Rutgers paper on promoting cycling...

[genec]

So while the policies in the UK have promoted VC, cycling has declined; whereas in other EU countries, pro people and pro cycling policies have increased cycling.

Take a look at this Rutgers paper: http://www.policy.rutgers.edu/faculty/pucher/Irresistible.pdf

[twobikes]

Thanks for the link. Rutgers does some interesting things. They also have a bunch of papers for download from their Marriage Project. The one on why it is a bad idea to live together before or without marriage is very good. http://marriage.rutgers.edu/

[genec]

Thanks for the link. Rutgers does some interesting things. They also have a bunch of papers for download from their Marriage Project. The one on why it is a bad idea to live together before or without marriage is very good. http://marriage.rutgers.edu/

And this has what to do with cycling? Their papers look well researched, including this one on marriage... if anything that tends to tell me that Rutgers does a thorough job. BTW the paper is not about why it is "bad to live together before marriage," but is instead a paper dealing with marriage in the US and the current trends.

[CB HI]

Why the second thread on the same paper?

[genec]

Why the second thread on the same paper?

Due to the second forum that deals with VC and cyclists faring better.

I think the thread on the Advocacy forum is more suited for increasing ridership... which everyone acknowledges will improve safety due to motorist familiarization with cyclists.

But here in "VC land" the thrust has always been that cyclists fare better... etc. Yet in the countries listed in the paper, cyclists seem to be faring far better using other methods.

[twobikes]

And this has what to do with cycling?

It surprised me that Rutgers is publishing something about cycling. I was familiar with their Marriage Project and commented that they are involved in it, too. My familiarity comes through their study of built in problems related to living together outside marriage.

BTW the paper is not about why it is "bad to live together before marriage," but is instead a paper dealing with marriage in the US and the current trends.

To the contrary, click on the link for "Publications" in the upper left of the screen and you will be taken to a complete list of their studies related to marriage. The one familiar to me is listed there. It is: "Should We Live Together?"

[genec]

To the contrary, click on the link for "Publications" in the upper left of the screen and you will be taken to a complete list of their studies related to marriage. The one familiar to me is listed there. It is: "Should We Live Together?"

I did... and I noted, just as you did, a complete list of studies related to marriage... not just "Should we Live Together."

[twobikes]

I just finished reading the Rutgers paper promoting cycling. An interesting point is that cycling in the UK, Denmark, and Germany declined strongly from 1952 through 1975. I probably assumed cycling was always a widespread activity in those countries. It has rebounded because those countries intentionally took measures to get people riding bikes for routine trips and other things. That has meant spending a lot of money on bike lanes, publicity and training, and parking facilities for bikes. People in these three countries rarely wear bicycle helmets, yet the rate or injury and fatality is a fraction of what it is in the USA. Many people in the USA do not ride bikes for routine trips because they would not feel safe in traffic. People in these three European countries can assume they are safe on a bike and hardly give it a thought. In most situations, a motorist who is involved with a cyclist is assumed to be at fault and held liable, unless it is very evident the cyclist intended a collision with an automobile. If you downloaded the paper and noticed it is 57 pages long, do not let that hold you back. The last 20 pages are documentation of various kinds.

[genec]

I just finished reading the Rutgers paper promoting cycling. An interesting point is that cycling in the UK, Denmark, and Germany declined strongly from 1952 through 1975. I probably assumed cycling was always a widespread activity in those countries. It has rebounded because those countries intentionally took measures to get people riding bikes for routine trips and other things. That has meant spending a lot of money on bike lanes, publicity and training, and parking facilities for bikes. People in these three countries rarely wear bicycle helmets, yet the rate or injury and fatality is a fraction of what it is in the USA. Many people in the USA do not ride bikes for routine trips because they would not feel safe in traffic. People in these three European countries can assume they are safe on a bike and hardly give it a thought. In most situations, a motorist who is involved with a cyclist is assumed to be at fault and held liable, unless it is very evident the cyclist intended a collision with an automobile. If you downloaded the paper and noticed it is 57 pages long, do not let that hold you back. The last 20 pages are documentation of various kinds.


So the question of "Cyclists fare best?" seems to be answered not by "vehicular cycling methods..." which have yet to increase ridership any where, and do not promote a feeling of good will for cyclists, but in fact: Cyclists fare best when cycling is promoted and encouraged by a government et. al. that believes cycling is a viable transport means for all people. (not just a carefully selected few)

[buzzman]

genec

thanks so much for the link to this study.

a must read.

[John Forester]

I have just read Pucher's latest paper as given on his part of the Rutgers website, months before publication.

For a professor of planning, Pucher is less than competent, because he has failed to take notice, or has deliberately ignored, some of the most important planning aspects of his subject. He keeps harping on the fact that, in his favored cities, bicycle transportation dropped markedly when motoring became widely available, and then recovered as anti-motoring and pro-bicycling policies were introduced. These cities grew up without motoring, meaning their urban pattern with all of its commercial, governmental, and social characteristics grew so that all these characteristics worked together in the absence of motoring. There had always been a little motoring since the dawn of the automotive era, but not enough to seriously upset matters. Then, after WW2, motoring became widely available. It is worth noting that in Germany, one of the richer of these nations, Hitler's People's Car was not sold to the public until about 1948. (I had a 1947 one, but that was probably one of those purchased by the British government.)

Once motoring became widely available, there was first a rapid increase in it. Only later did it become obvious that these Obsolete Pre-Automotive Cities were unsuited for motoring. Then it was decided to take measures, some of which involved clearing the way for cars, others of which involved making motoring more costly and difficult, and still others of which involved making special facilities for bicycles. As one would expect from the essentially short-term impulse caused by the addition of motoring to conditions that had existed for at least a century, many centuries for some conditions, the system returned to a system not so far different from what it had been before.

The profession of urban planning ought to be able to consider cities in a systematic way, such as I have just outlined, but Pucher fails to do so. I hear from others in the planning profession that Pucher is considered to be a distant outlier with an axe to grind. I don't know whether his failure is because of ignorance or deliberate choice, but I suspect that this is a matter of ideology.

[Allister]

Whoa. Deja vu.

[buzzman]

I have just read Pucher's latest paper as given on his part of the Rutgers website, months before publication.

For a professor of planning, Pucher is less than competent, because he has failed to take notice, or has deliberately ignored, some of the most important planning aspects of his subject. He keeps harping on the fact that, in his favored cities, bicycle transportation dropped markedly when motoring became widely available, and then recovered as anti-motoring and pro-bicycling policies were introduced. These cities grew up without motoring, meaning their urban pattern with all of its commercial, governmental, and social characteristics grew so that all these characteristics worked together in the absence of motoring. There had always been a little motoring since the dawn of the automotive era, but not enough to seriously upset matters. Then, after WW2, motoring became widely available. It is worth noting that in Germany, one of the richer of these nations, Hitler's People's Car was not sold to the public until about 1948. (I had a 1947 one, but that was probably one of those purchased by the British government.)

Once motoring became widely available, there was first a rapid increase in it. Only later did it become obvious that these Obsolete Pre-Automotive Cities were unsuited for motoring. Then it was decided to take measures, some of which involved clearing the way for cars, others of which involved making motoring more costly and difficult, and still others of which involved making special facilities for bicycles. As one would expect from the essentially short-term impulse caused by the addition of motoring to conditions that had existed for at least a century, many centuries for some conditions, the system returned to a system not so far different from what it had been before.

The profession of urban planning ought to be able to consider cities in a systematic way, such as I have just outlined, but Pucher fails to do so. I hear from others in the planning profession that Pucher is considered to be a distant outlier with an axe to grind. I don't know whether his failure is because of ignorance or deliberate choice, but I suspect that this is a matter of ideology.

You managed to cram far more ideology and seem to have a much bigger axe to grind in your 4 paragraphs than I saw in more than 50 pages of the Pucher/Buehler paper. Their study is comprehensive, clear and objectively presented. Your post is rambling, pedantic and highly subjective. Hitler's "people's car" and the fact that you had one in 1947 purchased by the British Government is tangential to say the least.

As a spokesperson and self-proclaimed cycling expert I would think you would craft a more well reasoned argument in response to such a well researched paper.

I would be inclined to not to be so pointed in my response but your opposition, and the opposition of those who are influenced by your notions, to bike lanes, bike paths and progressive change of existing transportation infrastructure affects all of us.

If you have some actual facts to refute the study then by all means have a go. But hearsay ("I hear from others in the planning profession...") and suspicions ("I suspect that this is a matter of ideology.")make your post more of a gossiping rant than a convincing argument.

[I-Like-To-Bike]

...considered to be a distant outlier with an axe to grind. I don't know whether his failure is because of ignorance or deliberate choice, but I suspect that this is a matter of ideology.

SAY WHAT!!:rolleyes: What Obtuseness! What Hypocrisy!

[genec]

I have just read Pucher's latest paper as given on his part of the Rutgers website, months before publication.

For a professor of planning, Pucher is less than competent, because he has failed to take notice, or has deliberately ignored, some of the most important planning aspects of his subject. He keeps harping on the fact that, in his favored cities, bicycle transportation dropped markedly when motoring became widely available, and then recovered as anti-motoring and pro-bicycling policies were introduced. These cities grew up without motoring, meaning their urban pattern with all of its commercial, governmental, and social characteristics grew so that all these characteristics worked together in the absence of motoring. There had always been a little motoring since the dawn of the automotive era, but not enough to seriously upset matters. Then, after WW2, motoring became widely available. It is worth noting that in Germany, one of the richer of these nations, Hitler's People's Car was not sold to the public until about 1948. (I had a 1947 one, but that was probably one of those purchased by the British government.)

Once motoring became widely available, there was first a rapid increase in it. Only later did it become obvious that these Obsolete Pre-Automotive Cities were unsuited for motoring. Then it was decided to take measures, some of which involved clearing the way for cars, others of which involved making motoring more costly and difficult, and still others of which involved making special facilities for bicycles. As one would expect from the essentially short-term impulse caused by the addition of motoring to conditions that had existed for at least a century, many centuries for some conditions, the system returned to a system not so far different from what it had been before.

The profession of urban planning ought to be able to consider cities in a systematic way, such as I have just outlined, but Pucher fails to do so. I hear from others in the planning profession that Pucher is considered to be a distant outlier with an axe to grind. I don't know whether his failure is because of ignorance or deliberate choice, but I suspect that this is a matter of ideology.

John, England is about as old as Germany... why is it that they too did not "suffer" the same fate and also end up with high bicycle ridership?

[I-Like-To-Bike]

John, England is about as old as Germany... why is it that they too did not "suffer" the same fate and also end up with high bicycle ridership?

I hear Italy and Greece have quite a history too. What's the reason for their relatively low (compared to the Northern European countries) bicycle ridership?

[genec]

I hear Italy and Greece have quite a history too. What's the reason for their relatively low (compared to the Northern European countries) bicycle ridership?

Good question... according to John, older cities have a difficult time supporting the motorcar, so one would think that older cities of the world would tend to have proportionally more cyclists than newer cities of the world.

[John Forester]

You managed to cram far more ideology and seem to have a much bigger axe to grind in your 4 paragraphs than I saw in more than 50 pages of the Pucher/Buehler paper. Their study is comprehensive, clear and objectively presented. Your post is rambling, pedantic and highly subjective. Hitler's "people's car" and the fact that you had one in 1947 purchased by the British Government is tangential to say the least.

As a spokesperson and self-proclaimed cycling expert I would think you would craft a more well reasoned argument in response to such a well researched paper.

I would be inclined to not to be so pointed in my response but your opposition, and the opposition of those who are influenced by your notions, to bike lanes, bike paths and progressive change of existing transportation infrastructure affects all of us.

If you have some actual facts to refute the study then by all means have a go. But hearsay ("I hear from others in the planning profession...") and suspicions ("I suspect that this is a matter of ideology.")make your post more of a gossiping rant than a convincing argument.

The problem is that Pucher's paper is not a well-researched paper, clear and objectively presented. I don't dispute the facts that he has presented, because it is just a collection of facts presented to suit an ideology. I have considered what he has left out, the reasons that his collection of facts might make sense, and that he avoided presenting, to suit a motivation about which he is silent.

[I-Like-To-Bike]

The problem is that Pucher's paper is not a well-researched paper, clear and objectively presented. I don't dispute the facts that he has presented, because it is just a collection of facts presented to suit an ideology. I have considered what he has left out, the reasons that his collection of facts might make sense, and that he avoided presenting, to suit a motivation about which he is silent.

http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=5643175&postcount=14

[Allister]

The problem is that Pucher's paper is not a well-researched paper, clear and objectively presented.

I'm surprised you, of all people, have a problem with that.

I don't dispute the facts that he has presented, because it is just a collection of facts presented to suit an ideology.

Translation: I can't argue with his actual words...

I have considered what he has left out, the reasons that his collection of facts might make sense, and that he avoided presenting, to suit a motivation about which he is silent.

Translation:... so I'll make a bunch of sh!t up, and argue with that.

[John Forester]

Good question... according to John, older cities have a difficult time supporting the motorcar, so one would think that older cities of the world would tend to have proportionally more cyclists than newer cities of the world.

When I read the first of these questions, regarding England, I was prepared to offer France as equally relevant; now many more are offered, and there are many more besides, in several continents. The question is important and worth considering. In the great cities of India and China, and elsewhere in Southeast Asia, which are old cities, we see just the large proportion of bicycle traffic that the hypothesis suggests, and which has long existed (but is changing). But in some cases offered, such as Athens, there was never widespread cycling. It didn't start, for whatever reason, so that there was nothing to rejuvenate in the automotive era. This means that there are other factors than just the age of the urban pattern.

The most relevant contrasting examples are France and Britain, which were both prime cycling nations that have changed largely to motoring. However, note this. In those nations which have preserved cycling in their old urban cores, the new developments are in the modern style, more suited to motoring and in which motoring has overtaken cycling. I think that France and Britain show the combined effects of both social histories and urban patterns (one leading to the other) that differ from those of north-central Europe. Both nations had early wealth and national stability, leading to more open cities that were more suited to motoring than the more cramped cities of north-central Europe. They also started widely-available motoring earlier, so that they have had longer to adjust. But I am sure that other factors are also relevant, but as yet unidentified.

[buzzman]

The problem is that Pucher's paper is not a well-researched paper, clear and objectively presented... it is just a collection of facts ... I have considered what he has left out...

wow.:eek:

there's a solid foundation for a rebuttal to the study.:rolleyes:

[I-Like-To-Bike]

wow.:eek:

there's a solid foundation for a rebuttal to the study.:rolleyes:
But the response answered the question of another thread, "What Happened to John Forester?" That is: Nothing, he's the same ol' generator of JF Brand "Analysis" and JF Brand "Logic/Science" on cycling subjects. Hasn't changed or altered a word in 30 years. He was 100% right on everything then and remains so today, and anyone with a different opinion/conclusion is 100% wrong. Also applies to any data or report that does not meet his dogmatic standard.

[buzzman]

But the response answered the question of another thread, "What Happened to John Forester?" That is: Nothing, he's the same ol' generator of JF Brand "Analysis" and JF Brand "Logic/Science" on cycling subjects. Hasn't changed or altered a word in 30 years. He was 100% right on everything then and remains so today, and anyone with a different opinion/conclusion is 100% wrong. Also applies to any data or report that does not meet his dogmatic standard.

Unfortunately, I think you may be right here. At least that's what I get from his posts on this subject.

to further highlight John's comments in terms of a legitimate dispute of the study:


...facts presented to suit an ideology... to suit a motivation about which he is silent.



Wouldn't it makes sense that even if a researcher had a particular ideology or even a motivation a study should be devoid of such opinions and contain only facts?

Ideological arguments can be endless (as evidenced by much of the discourse here in A&S) factual presentation can be disputed until the facts are determined to be legitimate or not. Then the ideologues can keep on sputtering around those conclusions till they're blue in the face but those of us interested only in logical solutions to definable problems and unafraid of occasionally being wrong can get some work done.

And are we to take John's word that such an ideology exists? Or does he draw these conclusions because of something "he heard from others in the planning profession" And I suspect those others may simply be others who agree with John's notions about cycling and advocacy. And round and round it goes. Let's keep the spinning wheels on our bikes at least when we put them to the ground they get us somewhere.

[John Forester]

Unfortunately, I think you may be right here. At least that's what I get from his posts on this subject.

to further highlight John's comments in terms of a legitimate dispute of the study:

Wouldn't it makes sense that even if a researcher had a particular ideology or even a motivation a study should be devoid of such opinions and contain only facts?

Ideological arguments can be endless (as evidenced by much of the discourse here in A&S) factual presentation can be disputed until the facts are determined to be legitimate or not. Then the ideologues can keep on sputtering around those conclusions till they're blue in the face but those of us interested only in logical solutions to definable problems and unafraid of occasionally being wrong can get some work done.

And are we to take John's word that such an ideology exists? Or does he draw these conclusions because of something "he heard from others in the planning profession" And I suspect those others may simply be others who agree with John's notions about cycling and advocacy. And round and round it goes. Let's keep the spinning wheels on our bikes at least when we put them to the ground they get us somewhere.

It is quite acceptable for a scientific paper to present only newly observed data. As Bernard K. Forscher wrote in "Rules for Referees", Science; 150: 319-321, 1965: "When it is serving as a medium of communication, what, specifically, does the journal communicate? Three important types of message constitute its raison d'etre: (I) new facts or data, (ii) new ideas, and (iii) intelligent reviews of old facts and ideas."

However, while Pucher's latest paper presents many "facts or data", they are not new; all this has been known for years, and Pucher has published such stuff before this. Pucher presents no new ideas, indeed no ideas at all. Neither does Pucher provide an intelligent review of old facts and ideas.

Given these defects in Pucher's paper, it is most reasonable to inquire as to why so many participants in this group have chosen to think so highly of it?

Therefore, I ask all of you who think well of Pucher's "Irresistible" paper, please tell the rest of us why you think well of it?

[John C. Ratliff]

I have to read it first, before I can have an opinion on it. Sometime next week should be when I can get to it.

John

[Brian Ratliff]

@John Forester
Coming from the person who's only refereed paper is an "analysis of the debate" type paper, and who's publications mostly regurgitate both the same ideas from his 70's era book and the 70's era data which goes along with it.

John, respectfully, what kind of research have you done since the developement of your original arguement in the late 70's? Have you attempted anything other than meta-analyses of old data, critiques of research coming from the "enemy" camp, and political position papers? Have you tried applying for funding from the government to put together a well designed experiment or survey which will more clearly support your points?

You would gain my respect and the respect of many more cyclists if you would accept that your arguments, to date, are not well supported and worked on research that would be focused on determining the precise factors which makes cycling dangerous and the precise variables this affect these factors. So far, all you have is your statements made by decree. It would be helpful to convince other if someone who has spent as much time on these issues as yourself tried delving into the basics of bicycle/motorized traffic interactions from an unbiased starting point.

I understand that you believe you have the answer; you are probably closer to it than many others are. But many cyclists are not convinced. You don't convince people by talking at them and arguing with them more and more. You convince them by showing them a preponderance of objective evidence. It is this preponderance of objective evidence which is lacking.

[genec]

It is quite acceptable for a scientific paper to present only newly observed data. As Bernard K. Forscher wrote in "Rules for Referees", Science; 150: 319-321, 1965: "When it is serving as a medium of communication, what, specifically, does the journal communicate? Three important types of message constitute its raison d'etre: (I) new facts or data, (ii) new ideas, and (iii) intelligent reviews of old facts and ideas."

However, while Pucher's latest paper presents many "facts or data", they are not new; all this has been known for years, and Pucher has published such stuff before this. Pucher presents no new ideas, indeed no ideas at all. Neither does Pucher provide an intelligent review of old facts and ideas.

Given these defects in Pucher's paper, it is most reasonable to inquire as to why so many participants in this group have chosen to think so highly of it?

Therefore, I ask all of you who think well of Pucher's "Irresistible" paper, please tell the rest of us why you think well of it?

Because it counters what you yourself have presented in your old papers. You too have presented "nothing new," but insist that "cyclists fare best... " using a vehicular cycling method, yet Pucher's paper seems to highlight that perhaps cyclists may fare better using something different.

So Pucher's data reflects an ongoing and emerging trend, and indeed something that has changed since the '70's and is counter to your arguments (based on data from the mid '70's... and not updated).

Shall we discuss the defects in your data for a comparison?

[genec]

You convince them by showing them a preponderance of objective evidence. It is this preponderance of objective evidence which is lacking.

EXACTLY!!!

Frankly I don't see any huge number of cyclists using the Vehicular Method in numbers great enough to be significant anywhere, whereas the areas highlighted in the Rutger's paper show transportation rider share, using cycling infrastructure, well over 20+%.

In otherwords... show me the successes.

With Vehicular cycling I see no more that 2% of use by a general population.

With infrastructure and government support, we see rider share well over 20%.

Results speak for themselves. It's that simple.

[buzzman]

It is quite acceptable for a scientific paper to present only newly observed data... while Pucher's latest paper presents many "facts or data", they are not new; all this has been known for years, and Pucher has published such stuff before this.

Therefore, I ask all of you who think well of Pucher's "Irresistible" paper, please tell the rest of us why you think well of it?

What exactly are you talking about when you say, "all this has been known for years." All what?

Not new data? I suggest you review the list of references at the end of the document, the large majority of which are less than 5 years old likewise the list of table and figures.

Aren't the vast majority of your opinions based on a study from 1976?

It appears that you are contending that Pucher drew similar conclusions in previous research. Well, it would only make sense that he is now supporting those conclusions with a new paper with a new set of statistics and updated data. The insufficient data of the 70's, which predates most computerized record keeping and was at a time when cycling was transitioning both in the US and Europe, barely stands up to the comprehensive data in Pucher's current study.

It would be impossible to support many of the notions on your website with more contemporary data and facts.

I think well of it because it is void of notions, ideology, wishful thinking and outdated research. His presentation is clear and follows a logical progression.

[John Forester]

@John Forester
Coming from the person who's only refereed paper is an "analysis of the debate" type paper, and who's publications mostly regurgitate both the same ideas from his 70's era book and the 70's era data which goes along with it.

John, respectfully, what kind of research have you done since the developement of your original arguement in the late 70's? Have you attempted anything other than meta-analyses of old data, critiques of research coming from the "enemy" camp, and political position papers? Have you tried applying for funding from the government to put together a well designed experiment or survey which will more clearly support your points?

You would gain my respect and the respect of many more cyclists if you would accept that your arguments, to date, are not well supported and worked on research that would be focused on determining the precise factors which makes cycling dangerous and the precise variables this affect these factors. So far, all you have is your statements made by decree. It would be helpful to convince other if someone who has spent as much time on these issues as yourself tried delving into the basics of bicycle/motorized traffic interactions from an unbiased starting point.

I understand that you believe you have the answer; you are probably closer to it than many others are. But many cyclists are not convinced. You don't convince people by talking at them and arguing with them more and more. You convince them by showing them a preponderance of objective evidence. It is this preponderance of objective evidence which is lacking.

You claim that my only refereed paper is the one on the bikeway controversy published in Transportation Quarterly. That's certainly erroneous in one respect, and probably in both. TQ is published by the Eno Transportation Foundation, Inc., named for the first formalizer of the rules of the road, and has an impressive editorial board. However, I do not remember receiving the impression that my paper had been refereed. Note that I have been a referee for the Bicycling Committee of the Transportation Research Board and have had papers refereed, so I know what goes on, probably more than most do.

You ask whether I have applied for "funding from the government to put together a well designed experiment or survey which will more clearly support your points?" You are really naive to believe that government will spend money in an attempt to demonstrate the falsity of the program on which it has spent some tens of millions of research and propaganda dollars, to say nothing of implementation dollars. That is why most of the research supporting vehicular cycling is done by amateurs, the big exception being Cross's studies of car-bike collisions, which were originally, as the historical record shows, expected to demonstrate the converse of what they actually demonstrate. Note that the pattern of car-bike collisions shown in the 1974 data was confirmed to still exist as late as the 1990s.

Your naivete about research repeats itself in the following statement: "It would be helpful to convince other if someone who has spent as much time on these issues as yourself tried delving into the basics of bicycle/motorized traffic interactions from an unbiased starting point." Research is rarely done from an unbiased starting point, and certainly is never done in this field. Research is done to answer some question, and the question determines the kind of data sought and how it is analyzed and the conclusions drawn. That does not mean that the conclusions are pre-determined, only that the conclusions should be drawn from the data that are discovered, and may answer the question by either supporting or denying it.

You argue the following: "You would gain my respect and the respect of many more cyclists if you would accept that your arguments, to date, are not well supported and worked on research that would be focused on determining the precise factors which makes cycling dangerous and the precise variables this affect these factors. So far, all you have is your statements made by decree."

So far as the above statements of supposed fact are concerned, they are erroneous. My work is based on accepted facts about car-bike collisions, about the effect of experience on cycling accident rate, standard traffic-engineering methods, standard human factors, traffic laws as they exist, and similar matters. This work has been published openly for any person to criticize.

Despite the fact that many people disapprove of my conclusions, none of those persons has demonstrated that my work is significantly in error. Furthermore, those who propose the different view of childish cycling on bikeways have never been able to demonstrate, despite some tens of millions of dollars in research and propaganda, that their program makes cycling safer and more convenient; its only support is popularity.

You argue that: "You convince [people] by showing them a preponderance of objective evidence." Indeed? But you refuse to pay attention to the "preponderance of objective evidence" as it is described above. What evidence do you advance to refute what is described above?

[John Forester]

What exactly are you talking about when you say, "all this has been known for years." All what?

Not new data? I suggest you review the list of references at the end of the document, the large majority of which are less than 5 years old likewise the list of table and figures.

Aren't the vast majority of your opinions based on a study from 1976?

It appears that you are contending that Pucher drew similar conclusions in previous research. Well, it would only make sense that he is now supporting those conclusions with a new paper with a new set of statistics and updated data. The insufficient data of the 70's, which predates most computerized record keeping and was at a time when cycling was transitioning both in the US and Europe, barely stands up to the comprehensive data in Pucher's current study.

It would be impossible to support many of the notions on your website with more contemporary data and facts.

I think well of it because it is void of notions, ideology, wishful thinking and outdated research. His presentation is clear and follows a logical progression.

You justify Pucher's paper as presenting updated data. There's a point in that justification, but the more important point is that there has been little significant change in the data over time and, therefore, no change in the conclusions that might be drawn.

You argue the following: "Aren't the vast majority of your opinions based on a study from 1976? ... The insufficient data of the 70's, which predates most computerized record keeping and was at a time when cycling was transitioning both in the US and Europe, barely stands up to the comprehensive data in Pucher's current study."

That comparison is just plain silly. It is correct that Cross's study of car-bike collisions was not based on computerized records, but that's irrelevant. Indeed, there is no comparison; Pucher does not refer to any such study based on any European records, computerized or not. Possibly there is no such study, although there have been several recent European studies that hint at similar considerations. Cross's detailed data allow the conclusions that disobeying the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles leads to car-bike collisions and that bikeways cannot significantly reduce such collisions. Nobody has provided a similarly detailed account of car-bike collisions that occur in association with bikeways, either in the USA or in Europe, demonstrating that those bikeways provide a better mechanism for preventing car-bike collisions except by delaying cyclists to avoid those collisions.

You do not specify the nature and significance of whatever changes to cycling were occurring in the USA
in the 1970s. Change is always occurring. There was the advent of the bikeways program; that may be what you intend.

[John Forester]

EXACTLY!!!

Frankly I don't see any huge number of cyclists using the Vehicular Method in numbers great enough to be significant anywhere, whereas the areas highlighted in the Rutger's paper show transportation rider share, using cycling infrastructure, well over 20+%.

In otherwords... show me the successes.

With Vehicular cycling I see no more that 2% of use by a general population.

With infrastructure and government support, we see rider share well over 20%.

Results speak for themselves. It's that simple.

Your argument is based purely on popularity in very different cities from our own. So what?

Popularity has never been the criterion for scientific accuracy. If those cyclists who ride in the vehicular manner in a nation in which that is allowed have lower accident rates and better convenience than those who do not ride in that manner, that is all the justification that is needed for vehicular cycling. The fact that only a small proportion of cyclists choose to operate in this manner, considering the social and governmental forces arrayed against such cycling, is more a criticism of those societies and governments than it is of vehicular cycling.

[genec]

Your argument is based purely on popularity in very different cities from our own. So what?

Popularity has never been the criterion for scientific accuracy. If those cyclists who ride in the vehicular manner in a nation in which that is allowed have lower accident rates and better convenience than those who do not ride in that manner, that is all the justification that is needed for vehicular cycling. The fact that only a small proportion of cyclists choose to operate in this manner, considering the social and governmental forces arrayed against such cycling, is more a criticism of those societies and governments than it is of vehicular cycling.

Prove to me that cyclists using the vehicular method have lower accident rates than cyclists, in those cities mentioned, that are using facilities. According to the Rutgers paper, cyclists in America have a higher accident rate. Of course the Rutgers paper is using recent data, whereas you have not.

And as far as the convenience factor, I found the facilities in Finland awfully darn convenient... far more convenient than "dodging cars" here in America.

Considering social and governmental forces... perhaps if "experts" like you did not tout a system of integration with motor traffic (no matter what the speed) then perhaps your beloved England would have the ridership of say Germany.

In America, there is a real mixed message by the government... where roads are readily built for motorists, but facilities are added for cyclists... of course stripes of paint are not enough to give the average person the comfort they want while cycling with motor traffic... so most bicycles in America tend to be used in parks, paths and quiet residential streets by weekend riders... thus barely 2% of transportation is by bicycle rider... except in Portland, where the government supports cycling, and has instilled both policies and facilities to support cycling.

[buzzman]

You do not specify the nature and significance of whatever changes to cycling were occurring in the USA
in the 1970s. Change is always occurring. There was the advent of the bikeways program; that may be what you intend.

Changes since 1976 that have a direct affect on cycling:

How about an almost 40% increase in the US population from 218 million to over 300 million?

How about an 80% increase in the number of automobiles on our roads and highways from 139 million to 250 million?

There have been significant changes in urbanization versus suburbanization and rural lifestyles. Where our populations reside have changed substantially in those times.

To think that those kinds of changes have a negligible affect on cycling and require no new studies or data is "just plain silly".

[John Forester]

Changes since 1976 that have a direct affect on cycling:

How about an almost 40% increase in the US population from 218 million to over 300 million?

How about an 80% increase in the number of automobiles on our roads and highways from 139 million to 250 million?

There have been significant changes in urbanization versus suburbanization and rural lifestyles. Where our populations reside have changed substantially in those times.

To think that those kinds of changes have a negligible affect on cycling and require no new studies or data is "just plain silly".

You provide some data concerning "changes since 1976 that have a direct affect on cycling:" increase in population, increase in number of automobiles, and growth in suburbanization. However, the discussion concerns whether vehicular cycling is better than the childish cycling on which the bikeway program is based, and for that discussion your data is irrelevant. The population of the USA is insignificant, within a quite large range, because the cyclist deals with only one to three at a time, and the cyclist's actions regarding those few have not changed over time. The same argument goes for the number of automobiles. As for the increase in suburbanization, cyclists have been riding urban core, suburban, and rural roads longer than anyone can remember. Probably the major change has been in the introduction of high-speed free-running right turns on some roads, but that has little relevance to the issue.

[John Forester]

Prove to me that cyclists using the vehicular method have lower accident rates than cyclists, in those cities mentioned, that are using facilities. According to the Rutgers paper, cyclists in America have a higher accident rate. Of course the Rutgers paper is using recent data, whereas you have not.

And as far as the convenience factor, I found the facilities in Finland awfully darn convenient... far more convenient than "dodging cars" here in America.

Considering social and governmental forces... perhaps if "experts" like you did not tout a system of integration with motor traffic (no matter what the speed) then perhaps your beloved England would have the ridership of say Germany.

In America, there is a real mixed message by the government... where roads are readily built for motorists, but facilities are added for cyclists... of course stripes of paint are not enough to give the average person the comfort they want while cycling with motor traffic... so most bicycles in America tend to be used in parks, paths and quiet residential streets by weekend riders... thus barely 2% of transportation is by bicycle rider... except in Portland, where the government supports cycling, and has instilled both policies and facilities to support cycling.

You demand that I "Prove to me that cyclists using the vehicular method have lower accident rates than cyclists, in those cities mentioned, that are using facilities. According to the Rutgers paper, cyclists in America have a higher accident rate. Of course the Rutgers paper is using recent data, whereas you have not." You don't even understand the problem, let alone the use of English. When you visit a public toilet you are using a facility, is it not so? Roadways are also facilities, is that not so? If you mean bikeways, then say so.

Your demand that I attempt to prove something that both you and I know not to be true is just plain silly because the conditions are so different. If your sole criterion for cycling is a low accident rate, then go live in Amsterdam and cycle in their manner.

When I mentioned the powerful social and governmental forces that in this nation oppose vehicular cycling, you replied with: "Considering social and governmental forces... perhaps if "experts" like you did not tout a system of integration with motor traffic (no matter what the speed) then perhaps your beloved England would have the ridership of say Germany." I find it difficult to explain your answer except as an example of complete ignorance. The most powerful forces driving the American program for bicycle transportation are those that drive the bikeway program. Vehicular cyclists have had very little effect on government actions regarding bicycle transportation, except as to making the bikeway design standards somewhat less dangerous than they would have been without our work, and doing detail work with respect to some signs, drain grates, and traffic signals. Much the same has occurred in England by this time.

Here's some more of your thought about governmental action regarding bicycle transportation: "In America, there is a real mixed message by the government... where roads are readily built for motorists, but facilities are added for cyclists... of course stripes of paint are not enough to give the average person the comfort they want while cycling with motor traffic... so most bicycles in America tend to be used in parks, paths and quiet residential streets by weekend riders... thus barely 2% of transportation is by bicycle rider... except in Portland, where the government supports cycling, and has instilled both policies and facilities to support cycling."

You have now changed your criterion from safety to comfort, specifically comfort as felt by those who don't understand how to properly operate. What you fail to recognize is that this failure to recognize that vehicular cycling is a pretty good method of bicycle transportation is precisely the product of the social and governmental opposition to vehicular cycling to which I referred.

[buzzman]

You provide some data concerning "changes since 1976 that have a direct affect on cycling:" increase in population, increase in number of automobiles, and growth in suburbanization.

Actually the population shift has been towards a re-urbanization in the last decade and a half. "Suburbanization" in the US was a demographic shift that occured in the period from 1950-75.

However, the discussion concerns whether vehicular cycling is better than the childish cycling on which the bikeway program is based, and for that discussion your data is irrelevant.


WHAT!:eek: "Childish cycling"- how does a term like that even enter a worthwhile discussion. "Childish cycling" may be what you want/think the discussion is about but I think the discussion is about the Rutgers Study, which makes no mention of "childish cycling". Talk about an agenda and motivation.:rolleyes:

And no- factors like population and population density are extremely relevant and have a direct correlation to cycling and cycling infrastructures- some details of which I will address below.


The population of the USA is insignificant, within a quite large range, because the cyclist deals with only one to three at a time and the cyclist's actions regarding those few have not changed over time. The same argument goes for the number of automobiles. As for the increase in suburbanization, cyclists have been riding urban core, suburban, and rural roads longer than anyone can remember. Probably the major change has been in the introduction of high-speed free-running right turns on some roads, but that has little relevance to the issue.

Here's why population density, the # of automobiles (traffic volume) and urbanization is significant:

Most urban areas are already footprinted they can add no more roads, buildings can only be made taller or rebuilt. If we look at 3 cities in the world: London, Paris and NYC we see that all of the cities have reached their capacity to accomodate the number of automobiles sharing space with a denser, higher population of people. That's why these cities have instituted or are contemplating "congestion taxes".

They are also encouraging alternatives to the use of the automobile. One of those alternatives is the bicycle. Increasing the number of bicycles in the current environment without making adequate changes in the infrastructure simply means more congestion and the already uncontrolled chaos on the streets will get worse. Bike lanes, bike ways, bike paths, MUP's etc. provide pathways by which a cyclist can move with more efficiency in a crowded urban environment and, though you might dispute it but several studies do not, a margin of safety over an environment with no special facilities.

These changes have nothing to do with childish cycling they have to do with the changing nature of how humans will get from one place to another in the 21st century.

[John Forester]

Actually the population shift has been towards a re-urbanization in the last decade and a half. "Suburbanization" in the US was a demographic shift that occured in the period from 1950-75.

Material on style of cycling is snipped for separate discussion

And no- factors like population and population density are extremely relevant and have a direct correlation to cycling and cycling infrastructures- some details of which I will address below.

Here's why population density, the # of automobiles (traffic volume) and urbanization is significant:

Most urban areas are already footprinted they can add no more roads, buildings can only be made taller or rebuilt. If we look at 3 cities in the world: London, Paris and NYC we see that all of the cities have reached their capacity to accomodate the number of automobiles sharing space with a denser, higher population of people. That's why these cities have instituted or are contemplating "congestion taxes".

They are also encouraging alternatives to the use of the automobile. One of those alternatives is the bicycle. Increasing the number of bicycles in the current environment without making adequate changes in the infrastructure simply means more congestion and the already uncontrolled chaos on the streets will get worse. Bike lanes, bike ways, bike paths, MUP's etc. provide pathways by which a cyclist can move with more efficiency in a crowded urban environment and, though you might dispute it but several studies do not, a margin of safety over an environment with no special facilities.


This is a quotation from Randal O'Toole's Best Laid Plans, page 94, in which he references several studies on this subject.

"Herbert Gans pointed out that few middle-class families with children want to live in dense, lively neighborhoods such as Jane Jacobs's Greenwich Village. But in typical planner fashion, smart-growth advocates reason that since most residents of dense, mixed-use neighborhoods are childless, therefore most child-free households will be glad to live in such neighborhoods. ("All dogs have four legs, so anything with four legs is a dog.") They imagine, for example, that as baby boomers become empty nesters, large numbers of them will want to move back to the high-density neighborhoods they enjoyed before they had children.(4)

"There is no doubt that some people prefer living in high-density mixed-use neighborhoods. As Gans hints, they are mainly young singles or childless couples.(5) But between 1990 and 2000, the vast majority of growth of these groups -- in fact, invirtually every population group -- was in suburbs, not in cities.

"Claims for a recent 'downtown rebound', based on changing preferences toward high-density, mixed-use housing, for example, are greatly exaggerated. "'Downtown is Back' seemed to be a common observation in the 1990s," say a Fannie Mae study. "This was more than wishful thinking," the study says optimistically, but then adds, "The actual numbers of downtown growth are relatively small."

"That's putting it mildly. The study looked at 24 urban areas and found that, during the 1990s, downtown populations had grown in 18 of them. But total population growth in those 18 downtowns was just over 54,000 people, an average of about 3,000 per downtown. During the same period, the cities surrounding those downtowns grew by more than 77,000 people and the suburbs of those cities grew by 5.54 million people, or more than 100 times as much as the downtowns.(7) Considering that at least some of the cities in the study, including Denver and Portland, subsidized their downtown population growth, it is hard to see in these numbers much of a signal that Americans desire to live in smart-growth neighborhoods."

[John Forester]

Much else snipped to concentrate on style of cycling:


WHAT!:eek: "Childish cycling"- how does a term like that even enter a worthwhile discussion. "Childish cycling" may be what you want/think the discussion is about but I think the discussion is about the Rutgers Study, which makes no mention of "childish cycling". Talk about an agenda and motivation.:rolleyes:


These changes have nothing to do with childish cycling they have to do with the changing nature of how humans will get from one place to another in the 21st century.

Of course Pucher fails to state that his entire paper is about people cycling in the childish manner; he couldn't dare admit that, could he, just as you apparently cannot. But he, and apparently you too, are forced to have to recognize exactly this. Pucher is on record as saying that what we know as normal cycling, operating in accordance with the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles, is possible only for persons near the extreme limits of strength and courage. Instead of cycling in accordance with the rules of the road, Pucher advocates the kind of cycling that Americans learn as children, and which, since the Dutch system requires much of that, must be presumed to be taught to Dutch children in the training to which Pucher refers in his paper.

The idea that bikeways make cycling safe for those who choose not to learn safe cycling technique is the cornerstone of bicycle advocacy in the USA. That's your program, for which you have to accept justified criticism, no matter how distasteful to you.

[Allister]

Why are you so averse to any suggestions of limiting car use, John?

[Allister]

Instead of cycling in accordance with the rules of the road, Pucher advocates the kind of cycling that Americans learn as children, and which, since the Dutch system requires much of that, must be presumed to be taught to Dutch children in the training to which Pucher refers in his paper.

'must be presumed' - translation: I have no idea, so I'll make something up. I think I'm getting the hang of Foresterspeak.

You've got it the wrong way around. They teach their children to ride like adults.

[Allister]

The idea that bikeways make cycling safe for those who choose not to learn safe cycling technique is the cornerstone of bicycle advocacy in the USA.

You got a quote to back that up?

What bikeways do is that they provide a relatively benign environment in which people can learn safe cycling techniques. Expecting people to be able to ride on 5 lanes of 50mph traffic right away is only going to put off newcomers.

Provide a bit of a cushion for newbies, and eventually some are bound to take more to the road - so you've got more vehicular cyclists that you would'nt have had if they'd never gotten on the bike at all.

[I-Like-To-Bike]

'must be presumed' - translation: I have no idea, so I'll make something up. I think I'm getting the hang of Foresterspeak.

It's a matched set with, " he couldn't dare admit that, could he, just as you apparently cannot." Forester "admits" what he fabricates as the thoughts of others, then proceeds to disparage those who dare not "admit" the straw man arguments.

[John Forester]

'must be presumed' - translation: I have no idea, so I'll make something up. I think I'm getting the hang of Foresterspeak.

You've got it the wrong way around. They [the Dutch] teach their children to ride like adults.

I don't doubt that at all; that was the point of my criticism. Look at how the Dutch adults ride, and see that this is childish cycling, not vehicular cycling.

[John Forester]

You got a quote to back that up?

What bikeways do is that they provide a relatively benign environment in which people can learn safe cycling techniques. Expecting people to be able to ride on 5 lanes of 50mph traffic right away is only going to put off newcomers.

Provide a bit of a cushion for newbies, and eventually some are bound to take more to the road - so you've got more vehicular cyclists that you would'nt have had if they'd never gotten on the bike at all.

Yes, I have a quote to back up my assertion. You have just provided another one, on top of all those that have so frequently been written before. Here are your words: "Bikeways ... provide a relatively benign environment in which people can learn safe cycling techniques."

Do you not understand the meaning of the words that you write?

[John Forester]

Why are you so averse to any suggestions of limiting car use, John?

Insofar as bicycle advocacy is concerned, I think it immoral to use bikeways to entice the uninformed with promises that bikeways will make cycling safe for them, instead of working for traffic-safe cycling training and for better roads. I also think it immoral to use this promise of bikeway safety, which doesn't exist, to therefore insist on building bikeways that are far more dangerous than normal cycling on the normal road, as has been the cause of Portland's blue paint to indicate the really dangerous parts because these force all roadway users to violate the rules of the road.

If you people were to encourage safe cycling instead of dangerous childish cycling on bikeways, I would be all for you, and it wouldn't matter to me that you also have the intention of reducing motoring. However, you refuse to work in that way because of your anti-motoring ideology. Furthermore, you are all psychologically mixed up because the facilities that you advocate so strongly were designed by motorists to discriminate against cyclists and force them to operate in the childish manner, for the convenience of motorists. People who act in such irrational ways are dangers to society.

Outside of the cycling sphere, there are another set of considerations, such as increasing home prices, reducing job opportunities, increasing crime, reducing freedom, increasing government's powers to do wrong things, and the like.

[I-Like-To-Bike]

I don't doubt that at all; that was the point of my criticism.

Nothing new in this line of Forester Brand logic here. Forester criticizes his own straw man arguments; fabricated arguments which he has no doubts are true, and therefore are true.

[genec]

If you mean bikeways, then say so.

Since your definition of "bikeways" encompasses everything from poor painted bike lanes to sidepaths and segregated paths... lets get very specific and just say segregated pathways that serve as arterial roads for cyclists as shown in this example:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vgUkNxUE0wc

You can read more at this link: http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=343260&highlight=bike+heaven

[John Forester]

Since your definition of "bikeways" encompasses everything from poor painted bike lanes to sidepaths and segregated paths... lets get very specific and just say segregated pathways that serve as arterial roads for cyclists as shown in this example:


Here is what genec wrote:
"Prove to me that cyclists using the vehicular method have lower accident rates than cyclists, in those cities mentioned, that are using facilities."

I replied with the suggestion that genec use the more specific "bikeways" than the very general "facilities", since the use of "facilities" encompasses such uses as using a public toilet, or a normal road.

Now genec replies that when he uses the word "facilities" he intends that that word mean only some particular type of facility that is shown on a utube video, which is inconvenient for many of us to download. Considering that the context of the discussion was the bikeways as discussed in Pucher's paper, that utube video cannot portray all those types, and, therefore, cannot be correct.