Rutgers paper on promoting cycling...

[I-Like-To-Bike]

I guess you are writing that you have no evidence to the contrary.
You guess? I guess you think that skeptics must provide negative evidence to prove your unsupported guesswork actually is unsupported guesswork..

[John Forester]

I, John Forester, wrote the following:
"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."

To which genec replied:



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?

You claim that I wrote that I "have determined that riding a bike at slow speeds causes delays." I did not write that at all. If we are to refer to causation, then my statement would be: cycling in the childish manner causes low speeds and more delays. Hence the rest of your diatribe is irrelevant and inaccurate. Talk about being obsessed by motoring, you take the cake.

Normal cycling speeds? For myself, 6 mph on the climbs, 30 mph on the descents, in the local area.

Normal commuting cycling speeds? I measured the speed of all the cyclists who entered Ames Aeronautical Laboratory at the start of shift of a normal work day. The location was an arterial street with bike lane, substantially level, and at a time without wind. The average speed was 16 mph, the 85% speed was 18 mph, the range of speeds was 12 mph to 22 mph.

[I-Like-To-Bike]

Normal commuting cycling speeds? I measured the speed of all the cyclists who entered Ames Aeronautical Laboratory at the start of shift of a normal work day. The location was an arterial street with bike lane, substantially level, and at a time without wind. The average speed was 16 mph, the 85% speed was 18 mph, the range of speeds was 12 mph to 22 mph.

Ooh, Ooh, A science lab! That must make this infinitesimally tiny bit of data - scientific evidence of the "normal commuting speeds" everywhere that real cyclists ride, eh?:rolleyes:

Actually this "measurement and conclusion" is a good representation of John Forester Brand "random sampling" technique. Pick a slice of the population that you know will deliver the desired results, no matter how unrepresentative, then draw the predetermined conclusion from the results. Perfect!

[John Forester]

snips


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 bicycle commutes typically had considerable hills. However, there was one run that I made for some years that was nearly flat, home in Sunnyvale to place of employment in Menlo Park. My topo map gives 11.5 miles (that checks with my memory of my cyclometer readings), total climb 160 feet, total descent 140 feet, ridden at normal rush hours. On the occasions that I broke 45 minutes I congratulated myself. That is an average of 15.3 mph.

[genec]

I, John Forester, wrote the following:
"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."

To which genec replied:



You claim that I wrote that I "have determined that riding a bike at slow speeds causes delays." I did not write that at all. If we are to refer to causation, then my statement would be: cycling in the childish manner causes low speeds and more delays. Hence the rest of your diatribe is irrelevant and inaccurate. Talk about being obsessed by motoring, you take the cake.

Normal cycling speeds? For myself, 6 mph on the climbs, 30 mph on the descents, in the local area.

Normal commuting cycling speeds? I measured the speed of all the cyclists who entered Ames Aeronautical Laboratory at the start of shift of a normal work day. The location was an arterial street with bike lane, substantially level, and at a time without wind. The average speed was 16 mph, the 85% speed was 18 mph, the range of speeds was 12 mph to 22 mph.

So John Forester... you still have not addressed my question... as even at the "breakneck" speed of 22MPH as you list above, cyclists will still cause delays for motorists on narrow roads.

So while you find delays for cyclists apparently unacceptable (by denying that cyclists may adjust speed to reduce the accident rate) you don't expect motorists to also find delays unacceptable.... especially in light of your ADC friends that have determined 50MPH to be their optimal speed.

So you still have not addressed my question of: "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?"

[John Forester]

So John Forester... you still have not addressed my question... as even at the "breakneck" speed of 22MPH as you list above, cyclists will still cause delays for motorists on narrow roads.

So while you find delays for cyclists apparently unacceptable (by denying that cyclists may adjust speed to reduce the accident rate) you don't expect motorists to also find delays unacceptable.... especially in light of your ADC friends that have determined 50MPH to be their optimal speed.

So you still have not addressed my question of: "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?"

So what? When there is slow traffic on congested roads, traffic flows slowly. That's the way it is, and has to be, until society decides the increase the road capacity.

I have never denied "that cyclists may adjust speed to reduce accident rate." You don't seem to understand English. I have always maintained that cyclists should not be required to use facilities that are so dangerous that they must reduce speed and incur more delays, as is true for much of what Pucher recommends in his papers at issue, when it would be equally possible to produce facilities, or allow the use of facilities, such as normal roads, on which cycling speeds up to that normally attainable are reasonably safe.

So, you claim that some motorists have decided that 50 mph is their optimal speed. So what? By the way, I have never seen that claim actually made, and I rather doubt that any reasonable person would make that claim. But I have done a great deal of cycling on roads with speed limits of 45, 55, and 65 mph, and I see no reason to deny the utility of such roads, for both motorists and cyclists.

You still insist on learning my view of certain things that you phrase as: "So you still have not addressed my question of: "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?"

In older cities with narrow roadways, traffic usually flows slowly. That's the way it is; it doesn't require any special explanation of why that is so. Vehicular cycling is operating according to the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles; there's no difference in that principle in older cities. As for normal cycling speeds, in some of that traffic cyclists can attain higher speeds than most of the traffic flow. Well, if there is an opportunity to overtake lawfully, then use it. If you, genec, are concerned with the fact that in such conditions it is at times possible for motorists to travel faster than a cyclist can, but have no opportunity to overtake him, then, indeed the cyclist is delaying motorists. But, in general, it is easier for a motorist to overtake a cyclist than to overtake another motorist, and, in general, the situation rarely occurs. But as I have said, if the physical conditions of the city are such that roads have to be that narrow, then all travelers must accept the necessary result.

And now you bring in your obsession with "unacceptable delays to motorists typical of the ADC". It is a rather common view, not only among the ADC but others as well, that as motoring congestion increases, it reaches a point where increasing proportions of motorists take their business elsewhere, to less congested areas, if that is practical. That is, after all, one of the reasons for the move of many businesses from downtown to the suburbs. It is relatively easy to find a suburban source of home improvement goods; it is impossible to present a case to the Supreme Court of the US in any place but its own courthouse in Washington.

[genec]

So what? When there is slow traffic on congested roads, traffic flows slowly. That's the way it is, and has to be, until society decides the increase the road capacity.

I have never denied "that cyclists may adjust speed to reduce accident rate." You don't seem to understand English. I have always maintained that cyclists should not be required to use facilities that are so dangerous that they must reduce speed and incur more delays, as is true for much of what Pucher recommends in his papers at issue, when it would be equally possible to produce facilities, or allow the use of facilities, such as normal roads, on which cycling speeds up to that normally attainable are reasonably safe.

So, you claim that some motorists have decided that 50 mph is their optimal speed. So what? By the way, I have never seen that claim actually made, and I rather doubt that any reasonable person would make that claim. But I have done a great deal of cycling on roads with speed limits of 45, 55, and 65 mph, and I see no reason to deny the utility of such roads, for both motorists and cyclists.

You still insist on learning my view of certain things that you phrase as: "So you still have not addressed my question of: "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?"

In older cities with narrow roadways, traffic usually flows slowly. That's the way it is; it doesn't require any special explanation of why that is so. Vehicular cycling is operating according to the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles; there's no difference in that principle in older cities. As for normal cycling speeds, in some of that traffic cyclists can attain higher speeds than most of the traffic flow. Well, if there is an opportunity to overtake lawfully, then use it. If you, genec, are concerned with the fact that in such conditions it is at times possible for motorists to travel faster than a cyclist can, but have no opportunity to overtake him, then, indeed the cyclist is delaying motorists. But, in general, it is easier for a motorist to overtake a cyclist than to overtake another motorist, and, in general, the situation rarely occurs. But as I have said, if the physical conditions of the city are such that roads have to be that narrow, then all travelers must accept the necessary result.

And now you bring in your obsession with "unacceptable delays to motorists typical of the ADC". It is a rather common view, not only among the ADC but others as well, that as motoring congestion increases, it reaches a point where increasing proportions of motorists take their business elsewhere, to less congested areas, if that is practical. That is, after all, one of the reasons for the move of many businesses from downtown to the suburbs. It is relatively easy to find a suburban source of home improvement goods; it is impossible to present a case to the Supreme Court of the US in any place but its own courthouse in Washington.

John first and foremost lets get the ADC discussion out of the way... They are the ones that insist on the 50+MPH roads... or perhaps you have not read the position papers of an organization for which you are a member of the speakers board. You really should... as your association with ADC implies support for their thinking.

Now onto the issue of delays. It is interesting that you say that traffic is delayed by congestion and that motorists should accept that situation as that is the way it is.

Yet you refuse to use the very same thinking about cyclists. While motorists must reduce their speed for reasons of safety (namely you do not drive at full speed into slowed traffic) you insist that cyclists apparently do not have the same ability or need to make the same choice.

You state emphatically: "I have always maintained that cyclists should not be required to use facilities that are so dangerous that they must reduce speed and incur more delays," and yet this is exactly what motorists must do when in the presence of lane sharing cyclists. There is a very determined hypocrisy in your thinking.

This next statement, slightly adapted from yours above, conveys exactly the same conditions that may apply to cyclists: If you, John Forester are concerned with the fact that in such conditions it is at times possible for cyclist to travel faster than a pedestrian can, but have no opportunity to overtake him, then, indeed the pedestrian is delaying cyclists. But, in general, it is easier for a cyclist to overtake a pedestrian than to overtake another cyclist, and, in general, the situation rarely occurs. But as I have said, if the physical conditions of the city are such that paths have to be that narrow, then all travelers must accept the necessary result. See the same conditions apply to cyclists... yet you somehow find that a dangerous situation.

If motorists must slow down for the safety of cyclists, why cannot cyclists slow down for the safety of pedestrians? This whole premise makes paths work quite well.

It is only your meaningless insistence that cycling must take place at some undeclared "normal speed" and without delays that makes paths "dangerous." That same insistence by motorists also renders Vehicular Cycling "dangerous."

[John Forester]

John first and foremost lets get the ADC discussion out of the way... They are the ones that insist on the 50+MPH roads... or perhaps you have not read the position papers of an organization for which you are a member of the speakers board. You really should... as your association with ADC implies support for their thinking.

Now onto the issue of delays. It is interesting that you say that traffic is delayed by congestion and that motorists should accept that situation as that is the way it is.

Yet you refuse to use the very same thinking about cyclists. While motorists must reduce their speed for reasons of safety (namely you do not drive at full speed into slowed traffic) you insist that cyclists apparently do not have the same ability or need to make the same choice.

You state emphatically: "I have always maintained that cyclists should not be required to use facilities that are so dangerous that they must reduce speed and incur more delays," and yet this is exactly what motorists must do when in the presence of lane sharing cyclists. There is a very determined hypocrisy in your thinking.

This next statement, slightly adapted from yours above, conveys exactly the same conditions that may apply to cyclists: If you, John Forester are concerned with the fact that in such conditions it is at times possible for cyclist to travel faster than a pedestrian can, but have no opportunity to overtake him, then, indeed the pedestrian is delaying cyclists. But, in general, it is easier for a cyclist to overtake a pedestrian than to overtake another cyclist, and, in general, the situation rarely occurs. But as I have said, if the physical conditions of the city are such that paths have to be that narrow, then all travelers must accept the necessary result. See the same conditions apply to cyclists... yet you somehow find that a dangerous situation.

If motorists must slow down for the safety of cyclists, why cannot cyclists slow down for the safety of pedestrians? This whole premise makes paths work quite well.

It is only your meaningless insistence that cycling must take place at some undeclared "normal speed" and without delays that makes paths "dangerous." That same insistence by motorists also renders Vehicular Cycling "dangerous."

Your argument is really no more than foolish semantics, for two reasons: because the conditions on road and on paths are entirely different, and because, in most urban situations, the limit on space for paths and roads is the sum of both. Is it better to spend limited width on a road with a side path, or on a road?

Motorists who travel at their normal speeds, usually as set by the speed limit, do not endanger cyclists operating in the vehicular manner; both cooperate. It is only under the particular conditions of narrow, congested roads that you make your subject that motorists cannot travel at their normal speeds. As I have written before, so what? That is as it is, and as it has to be, under those conditions.

Conditions on roads and paths are very different. Drivers on roads operate according to the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles, while, at least on paths as I have know them and of them, those rules do not apply and, in America at least, there are, in effect, no rules at all. It is usually inadvisable for a cyclist to choose to operate in a location in which he is not protected by the rules of the road. However, he may choose to do so, but he should never be required to do so. That is my objection.

[genec]

Your argument is really no more than foolish semantics, for two reasons: because the conditions on road and on paths are entirely different, and because, in most urban situations, the limit on space for paths and roads is the sum of both. Is it better to spend limited width on a road with a side path, or on a road?

Motorists who travel at their normal speeds, usually as set by the speed limit, do not endanger cyclists operating in the vehicular manner; both cooperate. It is only under the particular conditions of narrow, congested roads that you make your subject that motorists cannot travel at their normal speeds. As I have written before, so what? That is as it is, and as it has to be, under those conditions.

Conditions on roads and paths are very different. Drivers on roads operate according to the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles, while, at least on paths as I have know them and of them, those rules do not apply and, in America at least, there are, in effect, no rules at all. It is usually inadvisable for a cyclist to choose to operate in a location in which he is not protected by the rules of the road. However, he may choose to do so, but he should never be required to do so. That is my objection.

And sir your argument is full of your meaningless conditional statements and shows your narrow vision.

The first question: Is it better to spend limited width on a road with a side path, or on a road?

Well if you wish to reduce the large waistlines of the people of a country, reduce the use of limited fossil fuels, and reduce congestion of the hiways... then perhaps a strong devotion to cycling is the answer, and to do that, sidepaths and separated bikeways seem to be better at helping to achieve those end results than vehicular cycling alone... the latter which doesn't seem to encourage cycling at all.

To your second paragraph... I say the same thing regarding cyclists using paths that may also have pedestrians upon them... if such paths are so congested as to limit the cyclist to travel at "normal speed" then "so what." The cyclist only has to simply slow down, then the paths which you seem to detest so much, are indeed quite serviceable to that cyclist.

And to your third paragraph, you play the semantic trick yourself of using the conditional modifier of "while, at least on paths as I have know them and of them" while referring to rules of paths. Yet the paths I have used have posted rules, and the paths of Oulu functioned quite well with the "rules of the road." So I suggest that your narrow sighted focus on some paths which you have endeavored to use, in disregard to the path rules, and perhaps in excess of the safe speeds for the conditions, has biased you to maintain the illusion that vehicular cycling is superior to a system of bikeways and facilities which are quite suited for the transportational needs of a fair segment of a population as reported by the Rutgers paper.

[invisiblehand]

My apologies for a delay in response.

No surprise. Raw data on total number of emergency room visits provides almost no information about severity of injuries. Fatalities are another story.

Sure. But the paper compared non-fatal injuries from one country to another and used that to make conclusions about safety.

However, since I first wrote that, I noticed that Pucher gets his US statistic on injuries only from those resulting from motor vehicle accidents. He only states that the collection procedures and standards differ across countries, so I don't know what to make out of his comparison.

[Bekologist]

the comparision that can be made, invisiblehand, is glaringly apparant in the Rutgers report:

countries that value and promote bicycling as part and parcel of social and transportation planning encourage much higher rates of bicycling as well as much safer miles bicycled than countries like the US and the UK that have negligently (my intrepretation) shoehorned bicycles onto autocentric public rights of way.

There's no need for discussion or debate; the results are glaringly apparant.

Anyone that can read about societial influences on bicycling - without prejudicial, emotionally dishonest and just plain incorrect notions like jhon f- can see the results, plain as day, in the rutgers report.

[invisiblehand]

You guess? I guess you think that skeptics must provide negative evidence to prove your unsupported guesswork actually is unsupported guesswork..

I applaud skepticism.

But if you have no reason to think otherwise, I don't understand your objection when I model some descriptive data and anecdotes to create a reasonable hypothesis--i.e. supported guesswork--during a discussion of a paper full of wild extrapolations based on flawed data. Particularly in view of your complaints of Forester's descriptive statistics and conclusions. It appears to me that Pucher makes conclusions based on many statistical leaps without the proper caveats with little complaint from you.

And just to remind everyone what your complaint is based on, when I write "roughly gather" it should be obvious that there is a lot of uncertainty in the statement. Do you agree?

=-=-=-=-=-=-=

The other day, I saw that there were other comments; but I have been caught up in the holiday madness here. I will go back and look for them and respond if appropriate. I have been unable to keep up with Gene, Allister, and John's conversation. It seems like the pace is slowing ... perhaps I can catch up.

-G

[invisiblehand]

There's no need for discussion or debate; the results are glaringly apparant.

That is just plain ridiculous. If you don't understand the statistics or your argument is based on personal experience, then just say so. Just because the paper's conclusions matches your personal objective has no bearing on whether the statistical argument is strong. If it is so apparent, you should have little trouble making your point.

By the way, you never did respond to my question.

Anyone that can read about societial influences on bicycling - without prejudicial, emotionally dishonest and just plain incorrect notions like jhon f- can see the results, plain as day, in the rutgers report.

That is not my argument. And as far as I recall, I don't remember John or anyone else writing that society--from this I gather you mean the history, mores, morals, and preferences of the population--has no influence on cycling. The question is whether Pucher accurately depicts the disparity in cycling safety across countries and the source of those differences.

[Bekologist]

what are you angry about? the rutgers paper's conclusions ARE in your face and glaringly apparant. it's in black and white. you think weakness in the statistical accident comparisions valid to dispute the entire scope of the study? :roflmao:

oh, and to the question I didn't anwser for you? about how bike accident rates are likely higher in the US versus the European countries cited in the study? Seems pretty apparant as well;

In the european countries cited in the study, the greater social concern for bicyclists' legal rights in the event of a run-in with a motorist would de facto provide more complete accident reporting data.

more complete that america's overlay of the autocentric, 'the bicyclist is at fault' & the 'you're lucky it wasn't worse' unreported infractions by many US Law enforcement agencies.

sorrry, invisiblehand, but I find the Rutgers study's conclusions indisputable-

(certainly not disputable by jhon's dishonest, decades-old diatribe against 'childish cycling') :

countries that value bicycling with social and transportational inducements have much higher rates of bicycling and lower rates of accidents than countries that perpetuate the autocentric transportation model.

[invisiblehand]

countries that value and promote bicycling as part and parcel of social and transportation planning encourage much higher rates of bicycling as well as much safer miles bicycled than countries like the US and the UK that have negligently (my intrepretation) shoehorned bicycles onto autocentric public rights of way.


Let me be clear about my complaint. I look at their longitudinal comparisons and think that there is obviously some policy effect. But there seem to be a lot of changes over time that could affect the results seen in Denmark, Netherlands, Germany, and so on.


How much of the increase in cycling is due to a relative increase in the cost of gasoline?
What are the characteristics of European cities that lend itself to cycling?
Where has population growth in the US taken place relative to in Europe? >> How would it affect the longitudinal comparisons?
How much of the safety disparity is due to data definition and collection differences?
How much of the safety disparity is due to differences in the cycling population?
How much of the safety disparity is due to engineering/facilities?
How much of the safety disparity is due to legislation?
How much of the safety disparity is due to a feedback effect of more cyclists?
... and so on.


I think that it is worthwhile to speculate and model behavior in an attempt to understand what is actually happening and how much of the European experience is transferable here. But the changes proposed have costs associated with them. I would be interested to know how the handicapped and the (extreme) elderly fare under this different model of transportation. What about families with three or more children?

Mod note: fixed formatting. You were just using the wrong slashes. :)

[invisiblehand]

what are you angry about? the rutgers paper's conclusions ARE in your face and glaringly apparant. it's in black and white. you think weakness in the statistical comparisions valid to dispute the entire scope of the study? :roflmao:

:lol:

No anger here ... and part of my own preferences would like aspects of the study to be true and applicable in the US ... but you simply stating that something is valid is telling.

[Bekologist]

Anecdotally, invisiblehand, I know a lot of old people with bicycles and without cars around Seattle that would like greater accomodations for their transportation needs than an autocentric SOV policy.

So, broad strokes from the rutgers study don't provide enough conclusions? seems the paper showed how Denmark, Germany and the Netherlands experienced a procipitous decline in cycling participation after WWII to the 1970's but by a series of varied changes in social and transportation policies have regained significant bicycling mode share.

the study contrasted bicycling policy and participation in the study countries, versus the US and UK's autocentric transportation policies that have provided dismal bicycling mode share.

[genec]

I applaud skepticism.

But if you have no reason to think otherwise, I don't understand your objection when I model some descriptive data and anecdotes to create a reasonable hypothesis--i.e. supported guesswork--during a discussion of a paper full of wild extrapolations based on flawed data. Particularly in view of your complaints of Forester's descriptive statistics and conclusions. It appears to me that Pucher makes conclusions based on many statistical leaps without the proper caveats with little complaint from you.


-G

Based on the fact that the paper is roughly 3/4 opinion and analysis and 1/4 of supporting charts and data along with bibliographies... I'd venture to say that the research of the Pucher paper is perhaps a bit more through than that of Effective Cycling... the latter which includes chapters based on a made up malady by the author who has no experience in the field of sociology.

BTW the paper is no longer available at the URL supplied by me in the OP.

If anyone knows of a current good URL... please post it.

[John Forester]

And sir your argument is full of your meaningless conditional statements and shows your narrow vision.

snips


And to your third paragraph, you play the semantic trick yourself of using the conditional modifier of "while, at least on paths as I have know them and of them" while referring to rules of paths. Yet the paths I have used have posted rules, and the paths of Oulu functioned quite well with the "rules of the road." So I suggest that your narrow sighted focus on some paths which you have endeavored to use, in disregard to the path rules, and perhaps in excess of the safe speeds for the conditions, has biased you to maintain the illusion that vehicular cycling is superior to a system of bikeways and facilities which are quite suited for the transportational needs of a fair segment of a population as reported by the Rutgers paper.

I see that you are trying to pass off to others your assumption that I have a rather limited experience and knowledge of bike paths, limited by those that I have chosen to ride. Well, part of my knowledge has been derived from paths that I have chosen to ride. Another part has come from paths that I have ridden because they were part of a prescribed ride route. Another part has come from paths that I have been obliged to ride in the process of investigating accidents that occurred to cyclists on them. All of these have been in the USA or Canada. Beyond that, there have been lively discussions of conditions on many different paths, which I have read and in which I have participated. Furthermore, I was a leading participant in the preparation of the safety design standards for American bike paths. And I recently put up the largest proportion of legal expenses in an accident case that attempted to correct the California courts' long ago error in erroneously applying the name "bike path" to a dirt trail used, among others, by cyclists, and thereby insisting that thereafter, as in several recent cases, all bike paths, even those built like miniature roads, had the legal standing of dirt trails and could be built or left in extremely dangerous condition without liability by the government who owned them.

You, genec, on the other hand, have posted only your experience on the bike paths of Oulu. Oulu is completely unlike any of the places discussed by Pucher in any of his papers; if there were such a place in the USA, I think I would have learned of it, and I have not.

[John Forester]

And sir your argument is full of your meaningless conditional statements and shows your narrow vision.

snips


To your second paragraph... I say the same thing regarding cyclists using paths that may also have pedestrians upon them... if such paths are so congested as to limit the cyclist to travel at "normal speed" then "so what." The cyclist only has to simply slow down, then the paths which you seem to detest so much, are indeed quite serviceable to that cyclist. .

I say that it is unethical to issue propaganda saying that bike paths are much safer than roads when the conditions of those paths are so dangerous that the safe speed is much below that which can be safely attained on roads. It is the dangers of those paths that limits the speed.

[genec]

I see that you are trying to pass off to others your assumption that I have a rather limited experience and knowledge of bike paths, limited by those that I have chosen to ride. Well, part of my knowledge has been derived from paths that I have chosen to ride. Another part has come from paths that I have ridden because they were part of a prescribed ride route. Another part has come from paths that I have been obliged to ride in the process of investigating accidents that occurred to cyclists on them. All of these have been in the USA or Canada. Beyond that, there have been lively discussions of conditions on many different paths, which I have read and in which I have participated. Furthermore, I was a leading participant in the preparation of the safety design standards for American bike paths. And I recently put up the largest proportion of legal expenses in an accident case that attempted to correct the California courts' long ago error in erroneously applying the name "bike path" to a dirt trail used, among others, by cyclists, and thereby insisting that thereafter, as in several recent cases, all bike paths, even those built like miniature roads, had the legal standing of dirt trails and could be built or left in extremely dangerous condition without liability by the government who owned them.

You, genec, on the other hand, have posted only your experience on the bike paths of Oulu. Oulu is completely unlike any of the places discussed by Pucher in any of his papers; if there were such a place in the USA, I think I would have learned of it, and I have not.

Have you been on the grade separated portions of the bike path that parallels Freeway 56 in northern San Diego? The 56 bike path is not of the same quality as that of the paths in Oulu, but the grade separation of parts of the path, coupled with the "entrance ramps" on portions of that path, make it quite superior to most other paths that I have taken... either here in San Diego, or in Fort Worth Texas, or along the Bike Centennial route I used that went through Goleta and Santa Barbra. The Rock Creek trail in Washinton DC has some nice sections, but for the most part it is a narrow MUP and typical of poor designs for bike paths. I have not, for the record, ever used the paths in Davis CA. So indeed, I have experience both on road and on path. The very wide wonderful bike lane along hiway 101 for the entire length of Oregon is also something grand that should be experienced by any cyclist looking for well designed facilities. It is a "lane" however, and not a grade separated path, but it is quite wide, at generally about 8 feet, and well signed, unlike the abysmal "bike lane" that passes for such just south of the CA/OR border.

Yes indeed I am mixing paths and lanes in the above discussion... all of which are in fact "cycling facilities."

[invisiblehand]

Anecdotally, invisiblehand, I know a lot of old people with bicycles and without cars around Seattle that would like greater accomodations for their transportation needs than an autocentric SOV policy.

So, broad strokes from the rutgers study don't provide enough conclusions? seems the paper showed how Denmark, Germany and the Netherlands experienced a procipitous decline in cycling participation after WWII to the 1970's, but by a series of varied changes in social and transportation policies, regained significant bicycling mode share?

and the US and UK's preponderance on autocentric transportation policies provide dismal bicycling mode share?

I agree that if you make cycling more accommodating that more people will cycle. And I believe that we have made choices that have dissuaded the non-enthusiast away from cycling to some societal detriment.

However, what one gets from the broad strokes is vague answers. I believe that US citizens are not prepared to make the same choices as the Danish, for instance, wholeheartedly. To allocate the resources, we as advocates need to make clear and convincing arguments for specific policies that include its effects on the non-cycling population. I do not think that the Pucher paper helps us much in that direction.

Just to finish a thought, I would head for the low-hanging fruit first.

(1) Produce secure bicycle parking facilities
(2) Garner the cooperation of local law enforcement such that everyone understands the rules and their responsibilities
(3) Increase traffic enforcement targeting aggressive driving/cycling

In my opinion, these would produce observable positive results at a reasonable cost in many suburban/urban environments.

[John Forester]

the comparision that can be made, invisiblehand, is glaringly apparant in the Rutgers report:

countries that value and promote bicycling as part and parcel of social and transportation planning encourage much higher rates of bicycling as well as much safer miles bicycled than countries like the US and the UK that have negligently (my intrepretation) shoehorned bicycles onto autocentric public rights of way.

There's no need for discussion or debate; the results are glaringly apparant.

Anyone that can read about societial influences on bicycling - without prejudicial, emotionally dishonest and just plain incorrect notions like jhon f- can see the results, plain as day, in the rutgers report.

The glaringly apparent fact is that you, Bekologist, have far too little understanding of the issues or have decided to ignore them for ideological reasons. Don't you recognize that all the places discussed by Pucher had high levels of bicycle transportation before there was any governmental effort to encourage it? Bicycle transportation, done slowly using the traditional Dutch bicycle, was used because it served the conditions of the place, where conditions is used in its broadest sense. Bicycle transportation, to the Dutch, served as an improvement over walking, and they said so, often enough.

You assume, along with many others on this forum, that transferring some Dutch practices to the USA will produce, in the USA, a modal split much more like that of the Dutch. However, the competition regarding transportational utility to cycling in the USA is motoring, not, as in The Netherlands, walking.

Have you ever heard of the progression: pedestrian city, streetcar city, automotive city? The cities discussed in Pucher's paper were built as walking cities. Most American cities had streetcar cities at their core, but have since been built as automotive cities. There is no evidence whatsoever of American automotive cities converting into either streetcar cities or walking cities, in which bicycle transportation would be more competitively useful.

The challenge to cyclists in America since the 1930s is how best to operate in the automotive society that exists, and that challenge is best met with vehicular cycling on good roads.

[invisiblehand]

Based on the fact that the paper is roughly 3/4 opinion and analysis and 1/4 of supporting charts and data along with bibliographies... I'd venture to say that the research of the Pucher paper is perhaps a bit more through than that of Effective Cycling... the latter which includes chapters based on a made up malady by the author who has no experience in the field of sociology.

BTW the paper is no longer available at the URL supplied by me in the OP.

If anyone knows of a current good URL... please post it.

http://bikeportland.org/wp-content/uploads/2007/11/pucherbuehlermakingcyclingirresistible.pdf

I never encountered the heavy bias that John discusses. But I do think that there is a general idea that cyclists are less entitled than drivers to use the road.

[Bekologist]

no john, the pucher paper reported in a decline in cycling share in the european contries cited; stunning declines in cyclist participation between WWII and the 1970's.

BY A SERIES OF SOCIAL AND TRANSPORTATIONAL INDUCEMENTS FOR BICYCLING, Denmark, the Netherlands and Germany increased bicycling mode share, jhon.

your dishonestly is amazing, jhon. addditionally, 40 percent of ALL trips in the USA are two miles or less, jhon. seems that bicycling or walking SHOULD be considered viable transportation solutions. but to motorist advocates like jhon forestor, diminishing automobile trips is anathema to progress. what a wonk.

[genec]

I say that it is unethical to issue propaganda saying that bike paths are much safer than roads when the conditions of those paths are so dangerous that the safe speed is much below that which can be safely attained on roads. It is the dangers of those paths that limits the speed.

And sir I believe it is quite unethical to issue propaganda saying that sharing the roads with motor vehicles is safe when it is the excessive speed of the motorists and their failure to recognize the rights of cyclists in many situations.

I also believe it is quite unethical to write books on cycling based on poor analysis, and false psychology.

I also believe it is quite unethical to portray yourself as a cycling expert while supporting those that may have no desire to share the roads with cyclists... namely your ADC connections... the latter which is about as deplorable as a member of PETA sitting down to a juicy steak dinner.

[genec]

I agree that if you make cycling more accommodating that more people will cycle. And I believe that we have made choices that have dissuaded the non-enthusiast away from cycling to some societal detriment.

However, what one gets from the broad strokes is vague answers. I believe that US citizens are not prepared to make the same choices as the Danish, for instance, wholeheartedly. To allocate the resources, we as advocates need to make clear and convincing arguments for specific policies that include its effects on the non-cycling population. I do not think that the Pucher paper helps us much in that direction.

Just to finish a thought, I would head for the low-hanging fruit first.

(1) Produce secure bicycle parking facilities
(2) Garner the cooperation of local law enforcement such that everyone understands the rules and their responsibilities
(3) Increase traffic enforcement targeting aggressive driving/cycling

In my opinion, these would produce observable positive results at a reasonable cost in many suburban/urban environments.

While I applaud your advocacy... I don't believe that the above alone will produce much if any change in ridershare in the US. People that drive see the roads as dangerous (one of the many reasons that SUVs sell so well) so they are hardly going to suddenly decide that the roads are safe for cycling.

No, it's going to take much more to get the average American to switch from 4 wheels to 2 wheels. The ever rising price of gasoline will be one part of the "incentives."

[invisiblehand]

No, it's going to take much more to get the average American to switch from 4 wheels to 2 wheels. The ever rising price of gasoline will be one part of the "incentives."

True; but I don't think that getting the average American to transportation cycle is going to be easy and should not be the initial target. So I would go for the people at the edge of choosing whether to cycle or drive and then see what happens. Given the small numbers of transportation cyclists, these people at the edge will still be at the extremes of the population such that these small accommodations could drive them over the tipping point. If you think that there is safety in numbers--I thought that B Ratliff (aka Ratcliff) once gave a convincing argument--then one might be able to get something going. That is, if safety increases, more people will cycle which increases safety.

My next target would be to really think about making major thoroughfares with poor alternatives more appealing and safe for cyclists. I think that a motivating argument could be made for extreme cases. Again, targeting the average American is probably too high of a wall to climb.

BTW, did the link work for you?

[John Forester]

Have you been on the grade separated portions of the bike path that parallels Freeway 56 in northern San Diego? The 56 bike path is not of the same quality as that of the paths in Oulu, but the grade separation of parts of the path, coupled with the "entrance ramps" on portions of that path, make it quite superior to most other paths that I have taken... either here in San Diego, or in Fort Worth Texas, or along the Bike Centennial route I used that went through Goleta and Santa Barbra.

I have not traveled Calif 56 by any means, car or bicycle. However, my map, and your assertion, agree that a considerable portion is either designated freeway or built in the freeway manner with grade-separated intersections. I know of many locations in which bike paths run alongside freeways, and have ridden them. So what? In the engineering sense, it is much easier to produce a high-quality bike path alongside a freeway than it is elsewhere in urban areas. It has always been recognized that bike paths can be best engineered alongside barriers to roads, such as waterfronts, some rail routes, some freeways. That's no big discovery on your part. You argue that Oulu's example demonstrates that a similar system could be built here. The example that you present simply disconfirms your argument, by supporting the point that there are very few such locations in most urban areas.

Whether or not any particular bike path attracts traffic that operates in dangerous ways, not according to the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles, depends on other factors than its engineering quality. Generally, I say that any American bike path that develops sufficient traffic to justify its cost is likely to attract traffic that operates in dangerous ways.

[Bekologist]

and how about all the american roads that develop sufficient traffic to justify its cost also attracting motorized traffic that operates in dangerous ways, johnno?

I predict a 'so what' from jhon and his motorist-superiority complex addled mind.

[John Forester]

And sir I believe it is quite unethical to issue propaganda saying that sharing the roads with motor vehicles is safe when it is the excessive speed of the motorists and their failure to recognize the rights of cyclists in many situations.

I also believe it is quite unethical to write books on cycling based on poor analysis, and false psychology.

I also believe it is quite unethical to portray yourself as a cycling expert while supporting those that may have no desire to share the roads with cyclists... namely your ADC connections... the latter which is about as deplorable as a member of PETA sitting down to a juicy steak dinner.

I have argued, ever since the start of the bikeway program, thirty-five years ago, that vehicular cyclists are caught in the middle, between the militant motorists and the anti-motoring bikeway-advocating bicycle advocates. It is a situation in which careful choice is mandatory. The motoring establishment, long, long ago, started frightening cyclists into childish behavior in an effort to clear the way for motorists. When they had achieved the useful level of frightened belief, they invented bikeways to force the childish behavior that they had previously only encouraged, and since then they have funded the bikeway program that they believe clears the way for motorists. This is a program that is contrary to traffic-engineering knowledge and for which there never has been any supporting data, and it was developed and is operated regardless of the danger and inconvenience to cyclists.

However, while motorists acted out of self-interest and real ignorance of cycling, the other bikeway advocates are people who really believe the bikeway superstitions with ideological anti-motoring fervor.

Vehicular cyclists need to choose which side is most likely to end up accepting cycling in the proper manner, according to the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles. It appears highly unlikely that the anti-motoring, bikeway-advocating bicycle advocates will accept the legitimacy of vehicular cycling, as that is contrary to most of their beliefs and positions.

On the other hand, the motoring establishment exercises much more power in highway affairs than does its militant motorist fringe, it uses traffic-engineering knowledge to justify its choices, and it has a sense of professional engineering ethics. And it is becoming the more ready to admit its mistake about its bikeway program now that the anti-motorists have turned that program, both the facilities themselves and the rationalizations for them, against itself. At every talk I give to highway people, I remind them that they were the root cause of their own troubles, by allowing some to insist that highways were made only for motor traffic. There are signs that these factors are taking effect, as highway and planning departments have started to accept that vehicular cycling is a better means of operating the highway system than are attempted, but failing, measures to separate motor and bicycle traffic. There are signs of this progress in both North Carolina and Southern California, progress initiated by vehicular cyclists.

[genec]

True; but I don't think that getting the average American to transportation cycle is going to be easy and should not be the initial target. So I would go for the people at the edge of choosing whether to cycle or drive and then see what happens. Given the small numbers of transportation cyclists, these people at the edge will still be at the extremes of the population such that these small accommodations could drive them over the tipping point. If you think that there is safety in numbers--I thought that B Ratliff (aka Ratcliff) once gave a convincing argument--then one might be able to get something going. That is, if safety increases, more people will cycle which increases safety.

My next target would be to really think about making major thoroughfares with poor alternatives more appealing and safe for cyclists. I think that a motivating argument could be made for extreme cases. Again, targeting the average American is probably too high of a wall to climb.

BTW, did the link work for you?

Yes the link worked. I also wrote Pucher and asked about the old link. He stated that he was updating some of the data on the paper and would re-post it when finished.

I agree with your assessment... Pucher wrote virtually the same thing in another paper... I'll cut and paste the data below... take note that his 8.4 is nearly the same thing you have mentioned.

Here is the link to this Pucher paper: http://www.policy.rutgers.edu/faculty/pucher/NAmBIKE.PDF

And here is a summation of his thoughts on increasing rider share in the US:

*******************************
STEPS TO INCREASE CYCLING IN NORTH AMERICA
Following are seven proposals for making cycling more widespread in the US and Canada.
8.1. Increase cost of auto use. Probably the most effective way to increase bicycling
in North America would be to discourage auto use and increase its marginal cost,
particularly for short auto trips that are both underpriced and most amenable to cycling. A
sizeable increase in the price or inconvenience of driving would encourage people to seek
other ways to travel and begin loosening the automobile’s domination of daily
transportation. Unfortunately, this approach is politically difficult. Indeed, the new federal
transportation legislation (TEA21) fixes the federal gasoline tax at the same low level
(approximately two cents per liter) for the next six years, and recently taxes on auto
ownership have been rolled back in several states.
A more promising approach may be restructuring road taxes and auto insurance to
shift lump-sum charges into marginal use fees, thus providing positive incentives to
shorten trips and make greater use of non-auto modes (Litman 1998). Blocking highway
expansion also increases the time cost to drive and can make cycling more attractive,
although it could also work against cycling by fomenting “rat-running” (driver use of local
streets) and “road rage.”

8.2. Clarify cyclists’ legal rights. To a great extent, cyclists in the United States and
Canada operate outside the prevailing system of traffic governance. As we have noted,
many motorists and even police are not cognizant of cyclists’ right to use ordinary roads,
and there is scant appreciation of the vulnerability cyclists feel when autos impinge too
closely. In contrast, many northwestern European cities actively promote cycling through
conferences, fairs, and school programs, and their traffic rules, policing, licensing, and
Pucher, Komanoff, and Schimek. Bicycling Renaissance in North America? Page 24
judicial systems uphold cyclists’ rights far more than do their North American
counterparts.
However difficult it may be, establishing motorists’ accountability for their actions
toward cyclists is crucial to improving bicycling safety and encouraging cycling. A key
first step, noted in the Toronto case study, would be to establish as a principle of law that
cyclists have precedence over motor vehicles where both are vying for the same road
space and neither clearly has right of way over the other. With their preferential right of
way established in law, cyclists might improve their adherence to traffic laws, leading in
turn to greater consideration from motorists in a reinforcing process of mutual respect.

8.3. Expand bicycle facilities. As discussed earlier, separate facilities (bike paths and
lanes) are not a panacea for making cycling easier and safer. Nevertheless, rail trails and
mixed-use greenway paths have increased recreational bicycling, and strategically located
cut-through paths (as in Davis) can reduce trip times and thus encourage utilitarian cycling
as well. The most successful bicycling programs examined in this article — in Davis,
Madison and Seattle — include separate facilities in their overall strategy. Moreover, in
every European country with at least 10% bike modal split, separate cycling facilities (and
traffic-calmed neighborhood streets) are integral parts of the bike route system.
Separate paths and lanes are especially important for those unable or unwilling to do
battle with cars for space on streets. Training courses may help, but they do not eliminate
the inherent danger of cycling on the same right of way with motor vehicles, particularly
for those whose mental or physical conditions limit their capacity to safely negotiate heavy
traffic. The slowed reflexes, frailty, and deteriorating hearing and eyesight of many elderly
make them especially vulnerable, while limited experience, incomplete judgment, and
unpredictable movements put children at special risk on streets. And regardless of age,
many people prefer to avoid the anxiety and tension of cycling in mixed traffic, aside from
safety hazards. Bicycling should not be reserved for those who are trained, fit, and daring
enough to navigate busy traffic on city streets.

8.4. Make all roads bikeable. More than other countries, the United States must rely
heavily on the general road network for bicycling. Some cities have bike lanes and paths
that link up to some extent, but none has a complete route network approaching the dense
network of bike paths and lanes in virtually every Dutch, Danish and German city and
throughout the countryside, with official route designations, signage and maps. Even
Davis and Seattle, with their impressive cycleways, must also rely on the general road
system. Thus, a fundamental strategy to make America bikeable must be to improve roads
through wider curbside lanes and shoulders, drain grate replacement, pothole patching,
clear lane striping, and bike-activated traffic signals, while punishing motorist behavior
that infringes upon cyclists’ legal right of way. Seattle’s efforts to improve the road
infrastructure are a good model, but no US jurisdiction has taken real steps to inculcate
motorist responsibility for cyclist safety.
8.5. Hold special promotions. Bike-to-work weeks and employer-based promotions
appear to have been helpful in inducing North Americans to try — and then continue —
cycling for transportation. Similarly, large-scale rides ranging from recreational and charity
events to San Francisco’s monthly Critical Mass rides help build cyclist confidence and
provide mutual support and enthusiasm for cycling. In some cases such rides have also
focused public attention on the needs of cyclists and helped force a shift toward more
Pucher, Komanoff, and Schimek. Bicycling Renaissance in North America? Page 25
cycling-friendly public policies.

8.6. Link cycling to wellness. Numerous studies have documented the health benefits
of regular exercise, and physical inactivity has come to be seen as a major cause of
premature death in industrial societies, second only to tobacco. Cycling, potentially an
ideal, low-cost way of getting that activity, has been linked in the public mind to risktaking
and danger, in part by health-based helmet promotions that implicitly link cycling to
danger. The British Medical Association’s finding that cardiovascular-related gains to
longevity from cycling far outweigh collision risks, though widely reported in Europe, is
little known in North America (BMA 1992). New programs from the California
Department of Health Services and the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
seek to integrate routine physical activity into people’s travel, work, leisure, and family life
by making physical environments more amenable to walking and bicycling (Seeley 1998).
Holistic and pro-active efforts by the health community could boost cycling by casting it as
a prudent, healthful choice.

8.7. Broaden and intensify political action. As emphasized by Wachs (1998),
political action is essential to bring about changes in public policy to encourage more and
safer cycling. Bicyclists in many parts of the United States are already well-organized, and
have learned to wield political clout to obtain funding for cycling facilities. Cyclists have
won pro-bicycling provisions in ISTEA and TEA21 that portend major expansions and
improvements to systems of bike paths, lanes, and parking. TEA21 also encourages better
roadway design, which provides an important basis for making more roads bikeable.
Nevertheless, it remains to be seen how effectively cycling groups can pressure state
highway departments to carry out the federal mandates. Similarly, cycling groups will have
to continue to exert pressure at the local level to maintain and improve existing elements
of the cycling infrastructure, such as bridge access, against the threat of prohibitions or
banishment to substandard facilities. Cyclists will also need to open up another front:
inducing police and courts to enforce the rights of bicyclists to use city roads and to curb
driving privileges of motorists who violate those rights.

[John Forester]

no john, the pucher paper reported in a decline in cycling share in the european contries cited; stunning declines in cyclist participation between WWII and the 1970's.

BY A SERIES OF SOCIAL AND TRANSPORTATIONAL INDUCEMENTS FOR BICYCLING, Denmark, the Netherlands and Germany increased bicycling mode share, jhon.

your dishonestly is amazing, jhon. addditionally, 40 percent of ALL trips in the USA are two miles or less, jhon. seems that bicycling or walking SHOULD be considered viable transportation solutions. but to motorist advocates like jhon forestor, diminishing automobile trips is anathema to progress. what a wonk.

The statement that the inducements for bicycling increased the bicycling mode share ignores the fact that the original mode share was even more favorable to bicycle transportation. There are reasons why that was so. When motoring became more available, it was tried until its volume overwhelmed the road systems of the cities that Pucher describes. After that, bicycle mode share partially returned toward its original value. The original urban conditions which justified the earlier higher modal share of bicycle transportation still exist; it is more reasonable to consider that a large proportion of the current modal share results from those conditions than it is to the modern inducements, which really do not make cycling more useful.

Since you argue that 40 percent of all trips in the USA are two miles or less, and therefore suitable for walking or bicycling, why then aren't you advocating that people put on their shoes (walking or cycling) and get to it? The things that you advocate are not really significant to the utility of walking or cycling, particularly for such short trips.

[John Forester]

And sir I believe it is quite unethical to issue propaganda saying that sharing the roads with motor vehicles is safe when it is the excessive speed of the motorists and their failure to recognize the rights of cyclists in many situations.

I also believe it is quite unethical to write books on cycling based on poor analysis, and false psychology.

I also believe it is quite unethical to portray yourself as a cycling expert while supporting those that may have no desire to share the roads with cyclists... namely your ADC connections... the latter which is about as deplorable as a member of PETA sitting down to a juicy steak dinner.

The safety issue largely concerns accident rates per mile of travel. The anti-motoring bikeway advocates have failed in thirty-five years to show that their bikeways produce a lower accident rate than does lawful, competent cycling on the road. Rather than that, both the data and the engineering analysis suggest that bikeway systems are likely to have the higher car-bike collision rate, to say nothing about other types of accidents.

You choose to argue that much of the problem is the excessive speed of motorists and their disregard for the rights of cyclists. If you wish to correct that problem, your argument would be much more significant if you argued that cyclists should be using the roads, rather than the argument that you actually use, that cyclists should not be using the roads.

You argue that I cannot be a cycling expert because I associate with "those that may have no desire to share the roads with cyclists." That association, of course, has no bearing on the extent of my knowledge about cycling, which derives from an entirely different course of events. In any case, there is a difference between a lack of desire, which signifies little, and the justice of the standard legal view that cyclists have the same rights and duties as other roadway users.

However, since you argue that a lack of desire to share the roads with cyclists demonstrates incompetence in cycling knowledge, then consider yourself incompetent in matters of bicycle transportation.

Unethical to use the best available data and knowledge, and unethical to provide the only psychological explanation for the fact that America's bicycle program is based on exaggerated fear of same-direction motor traffic, the fear that assists the militant motorists but which largely does harm to cyclists, and is the only basis for the program so vociferously advocated by bicycle advocates, against their own interest? On the contrary, in the spirit of proper scientific discussion I have advanced my hypotheses in the expectation that if better hypotheses exist they will be advanced. In the thirty-five years since then, nobody has advanced better hypotheses. Therefore your claim that I have behaved unethically is unfounded.

[John Forester]

Yes the link worked. I also wrote Pucher and asked about the old link. He stated that he was updating some of the data on the paper and would re-post it when finished.

I agree with your assessment... Pucher wrote virtually the same thing in another paper... I'll cut and paste the data below... take note that his 8.4 is nearly the same thing you have mentioned.

Here is the link to this Pucher paper: http://www.policy.rutgers.edu/faculty/pucher/NAmBIKE.PDF

And here is a summation of his thoughts on increasing rider share in the US:

*******************************
STEPS TO INCREASE CYCLING IN NORTH AMERICA
Following are seven proposals for making cycling more widespread in the US and Canada.
8.1. Increase cost of auto use. Probably the most effective way to increase bicycling
in North America would be to discourage auto use and increase its marginal cost,
particularly for short auto trips that are both underpriced and most amenable to cycling. A
sizeable increase in the price or inconvenience of driving would encourage people to seek
other ways to travel and begin loosening the automobile’s domination of daily
transportation. Unfortunately, this approach is politically difficult. Indeed, the new federal
transportation legislation (TEA21) fixes the federal gasoline tax at the same low level
(approximately two cents per liter) for the next six years, and recently taxes on auto
ownership have been rolled back in several states.
A more promising approach may be restructuring road taxes and auto insurance to
shift lump-sum charges into marginal use fees, thus providing positive incentives to
shorten trips and make greater use of non-auto modes (Litman 1998). Blocking highway
expansion also increases the time cost to drive and can make cycling more attractive,
although it could also work against cycling by fomenting “rat-running” (driver use of local
streets) and “road rage.”

8.2. Clarify cyclists’ legal rights. To a great extent, cyclists in the United States and
Canada operate outside the prevailing system of traffic governance. As we have noted,
many motorists and even police are not cognizant of cyclists’ right to use ordinary roads,
and there is scant appreciation of the vulnerability cyclists feel when autos impinge too
closely. In contrast, many northwestern European cities actively promote cycling through
conferences, fairs, and school programs, and their traffic rules, policing, licensing, and
Pucher, Komanoff, and Schimek. Bicycling Renaissance in North America? Page 24
judicial systems uphold cyclists’ rights far more than do their North American
counterparts.
However difficult it may be, establishing motorists’ accountability for their actions
toward cyclists is crucial to improving bicycling safety and encouraging cycling. A key
first step, noted in the Toronto case study, would be to establish as a principle of law that
cyclists have precedence over motor vehicles where both are vying for the same road
space and neither clearly has right of way over the other. With their preferential right of
way established in law, cyclists might improve their adherence to traffic laws, leading in
turn to greater consideration from motorists in a reinforcing process of mutual respect.

8.3. Expand bicycle facilities. As discussed earlier, separate facilities (bike paths and
lanes) are not a panacea for making cycling easier and safer. Nevertheless, rail trails and
mixed-use greenway paths have increased recreational bicycling, and strategically located
cut-through paths (as in Davis) can reduce trip times and thus encourage utilitarian cycling
as well. The most successful bicycling programs examined in this article — in Davis,
Madison and Seattle — include separate facilities in their overall strategy. Moreover, in
every European country with at least 10% bike modal split, separate cycling facilities (and
traffic-calmed neighborhood streets) are integral parts of the bike route system.
Separate paths and lanes are especially important for those unable or unwilling to do
battle with cars for space on streets. Training courses may help, but they do not eliminate
the inherent danger of cycling on the same right of way with motor vehicles, particularly
for those whose mental or physical conditions limit their capacity to safely negotiate heavy
traffic. The slowed reflexes, frailty, and deteriorating hearing and eyesight of many elderly
make them especially vulnerable, while limited experience, incomplete judgment, and
unpredictable movements put children at special risk on streets. And regardless of age,
many people prefer to avoid the anxiety and tension of cycling in mixed traffic, aside from
safety hazards. Bicycling should not be reserved for those who are trained, fit, and daring
enough to navigate busy traffic on city streets.

8.4. Make all roads bikeable. More than other countries, the United States must rely
heavily on the general road network for bicycling. Some cities have bike lanes and paths
that link up to some extent, but none has a complete route network approaching the dense
network of bike paths and lanes in virtually every Dutch, Danish and German city and
throughout the countryside, with official route designations, signage and maps. Even
Davis and Seattle, with their impressive cycleways, must also rely on the general road
system. Thus, a fundamental strategy to make America bikeable must be to improve roads
through wider curbside lanes and shoulders, drain grate replacement, pothole patching,
clear lane striping, and bike-activated traffic signals, while punishing motorist behavior
that infringes upon cyclists’ legal right of way. Seattle’s efforts to improve the road
infrastructure are a good model, but no US jurisdiction has taken real steps to inculcate
motorist responsibility for cyclist safety.
8.5. Hold special promotions. Bike-to-work weeks and employer-based promotions
appear to have been helpful in inducing North Americans to try — and then continue —
cycling for transportation. Similarly, large-scale rides ranging from recreational and charity
events to San Francisco’s monthly Critical Mass rides help build cyclist confidence and
provide mutual support and enthusiasm for cycling. In some cases such rides have also
focused public attention on the needs of cyclists and helped force a shift toward more
Pucher, Komanoff, and Schimek. Bicycling Renaissance in North America? Page 25
cycling-friendly public policies.

8.6. Link cycling to wellness. Numerous studies have documented the health benefits
of regular exercise, and physical inactivity has come to be seen as a major cause of
premature death in industrial societies, second only to tobacco. Cycling, potentially an
ideal, low-cost way of getting that activity, has been linked in the public mind to risktaking
and danger, in part by health-based helmet promotions that implicitly link cycling to
danger. The British Medical Association’s finding that cardiovascular-related gains to
longevity from cycling far outweigh collision risks, though widely reported in Europe, is
little known in North America (BMA 1992). New programs from the California
Department of Health Services and the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
seek to integrate routine physical activity into people’s travel, work, leisure, and family life
by making physical environments more amenable to walking and bicycling (Seeley 1998).
Holistic and pro-active efforts by the health community could boost cycling by casting it as
a prudent, healthful choice.

8.7. Broaden and intensify political action. As emphasized by Wachs (1998),
political action is essential to bring about changes in public policy to encourage more and
safer cycling. Bicyclists in many parts of the United States are already well-organized, and
have learned to wield political clout to obtain funding for cycling facilities. Cyclists have
won pro-bicycling provisions in ISTEA and TEA21 that portend major expansions and
improvements to systems of bike paths, lanes, and parking. TEA21 also encourages better
roadway design, which provides an important basis for making more roads bikeable.
Nevertheless, it remains to be seen how effectively cycling groups can pressure state
highway departments to carry out the federal mandates. Similarly, cycling groups will have
to continue to exert pressure at the local level to maintain and improve existing elements
of the cycling infrastructure, such as bridge access, against the threat of prohibitions or
banishment to substandard facilities. Cyclists will also need to open up another front:
inducing police and courts to enforce the rights of bicyclists to use city roads and to curb
driving privileges of motorists who violate those rights.

So genec now quotes Pucher at length, from another paper.

Note the following points.

Pucher advocates making motoring more difficult and more expensive, simply as an anti-motoring agenda. Well, that's fine, but it has nothing to do with making cycling better.

Pucher advocates clarifying cyclists' rights. However, people such as Pucher are those who have done just as much, and more than the militiant motorists are doing today, to erode cyclists right to use the roads with the rights and duties of drivers of vehicles, because so much of their advocacy is directed at getting cyclists off the roads and with lower rights and duties.

As part of that, Pucher argues that we should "establish as a principle of law that cyclists have precedence over motor vehicles where both are vying for the same road space and neither clearly has right of way over the other." I do not know what aspects of traffic law have this characteristic. So far as I know, all the recognized traffic conflicts have had the right-of-way decided. If, indeed, there are conflicts such as Pucher hypothesizes, then they should be worked out to decide which party should have the right-of-way, based on relative positions, relative status of roads involved, and the like, just as the other conflicts have been decided.

Pucher advocates making all roads "bikeable". Trouble is, most of his advocacy is devoted to diverting cyclists from roadways. Pucher's own advocacy is kicking him in his own teeth. Only with a program of vehicular cycling instead of bikeway cycling will society really feel that roads should be suitable for lawful, competent cycling.

Pucher advocates bikeways for the following reasons: "Training courses may help, but they do not eliminate the inherent danger of cycling on the same right of way with motor vehicles, particularly
for those whose mental or physical conditions limit their capacity to safely negotiate heavy
traffic. The slowed reflexes, frailty, and deteriorating hearing and eyesight of many elderly
make them especially vulnerable..." Ah, yes, that famous quotation. Pucher is arguing, among other superstitions, that the presence of a bike-lane stripe improves the vision of elderly cyclists with vision problems, improves their vision to the extent that they can then see the motor traffic that might collide with them. This whole bikeway controversy is crazy, isn't it?

Pucher recommends holding special promotions, including Critical Masses. If those promotions were directed at advancing lawful, competent road use, by all parties, there would be point to them. However, such events as Critical Mass work to the opposite. Also, another however, it is the events such as Critical Mass that attract attention because they attract the anti-motoring ideologues, whose effect is to reduce the events to harmful spectacles.

Pucher recommends linking cycling to wellness. No theoretical problem with that, just the practical problem of managing to avoid the anti-cycling side effects.

Pucher recommends that we "Broaden and intensify political action." Considering that the political action for the last many decades has been devoted to getting cyclists off the roadways, that is a very dubitable recommendation. If he had recommended that we start and intensify political action to support lawful and competent use of the nations roadways, particularly for cyclists, then I would agree.

These things have been thrashed over before; that's why I can provide such quick answers.

[John C. Ratliff]

So what? When there is slow traffic on congested roads, traffic flows slowly. That's the way it is, and has to be, until society decides the increase the road capacity.

John, that's a good rationale for being able to cycle on bridges without bicycle access or "facilities." But do you really think that traffic would simply want to be slow on a bridge such as the Oakland-San Francisco Bay Bridge? I think that bicycles are illegal there, but under your reasoning, they should not be.

In Oregon, there is a rule (or at least used to be a rule--I haven't looked it up in a while) on our open highways that vehicles holding up more than 8 other vehicles should pull over and yeild to let those other vehicles through. Would you apply this to bicycles too?

John

[John Forester]

and how about all the american roads that develop sufficient traffic to justify its cost also attracting motorized traffic that operates in dangerous ways, johnno?

I predict a 'so what' from jhon and his motorist-superiority complex addled mind.

Addled mind? That's debatable. The typical American motorist uses motoring in the expectation that nearly all other motorists will be operating in the lawful and competent manner prescribed by the rules of the road. Sometimes he is mistaken, but the frequency of this is insufficient to markedly reduce his use of the roads. On the other hand, the expectation that any typical bike path that attracts significant traffic is being operated as if it were a roadway is so false that any cyclist who so assumes, and rides at speeds safely attainable on the road, is heading for disaster. Indeed, so many of you have accused my view of bike-path safety as being adversely produced by my speed in excess of safety that you have justified my view, simply by your agreement that one cannot safely ride as fast through typical bike-path traffic as on the roadway.

[genec]

Addled mind? That's debatable. The typical American motorist uses motoring in the expectation that nearly all other motorists will be operating in the lawful and competent manner prescribed by the rules of the road. Sometimes he is mistaken, but the frequency of this is insufficient to markedly reduce his use of the roads. On the other hand, the expectation that any typical bike path that attracts significant traffic is being operated as if it were a roadway is so false that any cyclist who so assumes, and rides at speeds safely attainable on the road, is heading for disaster. Indeed, so many of you have accused my view of bike-path safety as being adversely produced by my speed in excess of safety that you have justified my view, simply by your agreement that one cannot safely ride as fast through typical bike-path traffic as on the roadway.

Uh back to the 56 bike path, which you have never used. I find I often am able to ride on that path at a much higher speed than that which I would on the road... This is simply due to the lack of a requirement to slow down at nearly every intersection to verify that motorists actually see me and heed my right of way (instead of their typical fast turn right on reds... illegal yes, but so much for law abiding motorists)

On the bike path I can do 20 miles in about 1 hour and 10 minutes. My on road commute it takes me the same amount of time to travel only 14 miles.

Your view of bike path safety is based on poorly designed bike paths. Your view of the motoring public is quite falsely based on law abiding motorists... 10 minutes on any freeway at the posted speed will show you that fallacy.

[Allister]

I was a leading participant in the preparation of the safety design standards for American bike paths.

the conditions of those paths are so dangerous that the safe speed is much below that which can be safely attained on roads.

Hilarious. I thought things like 'design standards' were a requirement for constructions, as opposed to guidelines (which is what the Austroads part 14 is described as here). Either the design standards aren't being adhered to, or the design standards aren't of a sufficuent quality, but both are a sure indication that these 'design standards' have failed.

So, do you advocate bike paths that meet the standard that you were so instrumental in establishing or not?

It is the dangers of those paths that limits the speed.

Speed limits on roads serve exactly the same purpose, or do you advocate removing them too? Artificially limiting speed of traffic if the situation requires it is well established traffic engineering practice. Why do you believe it doesn't apply to cycling?

[John Forester]

Uh back to the 56 bike path, which you have never used. I find I often am able to ride on that path at a much higher speed than that which I would on the road... This is simply due to the lack of a requirement to slow down at nearly every intersection to verify that motorists actually see me and heed my right of way (instead of their typical fast turn right on reds... illegal yes, but so much for law abiding motorists)

On the bike path I can do 20 miles in about 1 hour and 10 minutes. My on road commute it takes me the same amount of time to travel only 14 miles.

Your view of bike path safety is based on poorly designed bike paths. Your view of the motoring public is quite falsely based on law abiding motorists... 10 minutes on any freeway at the posted speed will show you that fallacy.


Are you deliberately ignoring the previous posts, or do you really have little understanding of bicycle transportation? The point at issue is that contained in my recent post in reply to one of yours, genec. Pay attention and you might learn something, although the relevant knowledge has been circulated for more than thirty years. The relevant quotation is:

"I have not traveled Calif 56 by any means, car or bicycle. However, my map, and your assertion, agree that a considerable portion is either designated freeway or built in the freeway manner with grade-separated intersections. I know of many locations in which bike paths run alongside freeways, and have ridden them. So what? In the engineering sense, it is much easier to produce a high-quality bike path alongside a freeway than it is elsewhere in urban areas. It has always been recognized that bike paths can be best engineered alongside barriers to roads, such as waterfronts, some rail routes, some freeways. That's no big discovery on your part. You argue that Oulu's example demonstrates that a similar system could be built here. The example that you present simply disconfirms your argument, by supporting the point that there are very few such locations in most urban areas."

In short, there are a few locations in urban areas in which high-quality bike paths can be built. However, those few locations do not demonstrate that bike paths can produce a generally useful bicycle transportation network, such as you have been claiming for that most unusual city, Oulu.

[John Forester]

Hilarious. I thought things like 'design standards' were a requirement for constructions, as opposed to guidelines (which is what the Austroads part 14 is described as here). Either the design standards aren't being adhered to, or the design standards aren't of a sufficuent quality, but both are a sure indication that these 'design standards' have failed.

So, do you advocate bike paths that meet the standard that you were so instrumental in establishing or not?



Speed limits on roads serve exactly the same purpose, or do you advocate removing them too? Artificially limiting speed of traffic if the situation requires it is well established traffic engineering practice. Why do you believe it doesn't apply to cycling?

Allister, you are certainly demonstrating the success of your intent to provide foolish arguments for the entertainment of the peanut gallery. In any reasonable scientific group, you would be dismissed, but here, I suppose, you have found your suitable audience.

I made the point clearly that, even on the best engineered American bike paths, if they attract sufficient traffic to be considered justified, it is the chaotic operation of the traffic that they attract that creates the dangers. Things may be different in Australia, but, on the basis of my knowledge to date, I think that you would have to provide some valid and convincing evidence to the contrary for that opinion to carry much weight here.

[genec]

Allister, you are certainly demonstrating the success of your intent to provide foolish arguments for the entertainment of the peanut gallery. In any reasonable scientific group, you would be dismissed, but here, I suppose, you have found your suitable audience.

I made the point clearly that, even on the best engineered American bike paths, if they attract sufficient traffic to be considered justified, it is the chaotic operation of the traffic that they attract that creates the dangers. Things may be different in Australia, but, on the basis of my knowledge to date, I think that you would have to provide some valid and convincing evidence to the contrary for that opinion to carry much weight here.

I think this sums it all up... the basis of "your knowledge to date" is simply old and inaccurate. Update your knowledge.

[John Forester]

John, that's a good rationale for being able to cycle on bridges without bicycle access or "facilities." But do you really think that traffic would simply want to be slow on a bridge such as the Oakland-San Francisco Bay Bridge? I think that bicycles are illegal there, but under your reasoning, they should not be.

In Oregon, there is a rule (or at least used to be a rule--I haven't looked it up in a while) on our open highways that vehicles holding up more than 8 other vehicles should pull over and yeild to let those other vehicles through. Would you apply this to bicycles too?

John

One more foolish claim and argument from someone who hasn't read the material on bicycle transportation that has been published for years! It has always been recognized that there are some small lengths of the highway system in which additional capacity is extremely expensive, the examples always given are some bridges and some tunnels. If there is significant cycling demand, then the appropriate action to permit through bicycle transportation is to provide fast bicycle carriage by bus, trailer, or similar, and, if the facility charges toll, that this function, which is ignored because of the expense of additional capacity, be paid for by the tolling authority.

The law requiring slow drivers of vehicles, who are delaying more than X vehicles behind on two-lane roads, to pull over as soon as it is safe to do so, is pretty general. The usually stated quantity of delayed vehicles is 5. I have no need to apply this law to cyclists (not to bicycles, or don't you understand that?) because it applies to drivers of vehicles.

[Allister]

Allister, you are certainly demonstrating the success of your intent to provide foolish arguments for the entertainment of the peanut gallery.

No, mate, just taking pot-shots at yours.


In any reasonable scientific group, you would be dismissed, but here, I suppose, you have found your suitable audience.

I've yet to see any 'reasonable science' from you either. Or do you seriously think that the 'cyclist inferiority complex' is a scientifically established psychological condition? :lol

I made the point clearly that, even on the best engineered American bike paths, if they attract sufficient traffic to be considered justified, it is the chaotic operation of the traffic that they attract that creates the dangers.

Then educate them properly, Mr Cycling Instructor, don't use the same fear tactics that you so dislike in the 'anti-motoring-bicycle-advocacy' crowd.

So it's the 'chaotic operation' that causes the danger now? Didn't you just say that speed was the danger?

"the safe speed is much below that which can be safely attained on roads"
"It is the dangers of those paths that limits the speed."
"one cannot safely ride as fast through typical bike-path traffic as on the roadway."

Surely the 'best engineered bike paths' will have reasonably high design speeds if they are to be used for transportation. Even if they don't, there's no inherent right for anyone to always be able to travel as fast as they can/want.

But at least you admit that bikepaths, even the worst ones, can be ridden safely at the appropriate speeds. So the questions remain - Artificially limiting speed of traffic if the situation requires it is well established traffic engineering practice. Why do you believe it doesn't apply to cycling? And do you advocate bike paths that meet the standard that you were so instrumental in establishing or not?

[John C. Ratliff]

One more foolish claim and argument from someone who hasn't read the material on bicycle transportation that has been published for years! It has always been recognized that there are some small lengths of the highway system in which additional capacity is extremely expensive, the examples always given are some bridges and some tunnels. If there is significant cycling demand, then the appropriate action to permit through bicycle transportation is to provide fast bicycle carriage by bus, trailer, or similar, and, if the facility charges toll, that this function, which is ignored because of the expense of additional capacity, be paid for by the tolling authority...
Actually, once a year, we have the "Providence Bridge Pedal," where the brides in Portland are closed to cars, and only bicycles can pass on certain spans. It's really quite a spectacle to see a real traffic jam of bicycles on a bridge. We can stop on the top section of the Fremont Bridge, for instance, and simply enjoy the sights of the Portland waterfront from the top of the bridge.

John

[buzzman]

It appears highly unlikely that the anti-motoring, bikeway-advocating bicycle advocates will accept the legitimacy of vehicular cycling, as that is contrary to most of their beliefs and positions.

What??

I use my automobile far less frequently because I bike so many places- does that make me an "anti-motorist"?

I advocate for "bikeways" when they are the most appropriate means to provide cyclists with safe, efficient and enjoyable pathways. But I also advocate for our right to use the road.

AND I ride daily on roads and have done so for more than 35 years and hundreds of thousandes of miles and ride my bike as a vehicle when on the road.

so, unless "vehicular cycling" must always be construed as "anti-facilities" this statement is way off the mark.

[genec]

What??

I use my automobile far less frequently because I bike so many places- does that make me an "anti-motorist"?

I advocate for "bikeways" when they are the most appropriate means to provide cyclists with safe, efficient and enjoyable pathways. But I also advocate for our right to use the road.

AND I ride daily on roads and have done so for more than 35 years and hundreds of thousandes of miles and ride my bike as a vehicle when on the road.

so, unless "vehicular cycling" must always be construed as "anti-facilities" this statement is way off the mark.

Every statement I make about moving people from cars to bikes becomes an "anti-motoring statement" in the eyes of John. He somehow cannot wrap his mind around the benefit of the public riding bikes more might also equal driving less and that driving less might be a good thing, but it is not anti-motoring, it is pro-cycling, pro-health, pro-clean air.... pro-people.

And while I would dream about a system of well constructed isolated ubiquitous paths similar to what exists in Oulu; what I really desire is just a simple system of well connected bikeways... well designed paths were possible, well designed bike lanes, and quiet streets designed with low speeds in mind and easily sharable. What I envision is a system that encourages people to ride bikes... no let's say, INVITES people to ride bikes... in much the same manner that the current very auto centric system now demands that people drive cars.

Right now I don't even find bike racks or a suitable place to park my bike, at well over 90% of my local merchants... yet I can park a car at 100% of them... and even drive through some merchant locations. We are a long way from inviting the public to ride bikes on our streets... and that is what has to change.

John Pucher's ideas could lead the way to such change. John Forester would keep the status quo... and I'd still have no place to park my bike.

[John Forester]

No, mate, just taking pot-shots at yours.



I've yet to see any 'reasonable science' from you either. Or do you seriously think that the 'cyclist inferiority complex' is a scientifically established psychological condition? :lol



Then educate them properly, Mr Cycling Instructor, don't use the same fear tactics that you so dislike in the 'anti-motoring-bicycle-advocacy' crowd.

So it's the 'chaotic operation' that causes the danger now? Didn't you just say that speed was the danger?

"the safe speed is much below that which can be safely attained on roads"
"It is the dangers of those paths that limits the speed."
"one cannot safely ride as fast through typical bike-path traffic as on the roadway."

Surely the 'best engineered bike paths' will have reasonably high design speeds if they are to be used for transportation. Even if they don't, there's no inherent right for anyone to always be able to travel as fast as they can/want.

But at least you admit that bikepaths, even the worst ones, can be ridden safely at the appropriate speeds. So the questions remain - Artificially limiting speed of traffic if the situation requires it is well established traffic engineering practice. Why do you believe it doesn't apply to cycling? And do you advocate bike paths that meet the standard that you were so instrumental in establishing or not?

Yes, the cyclist inferiority complex is a scientifically psychological condition. Some explanation is required for the current absurd conditions. Bikeways were invented, designed, promoted, and are funded by motorists with the intent of making motoring more convenient by shoving cyclists aside. Instead of fighting for their rights to operate as drivers of vehicles, a large proportion of cyclists advocate such discriminatory treatment with great emotional fervor, expressing strong belief that such treatment makes cycling much safer, and lower the required skill level, especially for beginners, despite the fact that there has never been any evidence that bikeway systems have either effect. Maybe, Allister, you offer a different explanation than the cyclist inferiority complex for this condition that undoubtedly exists?

I see no reason why I should be responsible for teaching bike-path users how to use them both safely and efficiently. That should be the responsibility of those designing and building the paths.

The minimum design speed for California "bike paths" (the legal name for them) is 40 kph, 25 mph. The issue does not concern the need to limit speed to a safe level; the issue concerns whether it is appropriate to build a facility whose dangers (from whatever causes) are such as to limit the safe speed to considerably below the safe speed on the nearby roadway.

Over the past two years have spent $88,000 in legal fees for a case involving a penniless cyclist who was injured because he used a bike path built by Los Angeles with designed-in defects that caused his injuries. Los Angeles argued, unfortunately successfully, that the "safety design standards" (that is the name specified in the activating law) had no validity because some previous judges had misapplied the words "bike path" to dirt trails, in cases where the status of the facility was not at issue, thus forcing later judges, so the legal practice goes, to continue making that same mistake when the status of the facility was the crux of the case.

You ask whether or not I advocate bike paths meeting the safety design standards? I refuse to advocate bike paths that do not meet the standards. Whether or not I advocate building a bike path that is expected to meet the standards depends on the likely use that will be made of it and the source of the funds. If it is expected to provide a useful transportational function, then it is appropriate that transportation funds be used, while if the most likely use is mostly recreational, then recreation funds should be used.

[John Forester]

What??

snips
I advocate for "bikeways" when they are the most appropriate means to provide cyclists with safe, efficient and enjoyable pathways. But I also advocate for our right to use the road.

so, unless "vehicular cycling" must always be construed as "anti-facilities" this statement is way off the mark.

There's no harm in advocating for the most appropriate means to provide cyclists with safe, efficient and enjoyable pathways. However, the number of locations where bikeways of any type provide a transportation service that is safer and more efficient than that provided by the roadway system is rather small. The anti-motoring ideology enters when the advocacy is for facilities that are not demonstrably safer and more efficient than the roadway system in order to attract motorists who know little about cycling to bicycle transportation.

[John Forester]

Every statement I make about moving people from cars to bikes becomes an "anti-motoring statement" in the eyes of John. He somehow cannot wrap his mind around the benefit of the public riding bikes more might also equal driving less and that driving less might be a good thing, but it is not anti-motoring, it is pro-cycling, pro-health, pro-clean air.... pro-people.

And while I would dream about a system of well constructed isolated ubiquitous paths similar to what exists in Oulu; what I really desire is just a simple system of well connected bikeways... well designed paths were possible, well designed bike lanes, and quiet streets designed with low speeds in mind and easily sharable. What I envision is a system that encourages people to ride bikes... no let's say, INVITES people to ride bikes... in much the same manner that the current very auto centric system now demands that people drive cars.

Right now I don't even find bike racks or a suitable place to park my bike, at well over 90% of my local merchants... yet I can park a car at 100% of them... and even drive through some merchant locations. We are a long way from inviting the public to ride bikes on our streets... and that is what has to change.

John Pucher's ideas could lead the way to such change. John Forester would keep the status quo... and I'd still have no place to park my bike.


I sympathize with your dreaming, genec. Would that it would be so, but it is unfortunate that all you have is a dream, not the real world. I think that the part of your article that summarizes your dream is your statement that "John Pucher's ideas could lead the way to such change." As I think we have printed at length, Pucher's ideas are so confused that one opposes another. Furthermore, he presents no evidence that any automotive city has switched modes to achieve anything like the bicycle transportation modes of the cities that he discusses. That is because he is discussing pedestrian cities, and the Dutch, for a well-quoted example, think of cycling as being just sufficiently better than walking to justify its use.

The problem that cyclists face in the modern world, in cities that have grown up in the automotive age, is how best to operate in such cities. (By the way, bicycle parking has very little to do with it; it appears where there is obvious demand, but there is little demand in most of America. And it has been decades since I was not permitted to bring my bicycle into a shop.)

You express your dream as: "[W]hat I really desire is just a simple system of well connected bikeways... well designed paths w[h]ere possible, well designed bike lanes, and quiet streets designed with low speeds in mind and easily shar[e]able." Your dream, unfortunately, is impossible in any practical sense. The modern city cannot be changed to suit your dream, and parts of your dream are impossible in any case. There cannot be many "well designed paths" because the number of locations where such are possible is very small. And, unfortunately, you face the problem that the traffic on those paths that attract much traffic operates in so chaotic a manner that it defeats all the careful engineering implied in "well designed". (There have been innumerable discussions of this effect.) There cannot be a system of "well designed bike lanes" because such are impossible. Every bike-lane system contains many locations where it contradicts the safe method of operating in accordance with the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles. Quiet streets designed with low speeds in mind and easily shareable exist all over town, but they do not provide either the connectivity or the desired speed of operation for significant trips around town. The cyclist has to be able to operate on some arterial roads in order to get where he needs to go. However, although such roads are noisy, they are as shareable as any other.

As long as automobiles are easily available, these conditions will exist in large automotive cities. If you really want to avoid such conditions, then go live in a small town. However, it is reasonable to work toward those changes that make this system better for cyclists, but this has to be based on the principle that cyclists will operate in the standard roadway manner.

You argue that advocating more cycling is not anti-motoring but advocating for people, but you argument has many flaws. The most prominent is that motoring provides benefits for people; that's why they choose to use it. It may even be that motoring is more healthful than not motoring; death rates were certainly higher in the pre-motoring age.

I sympathize with your desires, but they are no more than daydreams. You have both an overly simplistic view of the problem, and an equally simplistic view of your solution.