And yet motorists also believe in the superstition of lines... depending heavily on their guidance daily... especially that thin line in the middle of the road. Bike lanes may not be anywhere perfect... as with other traffic control devices, some trial and error may be required to tune them. (note the experiments with new traffic lights now occuring in El Cajon... as an instance of other traffic control devices, still being refined)

However sir, this conversation is not about bike lanes... it is about realizing and embracing the differences between motor traffic and human powered traffic, and recommending road engineering that allows sharing of the road. The 50-60 mile per hour recommendations of the ADC, while not yet "standards" per se, are part of their charter. Therefore, these speed limits will be pushed as an agenda by this group until they have achieved satisfaction. No, it is not yet a formal standard, but it is their declared direction... their modus operandi, sir. Surly you can see that. (they declare it in their introductions.) Surly you also understand the issues of a cyclist negotiating with fast motorists... as you agree in your quotes below.


So effectively the "Vehicular Style" appears to not have "staying power" in spite of a history of it working fine on British streets in the past.

And below you admit that if motorists are moving much faster than cyclists, life is "difficult" for cyclists (to paraphrase). Why then endorse a group that counters cyclists and motorists working together in Harmony as a true Vehicular system should be?

Just for clarification... we were not talking about bike lanes. We are talking about people and businesses that declare support for cyclists or cycling and then work against cyclists and cycling by their actions and endorsements.

You are one more nasty argumenter. All that I wrote was that since negotiating for a lane change was difficult when other traffic was moving more than 15 mph faster than the cyclist, it was advisable to plan one's lane changes to occur between platoons of cars. Which I have stated for years. But then you state that this makes roads with such traffic "difficult" for cyclists. That's using semantic foolishness to turn a plain and accurate statement into what is a lie.

JF says cars supposedly run best at 50-60 mph. Best for whom? Perhaps they need to be geared down or better made so they can be efficient and a pleasure to drive at speeds that don't kill so many pedestrians, cyclists, animals and children on their way to school.

This is motorist-centric thinking at its finest example. Let's see. We have a machine. It works best this way. Let's design our entire community, economy and way of life around its optimal conditions. Let's ignore that the machine kills so many people every day. Let's pretend it doesn't harm the environment in its making and use. Let's pretend we didn't kill 10s of thousands of people trying to secure a source for its fuel. And let's call anybody who doesn't agree with us superstitious or terrorist.

Diane, you have just written more lies. Is it any wonder that people such as you give environmentalism a bad name? To say nothing about giving cyclists the appearance of being those liars who do it.

Well said.

I'm 35, and I have seen a great many changes, changes which impact me directly, in my few decades of life. These changes came because people fought the status quo, argued their case, and refused to give up. The system can be changed, and it really disheartening to see a so-called advocate like Forester repeatedly claim otherwise. It is also very dishonest.

Never listen to the "can't be done" types. If they had their way, we would still be living in trees.

The discussion concerned the development of suburbia. I have not seen any evidence that cyclists have managed to reduce the extent of suburbia and the motoring that is part of suburbia. Rather, both have been increasing in all parts of the world with the money to produce and use them. You claim, as to this discussion, is merely fatuous.

:lol:

The observance that cars are most efficient in the 60-70mph range and therefore the roads should be made to accomodate this is an exercise in circular reasoning. Cars are just machines. They can be made to be most effient at any randomly chosen speed range, depending on engine size, valve timing and gearing.

With gas at $3/gal, if the government suddenly mandated 45mph on interstates, in a year or so time you'll see cars tuned to 45 mph. They are currently tuned to 60-70mph simply because that is the speed limit for interstates currently.

And yet motorists also believe in the superstition of lines... depending heavily on their guidance daily... especially that thin line in the middle of the road. Bike lanes may not be anywhere perfect... as with other traffic control devices, some trial and error may be required to tune them. (note the experiments with new traffic lights now occuring in El Cajon... as an instance of other traffic control devices, still being refined)
snip


More semantic foolishness about "lines" as if all lines were the same. The problem with the lines that are bike-lane stripes is that they limit cyclists to the margin of the roadway. No other kind of stripe does that, and that's what's wrong with them. Of course, a bunch of you argue that bike-lane stripes do not do that, citing the exceptions that are sometimes made. However, just the need to make exceptions demonstrates the actual effect of the bike-lane stripes.

Diane, you have just written more lies. Is it any wonder that people such as you give environmentalism a bad name? To say nothing about giving cyclists the appearance of being those liars who do it.

You'll have to explain this comment better. I saw some retoric in Diane's post, but no lies. And as for her last sentence, have you followed the iraqi war "debates" at all? Yes, some good, honest people were smeared as being terrorists for wanting to do something to conserve energy and lessen dependence on middle eastern oil. And you, yourself, see all your "enemies" as having a mental disease - I believe you have accused everyone here on this forum who holds a different opinion to yourself as harboring "cyclist inferiority syndromes". It makes it difficult to have an intelligent discussion with you if you can never recognize an honest difference of opinion.

You are one more nasty argumenter. All that I wrote was that since negotiating for a lane change was difficult when other traffic was moving more than 15 mph faster than the cyclist, it was advisable to plan one's lane changes to occur between platoons of cars. Which I have stated for years. But then you state that this makes roads with such traffic "difficult" for cyclists. That's using semantic foolishness to turn a plain and accurate statement into what is a lie.

Sir it is hardly "semantic foolishness" to cite the obvious and reflect what I actually encounter on local roads. I typically do about 16MPH as an average, so any motorists moving above about 35-40MPH ARE difficult to negotiate with. And with local mulitlaned arterials marked at 50MPH, the motorists are driving faster than that, and can be difficult to negotiate with.

It is hardly "semantic foolishness" to quote you.

Have you personally spent any time on local arterials... such as Miramar road, or El Camino Real? Or are you still recalling the days of your youth?

I believe you have accused everyone here on this forum who holds a different opinion to yourself as harboring "cyclist inferiority syndromes". It makes it difficult to have an intelligent discussion with you if you can never recognize an honest difference of opinion.

I think he has even made disparaging remarks about folks that "worship" him...

What a silly argument. Whoever wrote the Wikipedia article doesn't know vehicular cycling.

Was stated by JF in reference to HH's entries on Wikipedia RE Vehicular cycling. :rolleyes:

So effectively the "Vehicular Style" appears to not have "staying power" in spite of a history of it working fine on British streets in the past.


Just for clarification... we were not talking about bike lanes. We are talking about people and businesses that declare support for cyclists or cycling and then work against cyclists and cycling by their actions and endorsements.

If you read the London Times article, you will see that the Cyclists' Touring Club opposed the action by Jacobs Engineering by stating that cycling is not nearly as dangerous as many people think. Which is exactly the historic position of cyclists in Britain, and is my own as well. This contrasts with the devotion to bikeways demonstrated by the League of American Bicyclists, which has been led by the British lawyer who worked with British anti-motoring organizations before coming to America to take the lead position among American bike planners. In other words, it is not British cyclists who have given up on vehicular cycling, it is the British public which has become increasingly motorized so that its views have become typical, just as in America.

You American bikeways advocates are doing exactly what the motorists want, instead of fighting against motorist dominance for equal treatment on the roadways. What are you, all cowards afflicted with the cyclist-inferiority phobia? That looks like the most accurate diagnosis.

If you read the London Times article, you will see that the Cyclists' Touring Club opposed the action by Jacobs Engineering by stating that cycling is not nearly as dangerous as many people think. Which is exactly the historic position of cyclists in Britain, and is my own as well. This contrasts with the devotion to bikeways demonstrated by the League of American Bicyclists, which has been led by the British lawyer who worked with British anti-motoring organizations before coming to America to take the lead position among American bike planners. In other words, it is not British cyclists who have given up on vehicular cycling, it is the British public which has become increasingly motorized so that its views have become typical, just as in America.

You American bikeways advocates are doing exactly what the motorists want, instead of fighting against motorist dominance for equal treatment on the roadways. What are you, all cowards afflicted with the cyclist-inferiority phobia? That looks like the most accurate diagnosis.


Apparently the "American bikeway advocates" have also struck in Belgium... I saw wonderful bike lanes there, while watching stage 2 of the Tour d'France. Very wide, dashed with the same stripes as used elsewhere on the road. Red areas where the BL cross intersections. The intersections BTW were sweeping intersections, and of course traffic circles. But I would be willing to bet the speed limits were not 50-60MPH on these roads.

More semantic foolishness about "lines" as if all lines were the same. The problem with the lines that are bike-lane stripes is that they limit cyclists to the margin of the roadway. No other kind of stripe does that, and that's what's wrong with them. Of course, a bunch of you argue that bike-lane stripes do not do that, citing the exceptions that are sometimes made. However, just the need to make exceptions demonstrates the actual effect of the bike-lane stripes.

But they don't. I don't honestly know where you get this idea. Is there some physical difficulty in changing lanes across a line of paint? Cars do it all the time. I do it as a cyclist. What's the problem?

Lines on the road are for the sole purpose of ordering the traffic flow. Slower to the right, faster to the left, left turners to the left, right turners to the right, etc. Special purpose lanes, naturally, are placed where they are most natural to use for the vehicle they are designed for. Bus lanes to the right. HOV lanes to the left. Truck lanes to the right. Etc.

As for the line being solid. Well, that's generally how special use lanes are designated in the US. In Europe, according to Tour of France coverage I've seen, the bike lanes are indicated by "dotted" or short dashed lines.

There are complaints about laws restricting cyclists to the bike lane. It is a compromise to gain a more efficient road - most traffic laws restrict truckers from the left lane of the freeway for the same reasons; so this type of restriction isn't without precident. Most laws of this type are littered with exceptions, which are broad and all encompassing. These exceptions include all the instances when a cyclist will be prompted to leave the right side of the road. Overzealous enforcement is sometimes an issue, but it is everywhere, isn't it? That's what traffic court is for.

Anyway. Just to point out that if the above is the lynchpin for your argument; it is weak and unconvincing.

If you read the London Times article, you will see that the Cyclists' Touring Club opposed the action by Jacobs Engineering by stating that cycling is not nearly as dangerous as many people think. Which is exactly the historic position of cyclists in Britain, and is my own as well. This contrasts with the devotion to bikeways demonstrated by the League of American Bicyclists, which has been led by the British lawyer who worked with British anti-motoring organizations before coming to America to take the lead position among American bike planners. In other words, it is not British cyclists who have given up on vehicular cycling, it is the British public which has become increasingly motorized so that its views have become typical, just as in America.

You American bikeways advocates are doing exactly what the motorists want, instead of fighting against motorist dominance for equal treatment on the roadways. What are you, all cowards afflicted with the cyclist-inferiority phobia? That looks like the most accurate diagnosis.

An amazing style for having a discussion. :rolleyes:

You should stop with the accusations; at least to humor us. Please?

jhon forester is a fraud. calling bicyclists cowards. the gall of that quixotic, acerbic, has-been.

Many of us posting to this forum are transportational bicyclists, john, commute everyday on all manner of roads. hardly 'cowardly'...

some of us ride hundreds of miles a week. I'd hazard a bet we all ride 'vehicularily' - but to get that, first you'll have to comprehend that vehicular bicyclists can ride vehicularily in a bike lane - when that's the road position most appropriate for a vehicular bicyclist.

Most of us that post here see clearly the benefits of planning for bicycling on public rights of way.

calling people that don't share jhons dystopic, cars first point of view 'cowards'

what a piece of work!

I'm torn between a strong interest in cycling advocacy, and the pointlessness of many of these arguments (this comment is not aimed at anyone in particular BTW).

What I have learned in many years of riding, much of it commuting in traffic, is that cycle specific "accommodations" can be very useful if correctly implemented. I'm not inferior to traffic, but equally, I cannot keep pace with traffic on a road with speed limits above 35 mph. If there is a lane provided, I will use it, if not then I can still ride comfortably without fear thanks to years of riding in the UK.

Guess I have a cycling style wrt motorists along the lines of "If they don't bother us we won't bother them". It works.

[Re-rail attempt]
Oh yes and the original subject of the thread - very silly indeed, and hypocritical. Besides, no employer can enforce rules regarding the mode of transport used by their workforce, especially outside work hours.
[/Rerail]

Ed