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?

More than you do, dopey.

you: "safe for those who choose not to learn safe cycling"

me: "a relatively benign environment in which people can learn safe cycling techniques"

See the difference?

If people aren't using bikelanes or paths safely, it's an education problem, not an infrastructure problem, and since you are the man responsible for initiaiting a major cyclist education program, the failure of people using them properly lies squarely on your shoulders, not the road designers. Maybe if you spent less time whinging about bikelanes instead of educating people in using them safely...

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.

And how do they respond when you tell them they're riding 'childishly'?

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.


'You people'? LOL. I think you overestimate how much I give a sh!t. I'm not involved in any bike advocacy in any way. I just come here to laugh at self-important prats like your good self.

I've said before that I neither support nor dismiss bike lanes or paths. I ride where I need to ride using whatever pavement best suits that purpose. If a bikelane or path happens to coincide with that, I'll use it. I adopt the same concern for my own safety as well as the safety of others, and ride accordingly wherever that may be, and I give others enough credit to figure out the same.

I fully support riding vehicularly on the road, and do so for the majority of my riding, but I'm open minded enough to realise that that's not for everyone. If I got so heavily invested in my own arguments that I started claiming that anyone that dares disagrees, or rides differently is 'childish' I'd end it all tomorrow.

Also, you're clearly even less qualified to make psychological evaluations than you are engineering ones, and doing so just makes you a laughing stock. It's your own arrogance that's the root reason you've been so ineffectual, not the 'cyclist inferiority complex'. Want to help cycling? STFU.

since the use of "facilities" encompasses such uses as using a public toilet, or a normal road.


Sometimes I use a normal road as a public toilet (with alll due discretion of course). Does that count?

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."

Randal O'toole's manipulation of demographics to suit a conservative anti-government agenda aside this is a reference more to the gentrification and a move back into urban environments of the mid-late 90's of a certain demographic group. The "urbanization" of populations to which I referred is a well-documented world-wide phenomenon of all human populations from rural to urban. The "suburbanization" of the 50's, 60's and into the 70's in the US can never happen quite like that again since resources (ie. water supply, land use etc.) have maxed out so that the suburban sprawl cannot continue. For example in areas like Florida the suburbs are transforming, none too slowly, into urban areas just due to population densities- suburbs are turning into "urbs" with no real center.

You also accused Pucher of leaving out information yet you ignored a key piece of information in my previous post- the addition of 111,000,000 automobiles. Even if O'toole's skewered statistics were accurate areas like Brooklyn in NY or Somerville, MA, which were areas with high-density low income (often immigrant) populations the transformation of those urban areas in terms of demographics- from lower income large extended families to higher income single and 2-person or small family households actually represent a substantial increase in the number of automobiles. Where lower income families might have had one car with family of 6 high income two person households often have two cars. And many American suburban families have 2, 3 or even 4 cars per family whereas in the 50's, 60's and 70's they might have had one. This increase in population and number of automobiles are the changes I was pointing out in my post.

Well throughout this "debate" Mr. Forester, you have chosen to denigrate the messenger... posting hearsay about Mr Pucher, calling other posters naive, and representing that posters "do not understand the meaning of words." The latter quite laughable. You have chosen to play semantic games, and have even called the cyclists in the cities cited, "childish."

All in all you have chosen to duck and dodge, rather than directly confront the facts of the Pucher paper.

You even go so far as to deny cyclists "comfort and safety" criticizing these attributes as if they are somehow undesirable. Yet oddly enough, these very attributes are perhaps the largest factor in why people drive... for the perceived safety and the obvious comfort... yet you imply cyclists should not seek comfort in their own pursuits.

You even toy with the word "facilities" implying that this term must refer to a toilet, while suggesting that perhaps "bikeways" are the proper term. Bikeways as term of course fails to encompass what cycling facilities really are; which includes not only "bikeways" but also bicycle specific traffic lights, signage, bicycle racks and any other facility to support cycling in the countries cited... including but certainly NOT limited to toilets and/or showers.

Last you fail to address the obvious ridershare differences between cities that chose to support cycling, with facilities, and the successes of cyclists in those cities, verses the dismal ridershare in cities where vehicular cycling is the only recourse.

I think your poor responses speak volumes. Thank you for your participation, your support of the motor vehicle community is obvious (http://www.americandreamcoalition.org/forester.html) and disappointing, given the reputation you have tried to build for yourself in the cycling community... and your lack of respect for cyclists and cycling success is also quite obvious.

Sometimes I use a normal road as a public toilet (with alll due discretion of course). Does that count?

No, that does not count as vehicular cycling. Even if you had used "due discretion" by not going onto the internet and boasting about it, the answer would _still_ be no. Rather, to conduct the maneuver that you describe, the correct vehicular-cycling method is the segregated-path method, in which VCs adjust their lateral position to either between the ditch and the first windrow, or, if they've spent enough time off-line to know what the best toilet paper is, between the first and second hemlock tree.

The idea is to not let good fertilizer go to waste, as happens when the cyclist-inferiority, between-the-centerline-and-the-outside-edge-of-the-ditch method is used.

More than you do, dopey.

you: "safe for those who choose not to learn safe cycling"

me: "a relatively benign environment in which people can learn safe cycling techniques"

See the difference?

If people aren't using bikelanes or paths safely, it's an education problem, not an infrastructure problem, and since you are the man responsible for initiaiting a major cyclist education program, the failure of people using them properly lies squarely on your shoulders, not the road designers. Maybe if you spent less time whinging about bikelanes instead of educating people in using them safely...

I see, you merely claim that bike lanes provide an environment sufficiently safe for those whose traffic-cycling skills are merely those that they have naturally acquired as children growing up in America. That's really no different from my first phrasing of the issue.

The fact that you are trying to hold me responsible for the miseducation of American children in cycling matters simply shows how little you know, or how little you pretend to know, about the issue. Indeed, the Effective Cycling Program is a major technical advance; thank you very much. But it should never have been necessary. I had to create it to try to correct that which has been for decades, and still is, the major method of teaching American children about cycling and traffic. That is the childish cycling method, upon which bikeway superstition is based, and which you, apparently choose to advocate.

Oh, yes, you did write somewhere along the line that you are participating merely for your own amusement, without any attempt to advocate anything. Whether or not you intend not to advocate anything, you have learned so well the shibboleths of the anti-motoring, childish-cycling bicycle advocates that they seem to come to your mind without conscious decision. Well, you should be responsible for your own irresponsibility, but, in this forum, I think we should all choose to treat each other's words as if they were meant.

The Wheelman and John Forester; the Dynamic Duo of Effective Cycling™ Promotion. Advocates like the Duo are the reason why Effective Cycling™ has the reputation/recognition that it does.

Well throughout this "debate" Mr. Forester, you have chosen to denigrate the messenger... posting hearsay about Mr Pucher, calling other posters naive, and representing that posters "do not understand the meaning of words." The latter quite laughable. You have chosen to play semantic games, and have even called the cyclists in the cities cited, "childish."

All in all you have chosen to duck and dodge, rather than directly confront the facts of the Pucher paper.

You even go so far as to deny cyclists "comfort and safety" criticizing these attributes as if they are somehow undesirable. Yet oddly enough, these very attributes are perhaps the largest factor in why people drive... for the perceived safety and the obvious comfort... yet you imply cyclists should not seek comfort in their own pursuits.

You even toy with the word "facilities" implying that this term must refer to a toilet, while suggesting that perhaps "bikeways" are the proper term. Bikeways as term of course fails to encompass what cycling facilities really are; which includes not only "bikeways" but also bicycle specific traffic lights, signage, bicycle racks and any other facility to support cycling in the countries cited... including but certainly NOT limited to toilets and/or showers.

Last you fail to address the obvious ridershare differences between cities that chose to support cycling, with facilities, and the successes of cyclists in those cities, verses the dismal ridershare in cities where vehicular cycling is the only recourse.

I think your poor responses speak volumes. Thank you for your participation, your support of the motor vehicle community is obvious (http://www.americandreamcoalition.org/forester.html) and disappointing, given the reputation you have tried to build for yourself in the cycling community... and your lack of respect for cyclists and cycling success is also quite obvious.

Oh, my, aren't we getting nasty, genec? Certainly I have called the opinions of some on this list naive. That's a reasonable statement of fact. Hearsay about Pucher? Yes, I have been told by others in the profession that they regard him as a far outlier with an axe to grind. And I recently wrote that a poster denied himself within two paragraphs, as if he didn't understand the meaning of what he wrote. And he didn't, as demonstrated by his reply. And you claim that I have called Dutch cyclists childish. Read again what I have written; all my sentences refer to childish cycling, meaning cycling in the manner that is taught to children. And I never claimed that the word "facilities" "must refer to a toilet". It appears that you can't read either. By the way, one common circumlocution is to ask, "Which way to the facilities?" However, that is only one example of the use of the word, and I gave another, a public road.

Neither have I ducked and dodged around the facts of the Pucher paper. I have written that it is a collection of facts, have I not? I don't dispute them at all. What I challenge is the evident belief among many in this forum that it is possible to duplicate Dutch bicycle transportation mode share in the USA. You cannot duplicate the conditions that have caused it, so you can't achieve the same result. And the conditions are far more than Pucher chooses to present. With respect to actual cycling practice, Pucher suffers from delusions; he has stated some of his delusions in writing. Such as, for example, that the presence of a bike-lane stripe improves the vision of elderly cyclists, makes them much more able to see motor vehicles that are on a conflicting course. Of course he didn't state it in this way, he used the circumlocutions common in the field, but when one has to analyze, by standard traffic-engineering technique, what he was advocating, it turns out that that was one of his meanings.

I do not criticize comfort and safety as undesirable. I do say that comfort rates far below both safety and convenience in both the standard criteria for transportation, and as determinators in individual choice. Does anyone with experience think of coach-class air travel as comfortable? I crossed the Atlantic in what was still the prewar first-class service, and I crossed the Pacific in what still was the first-class sleeping berth service, and, my, what a difference those were. Yet the volume in which commercial air coach service is used demonstrates that it is the preferred choice, all characteristics being considered.

As far as safety is concerned, I deplore the false assertions of higher safety that does not exist, so common in the bicycle advocacy world, and the results of those assertions. I have also recently written that if one wants safe cycling at all costs, then go live in Amsterdam. Transportation has to provide a balance of what are termed safety and convenience, the latter being a catch-all for utility, travel time, expense, and suchlike characteristics. If you want absolute travel safety, then stay home and starve to death. The conditions that make cycling safer in Amsterdam than in the USA also make cycling more useful in Amsterdam. If one had to cycle in the USA as if one were cycling in Amsterdam, American bicycle transportation would have even less utility than it has today.

And, genec, I am going to praise you for showing us the route to Oulu, but I will do that in a separate article.

Genec has written about the marvelous bike-path system that he found in Finland. He wrote that it went everywhere, sometimes shorter than by road, was grade separated at intersections. After some questioning of this system, he provided a reference to a street map of Oulu, Finland, that shows the bike paths. I found the map fascinating, as well as the corresponding aerial photos and statistics.

I don't know how many of you know, but long ago I stated that any really useful system of bike paths for American cities would have to be largely elevated, to obtain grade separation at intersections. Indeed, I was part of a study for such a bicycle freeway proposed to run westwards from UCLA. The only grade-separated system with which I had been familiar is that at Stevenage, England, which I have visited and with whose designer I have conversed. Stevenage was built in the 1950s. It consists of major blocks, or super blocks, defined by arterials at about half-mile spacing, rather like those in the L.A. area. All intersections between arterials are traffic circles running around the perimeter of a pit. All arterials have side paths. At the major intersections, the side path ducks under the traffic circle, comes out into daylight again, to run around its own traffic circle, of smaller diameter than that of the motor traffic, and climbs out again. The designer said that he chose to direct the bicycle traffic under the motor traffic because the initial descent stored some kinetic energy to aid the climb out, while if the initial movement had been the climb, the cyclist would have to provide all the energy.

Here are some facts about Oulu. I think that most on this list deplore low-density sprawl. Well Oulu is the epitome of sprawl. Los Angeles has about 7,000 persons per square mile; the typical American midwest city runs about 2,000 to 3,000 persons per square mile. Manhattan Island, NYC, has 67,000 persons per square mile. Oulu has 822 persons per square mile. (While the area is known precisely, it may not be known accurately, if you understand the problems with city boundaries.)

Oulu is the major city of its area, with few, if any, significant suburbs, but it is a small city of 130,000 persons. The age distribution of its residents is quite average for Finland. The average household size is 2.0 persons. 22% of its dwellings are single-family dwellings, while 65% are apartments. Almost all the remainder are row houses.

When the typical American thinks of such a large proportion of dwellings being apartments, he thinks of many floors piled onto the smallest land area, in consequence of high land cost and high transportation cost. Such housing ran from slum tenements to luxury apartments (and in Manhattan, I have been in both), but it all reflected the same forces. So, how does Oulu manage to combine these seemingly incompatible characteristics?

Oulu is a development of the type advocated by Le Corbusier in the 1920s and 1930s, consisting of tall towers surrounded by open space. When this was tried in the US, the products were demolished with much publicity. That may have been caused because low-income people were assigned to live in them. This pattern was typical in other areas also: Sweden, Soviet Russia, East Germany, and other places, and the result was not quite so drastic. But, generally, people have moved out of such housing whenever possible; given a choice, most people prefer their own homes to apartments.

It is very interesting to compare the map of Oulu, showing the roads, paths, and building lots, with the aerial photo of the same area, all in sufficient scale to see the details. I found two areas with what look like single-family homes, and these two areas look like those of American cities built in the 1920s, with lots about 4,000 square feet. The rest of the residential area is occupied by large, long buildings surrounded by open space, which space, this being Finland, is largely forest. Most of these are probably four floors high, while a few (as shown by their shadows) are much higher. The typical buildings come in sets of four or so, set diagonally to the streetfront. If there is parking, which I doubt, it must be inside; there are outside parking areas some distance away. Because of the wide spacing between buildings, and, probably, small need for roads, the open space (largely forest) is crisscrossed by paths. Other paths run alongside the roads; which of their intersections are grade-separated is not shown, but, presumably, grade separation is at the intersections with arterial roads.

As genec (I think it was) remarked that if the Finns can do it, surely Americans could do it. Well, it would first require increasing the urban area by a factor of five or so. I wouldn't like that; would you supposed bicycle advocating sprawl-haters like it? In Minneapolis, the open space might well become quite attractive, with trees growing again, but in Phoenix I rather doubt that the open urban space would become attractive. And how would we force some 200 million Americans into apartment living? And how would American society, in its economic, social, and political aspects, react to such a change? Genec, you had better not hope that your wish would become reality.

snips

You also accused Pucher of leaving out information yet you ignored a key piece of information in my previous post- the addition of 111,000,000 automobiles. Even if O'toole's skewered statistics were accurate areas like Brooklyn in NY or Somerville, MA, which were areas with high-density low income (often immigrant) populations the transformation of those urban areas in terms of demographics- from lower income large extended families to higher income single and 2-person or small family households actually represent a substantial increase in the number of automobiles. Where lower income families might have had one car with family of 6 high income two person households often have two cars. And many American suburban families have 2, 3 or even 4 cars per family whereas in the 50's, 60's and 70's they might have had one. This increase in population and number of automobiles are the changes I was pointing out in my post.

I did not realize that you were specifically referring to such conditions. I understand well. When I was a child who had walked or tricycled to my grandfather's house in Dulwich, London, I could look along Underhill Road and see only the horse and cart of the baker's man delivering bread. The last time I saw that house, in 1985, my grandfather's front rose garden had been flattened to house five (I think it was) cars. And I knew Somerville, MA, too.

But I repeat; when cycling one has to pay attention to only two or three cars at a time. And, in America at least, any urban cyclist has had to do that for some parts of his trip. So there is no difference in how the cyclist should operate, which, I think, has been the subject of discussion.

I see, you merely claim that bike lanes provide an environment sufficiently safe for those whose traffic-cycling skills are merely those that they have naturally acquired as children growing up in America. That's really no different from my first phrasing of the issue.

Let me make it even clearer for you then, since it's obviously a difficult concept for you. The difference is the willingness of the rider to learn. You think bikelanes allow people to wallow in their ignorance, I think they allow people to gain experience and confidence and overcome their ignorance. Sure, some people will be unwilling to learn, but nothing about bikelanes or paths forces that upon them - they'll be just as unwilling if they use the road (although they may not survive as long).

The fact is that most adults that take to a bike also have a drivers license, and understand the rules of the road. It's not a great leap of logic to figure out that they apply to cycling as much as motoring, and yet you seem to think that no-one will make that leap if they ride on bikepaths or bikelanes, as if they'll never ever ride on a regular road, or observe and learn from their experiences. I prefer to credit people with enough intelligence to figure that out by themselves, something that you, in your great arrogance, seem unable or unwilling to do.

I had to create it to try to correct that which has been for decades, and still is, the major method of teaching American children about cycling and traffic. That is the childish cycling method, upon which bikeway superstition is based, and which you, apparently choose to advocate.

No, John, I don't. As I've said many times, I advocate riding legally, safely and predictably, (or vehicularly if you want to phrase it that way). The only difference between me and you is that I think that it is quite possible to ride that way on bikelanes and paths.

The fixation on 'childish cycling' says more about your own prejudices than it says anything about me or what I stand for.

Whether or not you intend not to advocate anything, you have learned so well the shibboleths of the anti-motoring, childish-cycling bicycle advocates that they seem to come to your mind without conscious decision.

:rolleyes: Whatever gets you through the night, little man.

I did not realize that you were specifically referring to such conditions. I understand well. When I was a child who had walked or tricycled to my grandfather's house in Dulwich, London, I could look along Underhill Road and see only the horse and cart of the baker's man delivering bread. The last time I saw that house, in 1985, my grandfather's front rose garden had been flattened to house five (I think it was) cars. And I knew Somerville, MA, too.

But I repeat; when cycling one has to pay attention to only two or three cars at a time. And, in America at least, any urban cyclist has had to do that for some parts of his trip. So there is no difference in how the cyclist should operate, which, I think, has been the subject of discussion.

I'm not quite sure I understand your implication that cyclists only deal with 2 or 3 cars at a time. There is a difference between dealing with 2 or 3 cars every minute or 2 or 3 cars every hour or every twenty minutes. In highly congested urban environments (let's use Somerville, MA as the example) not only are those cars in motion but many of them are parked. When roads are lined with parked automobiles the effective width of the roadway is substantially reduced and the door zone, naturally becomes unusable transportation space for the cyclist. So, how the population increase combined with the higher ratio of cars per person that has occured since 1976 has no impact on cycling because cyclists only deal with "2 or 3 cars at a time" escapes my logic.

And I don't think the subject of the discussion is exclusively how we cycle but also where we cycle. That seems to be the point of the Rutger's study. Many of us posting in this forum cycle "vehicularly" and position ourselves in the lane as might be suggested in "Effective Cycling" but we are also open to using bike lanes, bike paths and other cycling specific transportation facilities when they suit us. I, for one, think that changes in how humans live on this planet in the next century will be critical and incorporating cycling into the design of our living spaces can have a dramatic affect on whether those changes will be positive or negative- and that's what I'd call "Affective Cycling".

for an example of what I'm talking take a look at this post (http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=5664949&postcount=1) from the commuter's forum (http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=363831)


From yesterday's Dallas Morning News:

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcont...s.2bf4a6b.html


An interesting article on how area planners are trying to encourage cycling for transportation into the car-obsessed culture of "Big D".

Sounds like most of the emphasis is on bike paths, because the roadways are simply too clogged with distracted impatient commuters (mostly in enormous SUV's or pickups), and the roads have no shoulders and wall to wall cars.

The part that talks about the image of commuter cyclists as "athletes/supermen" was kind of interesting. I hadn't thought of that, but apparently it's one thing that keeps regular folks from using bikes for transportation. Instead of trying to get people to ride 15 miles each way to work, they're trying to encourage them to ride 2 miles to the light rail line, or 1 mile to the grocery store, instead of using their land yachts.


from the Dallas Morning News:

"North Texas' increasingly congested roads and persistent pollution problems are making bicycles a hot topic among urban planners, real estate developers and a growing number of commuters."

You're in the minority if downloading a youtube video is inconvenient.

It is you computer geeks who are in the minority. Sort of like the way Hitler was in the minority when he banned 17.5 mm. The only difference between you and him is that he had teeth, and therefore succeeded in putting a superior format on the ash heap of history. You don't and won't. Not only do you not have any jack-booted government thugs with which to enforce your everybody-must-keep-up-with-Bill-Gates'-antics directives; your "youtube" isn't even as _good_ as Hitler's 16 mm! I've got a lifetime supply of B&W 35 mm film and a lifetime supply of chemicals and printing paper to go with it, and if you don't STFU I'm going to slit it to 17.5 mm to make it last _more_ generations!

^^^
Did you just bring in Hitler?! :eek:

It's kinda entertaining, with all the random neuron firings and things going on, but... are you drunk or something? I mean... even the insults are random sounding...

It is you computer geeks who are in the minority. Sort of like the way Hitler was in the minority when he banned 17.5 mm. The only difference between you and him is that he had teeth, and therefore succeeded in putting a superior format on the ash heap of history. You don't and won't. Not only do you not have any jack-booted government thugs with which to enforce your everybody-must-keep-up-with-Bill-Gates'-antics directives; your "youtube" isn't even as _good_ as Hitler's 16 mm! I've got a lifetime supply of B&W 35 mm film and a lifetime supply of chemicals and printing paper to go with it, and if you don't STFU I'm going to slit it to 17.5 mm to make it last _more_ generations!

Hmmmm, accessing youtube videos is not the realm of computer geeks. It is the realm of my sister and brother.

Computer geeks hack a Mac OS 10 (Tiger, Leopard, or whatever big cat is appropriate) and install it on a PC. Actually, I take that back, they probably have a Linux OS. The true geeks probably have a bunch of TRS-80s running in parallel.

Hitler mention= sudden death of thread value.

[URL="http://www.websiteoptimization.com/bw/0706/"]"Summary: 53% of all US households now subscribe to broadband, according to Leichtman Research Group.

It's not my youtube, although it's quite easy to access if you know what you're doing.

Heck I'd bet you don't even have to know what you're doing...

I have been trying to catch up on this thread and the original article. So just some brief comments.

(1) Even if one doesn't think that there are interactions with congestion/density and the way people drive, it should increase the number of interactions between cyclists and drivers. That is, as density increases I interact with more cars along my commute increasing the likelihood of an accident even though during any one moment in time I am only interacting with two or three autos.

(2) Comparing accident/fatality rates without controlling for the type of cycling in each country probably creates a bias in the resulting statistics. For instance, if US cycling is generally fast recreational riding, then that alone will effect the true accident and fatality rate--as well as the reporting rate--as well as any differences in facilities, engineering, legislation, or other social/environmental factors. Based on speculation, my guess is that the statistics are biased towards inflating the accident rate in the US relative to Denmark, etc..

(3) I think that someone like Noam Chomsky--who talked endlessly about Patriot missiles and Scuds--would have a field day with the childish cycling phrase. I have run across many people who think that riding in the center of the lane is inconsiderate. Following the same logic, it would be appropriate to call center-of-the-lane riding inconsiderate cycling. Try getting general support and a bill passed that promoted inconsiderate cycling instead of something more neutral.

(4) Any discussion on changing the transportation dynamics is going to be based on a lot of speculation. The prevalence of transportation cycling is a function of many things--density, best alternatives, geography, climate, cost, convenience, etc.--as well as safety. My own view is that many of the extravagant facility proposals are inefficient from a public welfare perspective but that there are some simple steps including some facilities that could improve the position of cyclists and the population in general (as well as encourage many to cycle more).

(5) I do think that the line between cycling advocacy and anti-motoring gets crossed too often. In other words, I would be happy if we just tried to make cycling better instead of making driving worse. Mind you, I am all for drivers paying the true social cost when they choose to drive. But I get the sense that some measures are more punitive than they need to be.

Oh well ... running out of time. I will try to join in later.

Sort of like the way Hitler...
Godwin alert!

More accurately, a Wheelman alert; i.e. Wheelman post = irrational ranting of a lunatic. Good for a laugh at the brazen pride in being a nutcase. Closely related to the psychobabble prose from the Dear Leader of Effective Cycling Promotions™.

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.)


Sort of like the way Hitler was in the minority when he banned 17.5 mm.


These VC* advocates seem to know their Hitler history frighteningly well. What's the deal with that?

I agree that this is the death knell for what might have been a worthwhile thread.

Between the endless diatribes of Helmet Head, the comical musings and odd rantings of The Wheelman, and arrogant, narrow minded thinking of John Forester combined with the pseudo-science and skewed "logic" of all three VC* looks like a refuge for the disenfranchised. It seems a safe harbor for bike riders who enjoy a kind of victim status- the world's against me/doesn't understand me who cannot abide progressive change of any kind. It's kind of sad really. I'm sure if I met them out on a bike ride we might get along just fine and they'd see that I can take the lane with the best of them but their thinking regarding bike advocacy is warped and divisive.

*VC- I only use that moniker because that's been the dividing line in many of these threads. But I think the argument is not really about cycling vehicularly since so many of us operate our bikes on the road as vehicles with some regularity. The argument seems to be about facilities and facility design and usage.

Fail.

"Summary: 53% of all US households now subscribe to broadband, according to Leichtman Research Group. Internet use is strongly tied to income. For US households with annual incomes above $75,000, 92% subscribe to an Internet service. Among active Internet users, 82.2% subscribe to broadband, up over 10 percentage points from last year." (http://www.websiteoptimization.com/bw/0706/)

53% = majority
92% = majority
82.2% = majority.
...

This certainly ends that line of discussion.

The argument seems to be about facilities and facility design and usage.

Close... more of a discussion actually... but at any rate... I think the topic is more along the lines of: "facilities encourage cycling... VC apparently does not."

Close... more of a discussion actually... but at any rate... I think the topic is more along the lines of: "facilities encourage cycling... VC apparently does not."

Or, if you're a VC looney: "facilities encourage 'childish' cycling... VC is only for grownups."

Yes, Gene, I think the Rutgers study is clear. the countries studied that support bicycling in transportation infrastructure and social encouragments to bicycling have both higher participation rates and lower accident rates than the US and the UK, that have more heavily favored the VC model for bicycling planning.

(2) Comparing accident/fatality rates without controlling for the type of cycling in each country probably creates a bias in the resulting statistics. For instance, if US cycling is generally fast recreational riding, then that alone will effect the true accident and fatality rate--as well as the reporting rate--as well as any differences in facilities, engineering, legislation, or other social/environmental factors. Based on speculation, my guess is that the statistics are biased towards inflating the accident rate in the US relative to Denmark, etc.

I'd differ, invisiblehand.

I predict bicycling accidents are underreported in the US, and more complete reporting in car/bicycle & pedestrian accidents in Denmark and the Netherlands. The USA likely has a higher rate of accidents not reported, so even worse performance in the safety for bicyclists in America.

Also, the difference between a recreational training ride and someone riding to the store is 15 miles an hour difference. How MUCH of a difference is there in types of cycling? Why is it so vital to carve out niches in American cycling like 'fast recreational cycling'? that's not what the majority of the bicyclists and likely bicyclists want to do with their bikes, I think the majority of bicyclists I talk to- and I talk to a lot of them DAILY! use bikes and want to use bikes as part of their transportation solution.

If more trips by bike is the goal, the results seen in Germany, Denmark, and the Netherlands - higher cyclist participation as well as safer bicycling - are trends the USA and the UK should seek to emulate.

Like the study said, cyclist participation in the US and the UK is very, very weak. The study also punched holes in some of the VC's misleading arguments about bicycling participation in post-WWII Europe.

Fail.

"Summary: 53% of all US households now subscribe to broadband, according to Leichtman Research Group. Internet use is strongly tied to income. For US households with annual incomes above $75,000, 92% subscribe to an Internet service. Among active Internet users, 82.2% subscribe to broadband, up over 10 percentage points from last year." (http://www.websiteoptimization.com/bw/0706/)

53% = majority
92% = majority
82.2% = majority.

The next time you hijack a thread with your computer-geek-elitism advocacy, you might save yourself some embarassment if you bother to do a little bit more than just skim the sources that you cite. It's kind of ironic that a member of the allegedly-more-inclusive-than-Foresterians crowd would omit the 45% that's cited on that same website for the non-yuppie income group, or even notice that that website is _all_ _about_ not omitting it and therefore has a clue in ways that you don't.

I predict bicycling accidents are underreported in the US, and more complete reporting in car/bicycle & pedestrian accidents in Denmark and the Netherlands.

why?

I will be busy for a while. So please forgive a tardy response. Roughly, from what I gather, European transportation riding is done at much slower speeds. Hence the injuries will be less severe on average. Fast recreational club riding--which I speculate accounts for a lot of the cycling mileage in the US--is more likely to result in severe injuries. My hypothesis is that the more severe the injury the more likely it is reported.

I-Like-To-Bike's firecrackers are biased by the fact that he rides in the cyclist-inferiority manner.

why?

Roughly, from what I gather, European transportation riding is done at much slower speeds. Hence the injuries will be less severe on average. Fast recreational club riding--which I speculate accounts for a lot of the cycling mileage in the US--is more likely to result in severe injuries
From whom or where do you "roughly gather" your information about "much slower speeds" of European transportation cyclists, the extent of U.S. cycling mileage that is "fast recreational club riding", or the probability and severity of accidents that occur during "fast recreational club riding"?

It appears to me that you are roughly comparing a bushel of apples with a unique bowl of oranges.

From whom or where do you "roughly gather" .

I predict bicycling accidents are underreported

And what is the real difference between Wheelman's "rough gathering" and Bekologists "prediction"?

Other than they are both pulling it out of their sphincter, not much.

-D

Or, if you're a VC looney: "facilities encourage 'childish' cycling... VC is only for grownups."

You know the funny thing about Forester's "childish cycling" comment is indeed how many of us seek to feel youthful. Is not the desire to "hold off" old age one of the redeeming qualities of cycling about.

Is there really anything terribly wrong with seeking to enjoy cycling as a "childish endeavor?"

Is this not the essence of cycling... in a childish manner:

http://webs.lanset.com/aeolusaero/images/Einstein_on_bicycle-web.jpg

And speaking of adults on bicycles "acting in a childish manner," may I also offer this comment: When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. ~H.G. Wells

Perhaps Forester needs to consider exactly what it is that his preferred cyclist, "the elite speedster" is in fact seeking if not a return to a sense of joy that children feel.

May I go on to suggest that if the antithesis of vehicular cycling is "childish cycling..." may I enjoy cycling forever... in a childish manner. :D

From whom or where do you "roughly gather" your information about "much slower speeds" of European transportation cyclists, the extent of U.S. cycling mileage that is "fast recreational club riding", or the probability and severity of accidents that occur during "fast recreational club riding"?

I don't have anything easily linked off the top of my head. But I know that you keep up with the literature enough to answer your own questions. If you have something in support of or contrary to the position that is handy such that "roughly gather" is an overstatement, please share it.

From memory ...

I recall numerous anecdotal descriptions of European city riding -- facilities based -- that described the average speeds as something like 4-8 mph. Among numerous other papers, I think the paper of this thread talks about how much more widespread cycling is among the population--women and the elderly--and how they use the bicycle for many ordinary tasks. I find it hard to believe that he average elderly person is zipping around like the average man. Moreover, there was a recent PBS special that examined cycling facilities that had a focused segment on European cities that said as much.

Regarding US cycling, didn't the paper of this thread suggest it being recreation based? If not, I -- and I bet you have as well -- have seen it suggested in numerous papers. I recall that a mid-90s survey (funded by the US Department of Transportation perhaps? I recall that it linked a phone survey with a few other external sources of data to make conclusions) linked on John Allen's website describes adult cycling as such. I also think that the general discussions of how little US residents cycle commute and such is also suggestive.

Regarding accident severity, my statement is primarily based on physics. I also seem to recall that a good chuck of cycling accidents do not involve motor vehicles. Hence, if I had to choose between going fast or slow and getting into an accident, I would choose slow.

Back to turkey ...

Have a good Thanksgiving everyone.

And what is the real difference between Wheelman's "rough gathering" and Bekologists "prediction"?

Other than they are both pulling it out of their sphincter, not much.

-D

Oh please ...

invisiblehand <> wheelman

Regarding accident severity, my statement is primarily based on physics. I also seem to recall that a good chuck of cycling accidents do not involve motor vehicles. Hence, if I had to choose between going fast or slow and getting into an accident, I would choose slow.

Back to turkey ...

Have a good Thanksgiving everyone.

Perhaps the most interesting thing about fast/slow is that our resident VC, HH, has often suggested slowing down as a means to verify that cross traffic is not an issue.

I recall numerous anecdotal descriptions of European city riding -- facilities based -- that described the average speeds as something like 4-8 mph.
I've read Forester making such unsupported statements about the speed of slower European cyclists and/or his acolytes repeating Forester's claims. I haven't read anybody who determined that "fast" recreational cyclists or "faster" transportational cyclists make up the principal slice or even a significant slice of the city cyclists or commuters in the U.S.

Among numerous other papers, I think the paper of this thread talks about how much more widespread cycling is among the population--women and the elderly--and how they use the bicycle for many ordinary tasks. I find it hard to believe that he average elderly person is zipping around like the average man.
And I find it hard to believe that club cyclists and fast recreational enthusiasts make up a significant slice of transportational cyclists in the U.S, especially in cities. Nor do I exclude youth and everybody who is not a recreational enthusiast from one population when convenient to exaggerate the difference between the alleged "average" speeds of European cyclists with the U.S. "average man" made up of carefully selected group of mostly suburban based recreational cyclists.

I also think that the general discussions of how little US residents cycle commute and such is also suggestive.

Make up your mind. Are you talking about cycle commuting or recreational cycling? What is being compared with what?

Regarding accident severity, my statement is primarily based on physics. I also seem to recall that a good chuck of cycling accidents do not involve motor vehicles. Hence, if I had to choose between going fast or slow and getting into an accident, I would choose slow.

I suspect that the speed of the cyclist is a relatively minor factor in most serious severity/fatal motor vehicle-bicycle collisions compared to the speed of the motor vehicle. Reduction of exposure probability to conflict/collisions with motor vehicles is an even bigger consideration. If I were to choose a cycling environment less likely for motor vehicle collisions and severe injuries I would choose riding in large highly visible groups on lightly traveled US suburban roads on the weekend in good weather and daylight, rather than as solitary cyclists in heavy rush hour traffic in less than ideal weather or visibility. The speed of such cyclists is irrelevant.

You know the funny thing about Forester's "childish cycling" comment is indeed how many of us seek to feel youthful. Is not the desire to "hold off" old age one of the redeeming qualities of cycling about.

Is there really anything terribly wrong with seeking to enjoy cycling as a "childish endeavor?"

Is this not the essence of cycling... in a childish manner:


LOL. Yep. Good point. I think I'd prefer the term 'childlike' though to differentiate it from Forester's clearly perjorative use of 'childish'.

I made a comment once that 'cycling in gridlocked traffic is fun', and during a slagfest on a local paper's site someone took issue with that, as though enjoying commuting traffic shouldn't be allowed. I get the feeling sometimes that Forester's a bit like that - taking it all far too seriously. It's kinda pathetic that he chooses to bicker and argue with those that really should be his greatest allies - cyclists, no matter how they ride.

I suspect that the speed of the cyclist is a relatively minor factor in most serious severity/fatal motor vehicle-bicycle collisions compared to the speed of the motor vehicle. Reduction of exposure probability to conflict/collisions with motor vehicles is an even bigger consideration. If I were to choose a cycling environment less likely for motor vehicle collisions and severe injuries I would choose riding in large highly visible groups on lightly traveled US suburban roads on the weekend in good weather and daylight, rather than as solitary cyclists in heavy rush hour traffic in less than ideal weather or visibility. The speed of such cyclists is irrelevant.

I always understood that in places like the US UK and Aus, the majority of bicycle crashes and fatalities involved children, and that experienced recreational and commuting cyclists were among the safest.

Personally, I think childish motorists are the far bigger problem here. Eurpoeans seem much more grown up about their responsibilities as drivers from my admittedly limited experience (2 months touring from the Nederlands to Italy). Of course followers of Foresterism won't hear a word against motorists :rolleyes:

Let me make it even clearer for you then, since it's obviously a difficult concept for you. The difference is the willingness of the rider to learn. You think bikelanes allow people to wallow in their ignorance, I think they allow people to gain experience and confidence and overcome their ignorance. Sure, some people will be unwilling to learn, but nothing about bikelanes or paths forces that upon them - they'll be just as unwilling if they use the road (although they may not survive as long).

The fact is that most adults that take to a bike also have a drivers license, and understand the rules of the road. It's not a great leap of logic to figure out that they apply to cycling as much as motoring, and yet you seem to think that no-one will make that leap if they ride on bikepaths or bikelanes, as if they'll never ever ride on a regular road, or observe and learn from their experiences. I prefer to credit people with enough intelligence to figure that out by themselves, something that you, in your great arrogance, seem unable or unwilling to do.



No, John, I don't. As I've said many times, I advocate riding legally, safely and predictably, (or vehicularly if you want to phrase it that way). The only difference between me and you is that I think that it is quite possible to ride that way on bikelanes and paths.

The fixation on 'childish cycling' says more about your own prejudices than it says anything about me or what I stand for.



:rolleyes: Whatever gets you through the night, little man.

You make the following claim: "The only difference between me and you is that I think that it is quite possible to ride that way on bikelanes and paths." I think that you haven't learned much from the previous and ongoing discussion. When riding in a city with a bike-lane system, the vehicular cyclist will sometimes be using bike lanes and at other times, even when on a street with bike lanes, he will be riding outside the bike lane. If that is what you mean, you and I agree, but that is not the apparent meaning of your phrasing. As for riding in the vehicular manner on paths, that's impossible because the other path traffic does not operate in the vehicular manner. One can operate in the vehicular manner only when that manner is the normative manner for that facility.

You discuss the subject of the willingness to learn vehicular cycling, asserting that people have it though I believe the contrary. Yet you are the person who accused me, a few posts ago, for not carrying out my responsibility for getting all cyclists to learn vehicular cycling. Let me point out that Professor Pucher, the lead author of the paper we are discussing, has stated that he is firm in his belief that vehicular cycling requires the far extremes of human variation in courage and strength. With such people making such statements, it is no wonder that the typical person believes that nonsense, and, therefore, is disinclined to learn vehicular cycling, rather in the same way that only a minority of persons pursue technical rock climbing.

You assume that having a driver's license makes a lot of difference: "The fact is that most adults that take to a bike also have a drivers license, and understand the rules of the road. It's not a great leap of logic to figure out that they apply to cycling as much as motoring, and yet you seem to think that no-one will make that leap if they ride on bikepaths or bikelanes, as if they'll never ever ride on a regular road, or observe and learn from their experiences. I prefer to credit people with enough intelligence to figure that out by themselves, something that you, in your great arrogance, seem unable or unwilling to do."

This is just plain false, as shown by public opinions as expressed time after time. Americans have grown up being conditioned to believe that cyclists ought to operate in a different way from motorists. That conditioning is inculcated through fear of death, and it is that fear that enables the bikeway program to continue. However, I have stated my estimates of the time and experience required for adults to learn vehicular cycling. Approximately, when I first made these estimates before the bikeway era, these times ran from 2 months when given instruction, 1 year and 3,000 miles when cycling with a club that uses vehicular cycling, 3 years and 10,000 miles when learning from personal experience. When I was running the qualification and selection process for Effective Cycling Instructors, I had considerable experience in making such evaluations. I suspect that nowadays the time for personal experience would be longer, because of the greater adverse effect of bikeway propaganda. I certainly have seen, in my accident investigation practice, a large number of accidents occurring to cyclists with many miles of modern experience who have not learned as fast as I think they did before the days of bikeways, supported tours, and charity rides.

Your own argument today has the same defects that it had several posts ago. You assume that bike lanes make cycling sufficiently safer to justify encouraging beginners to take to cycling with only the bike-safety rules they had acquired as children. There is no evidence that bike lanes reduce the accident rate; none has been found despite decades of trying.

You know the funny thing about Forester's "childish cycling" comment is indeed how many of us seek to feel youthful. Is not the desire to "hold off" old age one of the redeeming qualities of cycling about.

Is there really anything terribly wrong with seeking to enjoy cycling as a "childish endeavor?"

Is this not the essence of cycling... in a childish manner:

http://webs.lanset.com/aeolusaero/images/Einstein_on_bicycle-web.jpg

And speaking of adults on bicycles "acting in a childish manner," may I also offer this comment: When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. ~H.G. Wells

Perhaps Forester needs to consider exactly what it is that his preferred cyclist, "the elite speedster" is in fact seeking if not a return to a sense of joy that children feel.

May I go on to suggest that if the antithesis of vehicular cycling is "childish cycling..." may I enjoy cycling forever... in a childish manner. :D

While you have quoted H. G. Wells, you have not also stated that he was an adult cyclist when adult cycling was the fastest means of road travel, when cyclists were Kings of the Road, and that he was the author of the only cycling novel written by a major author.

The problem with cycling in the childlike manner is that it cannot be both safe and fast and useful in the typical modern decentralized city. Because it violates the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles (which is the essence of vehicular cycling), if done at normal cycling speed it is dangerous, while if adjusted to reduce the accident rate it involves slow speeds and more delays.

You make the following claim: "The only difference between me and you is that I think that it is quite possible to ride that way on bikelanes and paths." I think that you haven't learned much from the previous and ongoing discussion. When riding in a city with a bike-lane system, the vehicular cyclist will sometimes be using bike lanes and at other times, even when on a street with bike lanes, he will be riding outside the bike lane. If that is what you mean, you and I agree, but that is not the apparent meaning of your phrasing.

What I mean is that a bicycle is a vehicle, with distinct differences to motor vehicles. Riding a bicycle vehicularly is a distinctly different thing than driving a motor vehicle. True, when using the same space as motor vehicles, it is to the cyclists advantage to blend in as much as possible, but on separated paths, it's a different thing - a little bit less rigid perhaps, but no less vehicular. If you think that the only way to ride 'vehicularly' is to emulate as closely as possible how motor vehicles are operated, you're never going to see the full spectrum of what truly using a bicycle as a vehicle is.

As for riding in the vehicular manner on paths, that's impossible because the other path traffic does not operate in the vehicular manner. One can operate in the vehicular manner only when that manner is the normative manner for that facility.

Bull. If you're waiting for everyone else to follow the rules before riding vehicularly is possible, you're gonna be waiting a long time.

You discuss the subject of the willingness to learn vehicular cycling, asserting that people have it though I believe the contrary. Yet you are the person who accused me, a few posts ago, for not carrying out my responsibility for getting all cyclists to learn vehicular cycling. Let me point out that Professor Pucher, the lead author of the paper we are discussing, has stated that he is firm in his belief that vehicular cycling requires the far extremes of human variation in courage and strength. With such people making such statements, it is no wonder that the typical person believes that nonsense, and, therefore, is disinclined to learn vehicular cycling, rather in the same way that only a minority of persons pursue technical rock climbing.

Well, when the contrasting view is coming from argumentative, arrogant grouches like yourself, who do you think they are more likely to believe?

" I prefer to credit people with enough intelligence to figure that out by themselves, something that you, in your great arrogance, seem unable or unwilling to do."

This is just plain false, as shown by public opinions as expressed time after time. Americans have grown up being conditioned to believe that cyclists ought to operate in a different way from motorists.

If you're saying that you think Americans are stupid, who am I to argue?

Approximately, when I first made these estimates before the bikeway era, these times ran from 2 months when given instruction, 1 year and 3,000 miles when cycling with a club that uses vehicular cycling, 3 years and 10,000 miles when learning from personal experience.

Are those figures taken from a comprehensive study of the ether, or do you have some actual science to back them up? Or don't you hold yourself to the same standard that you expect of Pucher?

Your own argument today has the same defects that it had several posts ago. You assume that bike lanes make cycling sufficiently safer to justify encouraging beginners to take to cycling with only the bike-safety rules they had acquired as children. There is no evidence that bike lanes reduce the accident rate; none has been found despite decades of trying.

Isn't that exactly what the study that prompted this thread is saying?

It's pretty obvious that you have nothing to offer cycling advocacy besides prejudice and arrogance and a refusal to accept that not everyone wants to, nor should they be required to take on heavy city traffic if they just want to fit cycling into their daily lives.

By their fruits shall ye know them John, and the results in Europe of deliberately creating an environment more suited to bicycling, rather than your idea of letting autocentricity run rampant and cyclists having to fit in speaks greater volumes than any amount of claims you make about the alleged benefits of vehicular cycling. American cities chose not to go that same route, and continue to do so, and idiots like yourself actively working against it in the name of cycling advocacy is in no way helping. It's not a choice they were forced to take, and it still isn't. Your defeatist attitude is truly pathetic, and no good for cyclists can come from it other than at the very micro level of helping a minority of individual cyclists that do decide to actually ride no matter how crappy the roads are for cycling. If that's all you want to achieve, that's fine, but don't kid yourself that your 'ideas' are ever going to achieve a rate of bicycle use like they enjoy in Europe, or that the European way is more flawed than yours. It flies in the face of all evidence, whether you chose to see it or not.

The problem with cycling in the childlike manner is that it cannot be both safe and fast and useful in the typical modern decentralized city. Because it violates the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles (which is the essence of vehicular cycling), if done at normal cycling speed it is dangerous, while if adjusted to reduce the accident rate it involves slow speeds and more delays.

Nice switch to using 'childlike' there. :rolleyes:

One of the joys of cycling is taking a more leisurely attitude to life. What's your damn hurry? You sound more like your typical impatient motorist than a cyclist. 'Normal' cycling speed is whatever speed people want to ride. There's nothing to say that riding at 15km/h is any less valid, or any less 'vehicular' than riding at 35km/h. Don't you yourself claim that VC 'works' no matter what speed one rides at? Are you saying something else now?

What I mean is that a bicycle is a vehicle, with distinct differences to motor vehicles. Riding a bicycle vehicularly is a distinctly different thing than driving a motor vehicle. True, when using the same space as motor vehicles, it is to the cyclists advantage to blend in as much as possible, but on separated paths, it's a different thing - a little bit less rigid perhaps, but no less vehicular. If you think that the only way to ride 'vehicularly' is to emulate as closely as possible how motor vehicles are operated, you're never going to see the full spectrum of what truly using a bicycle as a vehicle is.



Bull. If you're waiting for everyone else to follow the rules before riding vehicularly is possible, you're gonna be waiting a long time.



Well, when the contrasting view is coming from argumentative, arrogant grouches like yourself, who do you think they are more likely to believe?



If you're saying that you think Americans are stupid, who am I to argue?



Are those figures taken from a comprehensive study of your own rectum, or do you have some actual science to back them up? Or don't you hold yourself to the same standard that you expect of Pucher?



Isn't that exactly what the study that prompted this thread is saying? Of course you're not going to find them with your head so firmly planted up your arse.

It's pretty obvious that you have nothing to offer cycling advocacy besides prejudice and arrogance and a refusal to accept that not everyone wants to, nor should they be required to take on heavy city traffic if they just want to fit cycling into their daily lives.

By their fruits shall ye know them John, and the results in Europe of deliberately creating an environment more suited to bicycling, rather than your idea of letting autocentricity run rampant and cyclists having to fit in speaks greater volumes than any amount of claims you make about the alleged benefits of vehicular cycling. American cities chose not to go that same route, and continue to do so, and idiots like yourself actively working against it in the name of cycling advocacy is in no way helping. It's not a choice they were forced to take, and it still isn't. Your defeatist attitude is truly pathetic, and no good for cyclists can come from it other than at the very micro level of helping a minority of individual cyclists that do decide to actually ride no matter how ****ty the roads are for cycling. If that's all you want to achieve, that's fine, but don't kid yourself that your 'ideas' are ever going to achieve a rate of bicycle use like they enjoy in Europe, or that the European way is more flawed than yours. It flies in the face of all evidence, whether you chose to see it or not.

Allister, your definition of vehicular cycling is not the definition that has been accepted for years, nor in accordance with my usage, for I invented the term. Vehicular cycling is riding according to the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles. You can write all you like about some other kind of cycling, but don't confuse your kind with vehicular cycling.

I'm going to have to wait a long time before it is possible, you write? The word I used was normative; vehicular operation is the normative way to operate on the roadway, and it is done with sufficient accuracy that vehicular operation is possible for all users.

You say that my ideas will never produce in the USA the bicycling modal share typical of parts of Europe. Well, those with Pucher's ideas have had thirty years to achieve something similar in the USA, and they have failed. The reasons that cause people to cycle in those parts of Europe are not the reasons that cause Americans to cycle, because conditions are so different. As I have pointed out many times, the conditions are so different that only some catastrophic remake of American cities would copy the conditions in Europe. The probability of that occurring in the lifetimes of most of us is practically zero.


You argue: "It's pretty obvious that you have nothing to offer cycling advocacy besides prejudice and arrogance and a refusal to accept that not everyone wants to, nor should they be required to take on heavy city traffic if they just want to fit cycling into their daily lives." The plain fact is that, for most Americans, now or in the foreseeable future, if you want to use bicycle transportation to any significant extent, you have to "take on heavy city traffic".

Nice switch to using 'childlike' there. :rolleyes:

One of the joys of cycling is taking a more leisurely attitude to life. What's your damn hurry? You sound more like your typical impatient motorist than a cyclist. 'Normal' cycling speed is whatever speed people want to ride. There's nothing to say that riding at 15km/h is any less valid, or any less 'vehicular' than riding at 35km/h. Don't you yourself claim that VC 'works' no matter what speed one rides at? Are you saying something else now?

You are a fool, thinking that childish cycling means something different than childlike cycling.

Certainly, vehicular cycling can work at slow cycling speeds, just as it works at high cycling speeds. However, there is value in higher speed cycling with fewer delays, because the highest cost in many travel situations is the time value of the traveler. A cyclist who can travel fast, for whatever reason, has more opportunities to use bicycle transportation than one who is artificially slowed by special bicycle facilities.

I have stated my estimates of the time and experience required for adults to learn vehicular cycling. Approximately, when I first made these estimates before the bikeway era, these times ran from 2 months when given instruction, 1 year and 3,000 miles when cycling with a club that uses vehicular cycling, 3 years and 10,000 miles when learning from personal experience. When I was running the qualification and selection process for Effective Cycling Instructors, I had considerable experience in making such evaluations. I suspect that nowadays the time for personal experience would be longer, because of the greater adverse effect of bikeway propaganda. I certainly have seen, in my accident investigation practice, a large number of accidents occurring to cyclists with many miles of modern experience who have not learned as fast as I think they did before the days of bikeways, supported tours, and charity rides.
Short response: Who but John Forester believes these "estimates" and "evaluations" on time and experience to learn proper or safe cycling are anything but WAGs made without a shred of measured evidence, and not worth a hill of beans?

Who but John Forester would make such WAGs with a straight face and expect an intelligent person to accept them at face value?

You are a fool, thinking that childish cycling means something different than childlike cycling.
A cyclist who can travel fast, for whatever reason, has more opportunities to use bicycle transportation than one who is artificially slowed by special bicycle facilities.

'Fast' is relative to the situation.
All the cars I pass on Rt. 1 in West Palm stopped at bridge openings or any of the
100,00000,0000000 stoplites using the bike lanes/ sidewalks are not a figment of my imagination,
I can assure you.

A cyclist that uses common sense has more opportunities available to them and is more
efficient than one who is saddled with the 1000000 lb gorilla of 'expert advice'

However, I have stated my estimates of the time and experience required for adults to learn vehicular cycling. Approximately, when I first made these estimates before the bikeway era, these times ran from 2 months when given instruction, 1 year and 3,000 miles when cycling with a club that uses vehicular cycling, 3 years and 10,000 miles when learning from personal experience. When I was running the qualification and selection process for Effective Cycling Instructors, I had considerable experience in making such evaluations. I suspect that nowadays the time for personal experience would be longer, because of the greater adverse effect of bikeway propaganda. I certainly have seen, in my accident investigation practice, a large number of accidents occurring to cyclists with many miles of modern experience who have not learned as fast as I think they did before the days of bikeways, supported tours, and charity rides.



According to your specifications, I should be a fully qualified Vehicular Cyclist... having well over 30 years experience, 10s of thousands of miles of cycling, including thousands of miles of unsupported solo touring in both the US and Mexico. I have lived without a car for over 7 years, using a bicycle as my only means of transit here in San Diego. Some of my cycling experience was gained before bike lanes were common, and some of my experience was also gained by riding with clubs. I have also taken both Road 1 and Road 2 classes from LAB. Now I post all this to say that I believe I am fully qualified as a vehicular cyclist.

Having established my qualifications... I wish to address your comment below:

The problem with cycling in the childlike manner is that it cannot be both safe and fast and useful in the typical modern decentralized city. Because it violates the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles (which is the essence of vehicular cycling), if done at normal cycling speed it is dangerous, while if adjusted to reduce the accident rate it involves slow speeds and more delays.

So while you have determined that riding a bike at slow speeds causes delays, you find it quite acceptable for a cyclist to ride in a manner that causes delays for motorists... Why are delays acceptable for a motorist, yet not acceptable for a cyclist?

Define "normal cycling speeds." My wife rides at about 8-10MPH typically, and she is quite comfortable at those speeds, that is her "normal cycling speed." What is your "normal cycling speed" these days, sir?

My experience in Oulu tells me that 8-10MPH worked quite well in the city... and was quite acceptable for cyclists of all ages who were undertaking all sorts of typical tasks from exercise, to grocery shopping. And this was in a city that has over 30% cyclist ride share. I found that I was able to be useful and safe at those speeds. I have not been to Amsterdam nor Germany, but I suspect similar conditions exist there regarding the speeds of typical cyclist young and old.

My experience also tells me that the normal cycling speeds of even 8-12MPH may not be acceptable to motorists who desire to travel at speeds of over 30MPH. And these normal cycling speeds would be highly unacceptable to your ADC friends who have somehow determined that motor vehicles are most efficient at speeds upwards of 50MPH.

So John, how do you align Vehicular Cycling, normal cycling speeds, narrow roadways typical of older cities and older areas of any city, and "unacceptable delays" to motorists typical of the ADC?

I've read Forester making such unsupported statements about the speed of slower European cyclists and/or his acolytes repeating Forester's claims. I haven't read anybody who determined that "fast" recreational cyclists or "faster" transportational cyclists make up the principal slice or even a significant slice of the city cyclists or commuters in the U.S.

I guess you are writing that you have no evidence to the contrary.

We both seem to agree that cycling data and evidence is thin. But there are a lot of anecdotal stories that correspond with a 4-8 mph traveling speed. Moreover, there seem to be travel agencies and other tourist oriented "groups" that give figures in that range as well. I also think that one can make inferences from the type of bikes ridden regarding velocity.

And I find it hard to believe that club cyclists and fast recreational enthusiasts make up a significant slice of transportational cyclists in the U.S, especially in cities.

You should find it hard to believe. Who said that it was?

Nor do I exclude youth and everybody who is not a recreational enthusiast from one population when convenient to exaggerate the difference between the alleged "average" speeds of European cyclists with the U.S. "average man" made up of carefully selected group of mostly suburban based recreational cyclists.

I was writing about the differences. Off the top of my head, I did not see many differences between a Copenhagen 10-year-old and an US 10-year-old. So why obfuscate the real issue?

Of course, you may want to focus on how the age distribution of miles ridden differs between the two areas such that the difference in the injury rates per distance is just due to a higher proportion of US cycle km being ridden by children. Children getting into accidents would also lead to different mechanism for reporting an accident/visiting to a medical professional.

An average is just a statistic of the overall distribution. When I look at my post, I don't see my conversation based on the average person in Europe nor in the US. I use the average "European" velocity and the paper's discussion about irresistible cycling to paint a picture of that distribution. Moreover, I am trying to get at who reports accidents and then relate it to how Pucher reports these statistics based on the entire population/km cycled.

So you agree that more severe accidents are more likely to be reported?

Make up your mind. Are you talking about cycle commuting or recreational cycling? What is being compared with what?

Oh come on ... let us pretend you do not live in a bubble. You must be taking lessons from HH on how to argue minutiae.

I recall you asked something along the lines of, "on what do I make the inference that a lot of US cycling mileage is fast recreational cycling?" While this doesn't get at the "fast" part, if we know that there is little commuting going on we might think that the miles are being done while doing something else. Moreover, I think that people that cycle commute are probably more likely to conduct other utilitarian cycling activities. The subject matter of this thread quotes statistics about the small percentage of trips that are for utilitarian or commuting purposes in the US relative to the European countries in comparison.

I suspect that the speed of the cyclist is a relatively minor factor in most serious severity/fatal motor vehicle-bicycle collisions compared to the speed of the motor vehicle. Reduction of exposure probability to conflict/collisions with motor vehicles is an even bigger consideration. If I were to choose a cycling environment less likely for motor vehicle collisions and severe injuries I would choose riding in large highly visible groups on lightly traveled US suburban roads on the weekend in good weather and daylight, rather than as solitary cyclists in heavy rush hour traffic in less than ideal weather or visibility. The speed of such cyclists is irrelevant.

Although some of the DOT stuff I mentioned earlier concludes that ~90% of hospital emergency room cycling injuries are not motor vehicle related. Note that they also conclude that ~90% of fatalities are motor vehicle related.

Essentially, I am trying to get at why this comparison of injury rates relative to mortality rates across counties is noisy and the authors statements regarding those differences may not reflect anything about facilities and so on.

Although some of the DOT stuff I mentioned earlier concludes that ~90% of hospital emergency room cycling injuries are not motor vehicle related. Note that they also conclude that ~90% of fatalities are motor vehicle related.
No surprise. Raw data on total number of emergency room visits provides almost no information about severity of injuries. Fatalities are another story.