Woohoo! My "almost new" copy of Effective Cycling arrived

[cooker]

Not very well-informed in cycling affairs, are you? I have spent an enormous amount of effort, probably more than almost all in these discussions, in getting people cycling properly.

I suppose I was being a bit obtuse, as with your Pucher comments. Is he writing about cycling or is he writing about cycling reports? I'm pretty well informed - I've read Effective Cycling (and other books including Hurst's) and have seen you participate in debate in a variety of venues. At lot of cycling advocates (you may dispute that label) are trying to get more people biking because they think it's a social good, while it seems to me your primary interest, as quoted above, is how they cycle, not why they cycle, and you aren't specifically promoting cycling as superior mode of transportation. In fact you seem to pooh pooh that concept. That's fine. I think one reason some people can react negatively to your comments is they assume at first that you are like them - wanting to get as many people as possible on bikes and reduce motoring, and they're surprised to see you seem to dismiss or mock that objective

While you, I suppose from your comment and ignorance, and many others on this list, believe that getting motorists out of their cars is so important that enticing people into bicycle transportation with lying promises that bikeways make cycling safe for beginners is considered justifiable demagoguery.

I'm not on any bike facilities bandwagon myself - I prefer riding on the road and it makes no difference if there's a bike stripe. However, I would like to see people out of their cars. There are a few days every summer when my asthmatic kid can't go outside because of smog.

[ghettocruiser]

Those who don't like motoring exaggerate the ill-behavior of motorists.


The harshest reviews of motorist conduct I hear are not from cyclists, but from other drivers, especially those who drive often.

And I'm not sure "exaggerate" is the correct word. Perhaps they exaggerate the bad behavior of the *AVERAGE* motorist. But I see driving done so badly on a daily basis by individuals, that no incident report that I've seen from a cyclist seems remotely over-the-top.

[genec]

While you, I suppose from your comment and ignorance, and many others on this list, believe that getting motorists out of their cars is so important that enticing people into bicycle transportation with lying promises that bikeways make cycling safe for beginners is considered justifiable demagoguery. That I won't stand for.

John, many of us believe that getting people out of cars is indeed a worthy cause, for their health, for the health of the nation at whole, and to simply reduce congestion. But at the same time we do not have to couch the debate on "poor bikeways;" your argument is that bikeways do not make cycling safe for beginners... of course you use the term "bikeways" to mean everything from bike lanes to sidepaths to well built separated paths...

If miles and miles of separated paths existed, then interaction between motor vehicles and cyclists would be quite limited, and therefore fewer accidents would occur. Indeed paths would be quite safe, even for beginners.

But miles and miles of paths will never be built until they are deemed necessary, just like the Freeway system wasn't built until deemed necessary. But paths will never be deemed necessary as long as folks like you insist that they are not needed.

Paths could help relieve congestion on freeways, and are less expensive then adding more lanes to freeways... and ultimately paths will help contribute to the health of the nation through both exercise and in clean air.

The Freeway system did not exist in this nation until in 1956 they were deemed necessary. We have the technology to build a wonderful interconnected bike path system... our leaders just have to deem it necessary to build such a system.

Pathways can be quite safe, when designed well, therefore "enticing people" into cycling doesn't have to be the "demagoguery" you claim.

[genec]

Both of your arguments are false, genec.

First, considering that we meet motorists from the same local population, I do not find the ill treatment that you believe afflicts you. Therefore, I conclude that you are overemphasizing the ill behavior of motorists. I conclude this not only from this discussion, but from innumerable such discussions I have observed over decades. Those who don't like motoring exaggerate the ill-behavior of motorists.

Second, the figure of 45,000 motoring deaths a year indicates how wrong you are, considering the number of traffic moves made in the USA in a year. If motorists were habitually as bad as you like to assert, the figure would be order of magnitude or more higher.

The fact is we only count deaths... we don't count collisions. First responders are reporting that vehicles are protecting their occupants far better these days, so people are living through collisions that would have killed them in the past. The reality is that motorists are habitually as bad as I and others assert, but vehicles are far more protective.

The insurance companies recognize this and have been trying campaigns to encourage drivers to "pay attention."

[genec]

Those who don't like motoring exaggerate the ill-behavior of motorists.



And those that prefer motoring downplay the reality of the ill-behavior of motorists.

[John Forester]

The fact is we only count deaths... we don't count collisions. First responders are reporting that vehicles are protecting their occupants far better these days, so people are living through collisions that would have killed them in the past. The reality is that motorists are habitually as bad as I and others assert, but vehicles are far more protective.

The insurance companies recognize this and have been trying campaigns to encourage drivers to "pay attention."

Your answer is irrelevant to the question of whether the number of traffic deaths indicates general motorist or general motorist incompetence. The appropriate ratio, as I indicated, is the number of deaths to the number of conflicts that might cause a collision, which is surely very small. And as for the insurance companies recently changing their tune, they have advocated better driving skills for as long as I can remember, which is many decades. They were, after all, some of the movers of the driver testing before license issuing movement.

[John Forester]

John, many of us believe that getting people out of cars is indeed a worthy cause, for their health, for the health of the nation at whole, and to simply reduce congestion. But at the same time we do not have to couch the debate on "poor bikeways;" your argument is that bikeways do not make cycling safe for beginners... of course you use the term "bikeways" to mean everything from bike lanes to sidepaths to well built separated paths...

If miles and miles of separated paths existed, then interaction between motor vehicles and cyclists would be quite limited, and therefore fewer accidents would occur. Indeed paths would be quite safe, even for beginners.

But miles and miles of paths will never be built until they are deemed necessary, just like the Freeway system wasn't built until deemed necessary. But paths will never be deemed necessary as long as folks like you insist that they are not needed.

Paths could help relieve congestion on freeways, and are less expensive then adding more lanes to freeways... and ultimately paths will help contribute to the health of the nation through both exercise and in clean air.

The Freeway system did not exist in this nation until in 1956 they were deemed necessary. We have the technology to build a wonderful interconnected bike path system... our leaders just have to deem it necessary to build such a system.

Pathways can be quite safe, when designed well, therefore "enticing people" into cycling doesn't have to be the "demagoguery" you claim.

Go talk up your dream. When it becomes within the planning horizon, you might have something, but until then we have to deal with realities.

You claim that it is my argument that bike paths are not necessary that is holding up your wonderful dream. That's about as inaccurate and as silly as they come. I have never argued that bike paths are not necessary, for the simple reason that such an issue has never arisen. All that I have argued is that the number of locations suitable for bike paths is so low that it is impossible to build much of a bicycle transportation from them. That is, of course, considering only the cost that our society is willing to spend on bike paths, a consideration that excludes dreams such as yours. As for my arguments having had any effect in this matter, consider the long history of the attempts by the motoring establishment to clear their roads of cyclists. They have both the political power and largely control the economics, yet they have never gone beyond "conventional" bike paths of the AASHTO type. Had they raised that issue, I don't know that I would have opposed them, but, since they have never done so, I have never had to make any argument, pro or con. Perhaps you have read that I was one of the experts involved in the only such American proposal that I have ever known of, about the West Los Angeles Veloway? I never argued against that, but it still didn't come to pass, and probably never will.

You are making the argument that our society will, for whatever reasons, decide to spend large resources in making a bicycle freeway system. Predictions of such nature have proved to be extremely unreliable in the past. Whether our society will, or will not, make that decision, is far in the future, so far that it makes no difference to what we should do today.

[Bekologist]

If you think you were involved in the only american proposal for a bike path network across an american big city, you're fooling yourself, john. Taken a look at Denver lately? The springwater cooridor in Portland connecting with the river trail? how about other communities that use MUP paths as part of the backbone of integrated bike infrastructure? many dozens of cities have path networks that effectively serve bicyclists of all stripe and vehicularity.

[John Forester]

If you think you were involved in the only american proposal for a bike path network across an american big city, you're fooling yourself, john. Taken a look at Denver lately? The springwater cooridor in Portland connecting with the river trail? how about other communities that use MUP paths as part of the backbone of integrated bike infrastructure? many dozens of cities have path networks that effectively serve bicyclists of all stripe and vehicularity.

Don't run off so at the keyboard, bekologist. Read the context of the discussion and think a bit before deciding to announce your errors. If you are not in error, then that is my mistake, but, in order to prove that you are not in error you need to provide accurate and relevant descriptions of Denver's system and of the springwater corridor in Portland to show the degree to which they match genec's dream.

[genec]

Your answer is irrelevant to the question of whether the number of traffic deaths indicates general motorist or general motorist incompetence. The appropriate ratio, as I indicated, is the number of deaths to the number of conflicts that might cause a collision, which is surely very small. And as for the insurance companies recently changing their tune, they have advocated better driving skills for as long as I can remember, which is many decades. They were, after all, some of the movers of the driver testing before license issuing movement.

How can the ratio of deaths to collisions be considered the metric if in fact more lives are being saved by the safety equipment in the vehicles themselves, but the collision rate goes up. The ratio is therefore changing and one cannot extrapolate the safety of the motorists due to their driving practices based on the death statistics as the vehicles as a safety device is not factored in.

Or to look at it another way... if motorists are driving worse and worse, but are not dieing, the stats based on deaths will not reflect this. Further those vehicles that protect the occupants do nothing for those outside of the vehicles, who ARE still at risk.

[John Forester]

How can the ratio of deaths to collisions be considered the metric if in fact more lives are being saved by the safety equipment in the vehicles themselves, but the collision rate goes up. The ratio is therefore changing and one cannot extrapolate the safety of the motorists due to their driving practices based on the death statistics as the vehicles as a safety device is not factored in.

Or to look at it another way... if motorists are driving worse and worse, but are not dieing, the stats based on deaths will not reflect this. Further those vehicles that protect the occupants do nothing for those outside of the vehicles, who ARE still at risk.

I never wrote anything about changing rates of deaths; don't assume that I meant anything in that subject. All that I mentioned was the ratio between the number of deaths and the number of potential collisions.

You are complaining that 45,000 traffic deaths annually in the USA indicates a very low degree of motorist competence. Well, we have some 6 mil cars, some 12 mil total motor vehicles in the USA (DOT figures 2006). Just for estimating usage, say 9 million. Average miles per vehicle is surely at least 10,000. One might estimate that the number of motorist/motorist interactions per mile traveled at 1. That gives us 9 x 10^11 interractions per year, and 45 x 10^3 deaths, for a ratio of one death per 2 x 10^7 interractions. That looks to me like a pretty safe operation.

[genec]

I never wrote anything about changing rates of deaths; don't assume that I meant anything in that subject. All that I mentioned was the ratio between the number of deaths and the number of potential collisions.

You are complaining that 45,000 traffic deaths annually in the USA indicates a very low degree of motorist competence. Well, we have some 6 mil cars, some 12 mil total motor vehicles in the USA (DOT figures 2006). Just for estimating usage, say 9 million. Average miles per vehicle is surely at least 10,000. One might estimate that the number of motorist/motorist interactions per mile traveled at 1. That gives us 9 x 10^11 interractions per year, and 45 x 10^3 deaths, for a ratio of one death per 2 x 10^7 interractions. That looks to me like a pretty safe operation.


I know you did not write about the changing rates of deaths... that is exactly my point.

Lets take this to the extreme for a moment to illustrate my point. Say all motor vehicles were designed to save all lives in spite of the severity of the collision... if there were no motorist deaths, would you then conclude that motorists were 100% compliant? Basing your view of compliance on the number of deaths is doing exactly that.

Drivers can now survive head on collisions... so the actual death/collision ratio has gone down... NOT due to more compliance, but due to vehicles with greater crash protection.

So in spite of more motorists on the road, the number of deaths has actually somewhat flattened... but more motorists mean a greater potential for collisions, however safer vehicles keep the death count at a somewhat fixed level, which does not actually reflect the compliance level.

[John Forester]

I know you did not write about the changing rates of deaths... that is exactly my point.

Lets take this to the extreme for a moment to illustrate my point. Say all motor vehicles were designed to save all lives in spite of the severity of the collision... if there were no motorist deaths, would you then conclude that motorists were 100% compliant? Basing your view of compliance on the number of deaths is doing exactly that.

Drivers can now survive head on collisions... so the actual death/collision ratio has gone down... NOT due to more compliance, but due to vehicles with greater crash protection.

So in spite of more motorists on the road, the number of deaths has actually somewhat flattened... but more motorists mean a greater potential for collisions, however safer vehicles keep the death count at a somewhat fixed level, which does not actually reflect the compliance level.

It is not the case that motorists can survive all crashes. So don't get your knickers in a twist over the impossible statistic.

[genec]

It is not the case that motorists can survive all crashes. So don't get your knickers in a twist over the impossible statistic.

Motorists are surviving crashes now that they would not have survived in the past.... So perhaps it is time to update your metrics.


Ever hear of air bags... or are you still driving the 1929 Hupmobile?

[John Forester]

Motorists are surviving crashes now that they would not have survived in the past.... So perhaps it is time to update your metrics.


Ever hear of air bags... or are you still driving the 1929 Hupmobile?

In the context, your reply is nonsensical. I used rather current data for the number of vehicles in the US, and a conservative value for average annual,vehicle miles, and the value that you supplied, in your argument, for the number of annual traffic fatalities in the US. There has been no discussion of changes over time. Therefore, the conclusion that I stated at the head of this paragraph.

[genec]

In the context, your reply is nonsensical. I used rather current data for the number of vehicles in the US, and a conservative value for average annual,vehicle miles, and the value that you supplied, in your argument, for the number of annual traffic fatalities in the US. There has been no discussion of changes over time. Therefore, the conclusion that I stated at the head of this paragraph.

And again your data focuses on vehicles and deaths... NOT collisions.

As I stated earlier, as long as deaths are prevented by the vehicles, the data is skewed, as you do not count actual collisions in your statistics... which means that you are deriving false conclusions based on lives saved by the vehicles; not on the compliance of the motorists to laws.

Just because someone does not die does not mean that a collision did not occur... do you understand that?

[genec]

John, in 2003 there were 44,800 deaths by motor vehicle. In that same year there were also 2,400,000 disabling motor vehicle accident injuries.

Your method of evaluating "driver compliance," based on deaths, does not even consider those 2,400,000 disabling injuries.

[Allister]

Go talk up your dream. When it becomes within the planning horizon, you might have something, but until then we have to deal with realities.

How do you suppose it'll get within 'planning horizon', whatever that is?

All that I have argued is that the number of locations suitable for bike paths is so low that it is impossible to build much of a bicycle transportation from them.

Much of a what?

... consider the long history of the attempts by the motoring establishment to clear their roads of cyclists. Had [the motoring establishment] raised that issue, I don't know that I would have opposed them, but, since they have never done so, I have never had to make any argument, pro or con.

Thank goodness for that.

Perhaps you have read that I was one of the experts involved in the only such American proposal that I have ever known of, about the West Los Angeles Veloway? I never argued against that, but it still didn't come to pass, and probably never will.

You've lost me there. 'Proposal' for what, exactly? A 'bicycle transportation', or 'clearing their roads of cyclists'?

You are making the argument that our society will, for whatever reasons, decide to spend large resources in making a bicycle freeway system... Whether our society will, or will not, make that decision, is far in the future, so far that it makes no difference to what we should do today.

Then why do anything? Let the Far Future People sort it out. :rolleyes:

[Indyv8a]

Ok, let me take this topic away from the "I don't like your methods" pssing match. How would you suggest encouraging more transportation by bike? Not just build new facilities, but an overall strategy? I will repeat the earlier comment I made. I heard one expert suggest the only way to move people out of their cars in to make them uncomfortably expensive to operate through taxes or penalties. What else can we do?

[markhr]

Ok, let me take this topic away from the "I don't like your methods" pssing match. How would you suggest encouraging more transportation by bike? Not just build new facilities, but an overall strategy? I will repeat the earlier comment I made. I heard one expert suggest the only way to move people out of their cars in to make them uncomfortably expensive to operate through taxes or penalties. What else can we do?

A good start would be education, practical and theory, on the rights and responsibilities of all road users for all from primary school through to driving licence age. Then we can worry about facilities or lack thereof. It's also been shown that if the parents can be encouraged to attend and participate in their children's practical training it would go a long way to quelling the parent's paranoia and superstition.

Pricing people out of their cars merely creates smaller and more efficient cars and a VERY resentful and angry group of voters. Unless people have practical experience of something they're highly unlikely to suddenly change their habits. Even with the cycling surge because of the 7/7 bombings in London public transport numbers are higher than ever and cycling seems to have tapered.

I've met people in the reserves (national guard) who're convinced cycle commuting is too dangerous to try. When challenged to try it they can come up with the same excuses motorists come up with even if they're happy doing dangerous stuff elsewhere.

They've started doing cycling training for school children in the UK and it seems to be working. That is, there are more children cycling/walking but it's an up-hill struggle against the free public transport in certain areas, stranger danger and paranoid teachers and parents. Even the fact that the UK is the fattest country in Europe hasn't caused parents to modify their behaviour.


The US seems to, from what little I've seen on the interweb, stick with "bike rodeos" in cordonned off carparks. That is, it seems to me from an early age the cyclists are encouraged into not being part of the legal road users. This seems further reinforced the older people in the US get, i.e., I'm a cyclist and do not belong on the roads, I'm a driver and that cyclist does not belong on the roads.


edit: spelling - pity my grammar sucks

[John Forester]

John, in 2003 there were 44,800 deaths by motor vehicle. In that same year there were also 2,400,000 disabling motor vehicle accident injuries.

Your method of evaluating "driver compliance," based on deaths, does not even consider those 2,400,000 disabling injuries.

Considering casualties rather than only fatal casualties then results in one casualty per 3 x 10^5 estimated vehicle interactions. Still looks like an acceptably safe operation.

[Indyv8a]

Considering casualties rather than only fatal casualties then results in one casualty per 3 x 10^5 estimated vehicle interactions. Still looks like an acceptably safe operation.

Statistics like that do not decrease the fear of flying or cycling. Numbers are cold, hysterical stories of plane crashes and biking deaths are viceral. How do we attempt to change attitudes about cycling? How can we create a more comfortable riding public? How do we get people like me over the "inconvenience" factors? (I admit I am in favor of bike commuting, but have not pulled the trigger due to "inconvenience" more than safety. I have some more than acceptable routes nearly anywhere I would need to go.)

[WaltPoutine]

Nonsense, as you would say. We already know that the result of doing nothing is a decrease in the number of people cycling. Eventually the numbers will become low enough that all cyclists will be banned from the road. That is the real danger.

Dublin spent a good deal of EU grant lucre on doing the opposite of nothing and they're continuing to do it. They shoved in dumbass "bike lanes just like they have in Holland" with special differently colored tarmac, including diagonal repositioning (e.g. at the Dollymount/Fairview section going north) across a lane of traffic. The results of the "canal cordon count" and other data showed that there was an overall decrease in the number of cyclists and that those remaining were channeled into the specific routes. So, that's one European city that followed your advice and failed.

We also see that in other countries where the government has worked to actively encourage cycling that the numbers of cyclists has gone up despite a prior trend towards decreasing cycling.

And we see the inverse correlation in other situations and thus cannot simplistically conclude that building any old bollocks will get more cyclists onto the road and also indicates the need as JF has pointed out for more detailed information than simple crude correlations.

A reasonable person wouldn't say "let's study this to death" but instead, "let's try something new and see what happens".

OK. What's that new thing? One of those horrible old bike lanes that is almost invariably constructed in the doorzone? No thanks.

[WaltPoutine]

Statistics like that do not decrease the fear of flying or cycling. Numbers are cold, hysterical stories of plane crashes and biking deaths are viceral. How do we attempt to change attitudes about cycling?

When so much of cycling advocacy is based upon exaggerating the dangers of cycling, through both helmet promotion and "safe" facilities promotion it's not unreasonable that the general public is put off. If we wanted to encourage more people then the empowering, simple message that emphasizes that we can control the amount of risk through following the same principles as other traffic might help.

How do we get people like me over the "inconvenience" factors? (I admit I am in favor of bike commuting, but have not pulled the trigger due to "inconvenience" more than safety. I have some more than acceptable routes nearly anywhere I would need to go.)

You're best placed to answer that. I figure that some people are just never going to find it easier to cycle due to a lack of changing facilities, energy levels, or habit.

[Indyv8a]

I think at this point, habit is my biggest excuse. Cold weather in my area has been an easy out recently. I guess as they say in the roadie forum, I just need to HTFU.

[WaltPoutine]

A good start would be education, practical and theory, on the rights and responsibilities of all road users for all from primary school through to driving licence age. Then we can worry about facilities or lack thereof. It's also been shown that if the parents can be encouraged to attend and participate in their children's practical training it would go a long way to quelling the parent's paranoia and superstition.

This is the most positive and practical thing which anyone has written so far in this discussion. There is an example of a highly successful program of this sort taught by one of the Long Beach based LCI instructors (who was also a teacher at the school). I forget his name, but the reports of the program were that it was both eagerly demanded by the kids and very successful in teaching reasonable road behaviors. It culminated with a group cycling trip of several days.

[John Forester]

Statistics like that do not decrease the fear of flying or cycling. Numbers are cold, hysterical stories of plane crashes and biking deaths are viceral. How do we attempt to change attitudes about cycling? How can we create a more comfortable riding public? How do we get people like me over the "inconvenience" factors? (I admit I am in favor of bike commuting, but have not pulled the trigger due to "inconvenience" more than safety. I have some more than acceptable routes nearly anywhere I would need to go.)

As you recognize, fear and inconvenience are different factors. Some of the inconvenience can be alleviated by end-of-trip arrangements. Arrangements is a more accurate description than facilities. When I was in engineering management, I had a private office, and in that office I was able to keep my bicycle and change my clothes. So, should I advise would-be cyclists to rise to the employment level where they have convenient end-of-trip arrangements? That is the basis on which I, long ago, described American voluntary bicycle commuting as being done by those whose professional reputation would not suffer from being known to ride to work. Such people range from low-paid workers and unpaid students, whom American society might excuse, to highly qualified professionals whose reputation depends on their actual professional performance rather than public persona.

In general, for most American trips by those with access to a car, I say that cycling will be less convenient than motoring and will be chosen only by those whose enjoyment of cycling exceeds the inconveniences associated with it. Enjoy cycling more by being skillful, confident, and proud of your accomplishment in a cycling-ignorant society, and you are more likely to use bicycle transportation.

As for the fear factor, since that is the typical and "official" public superstition, only a little can be achieved, gradually, over time. Teaching those who choose to cycle how to do it properly, confidently, and proudly will develop a group whose attitude will inevitably touch another small proportion of the cycling-ignorant public. Opposing the bikeway program that is the official physical embodiment of that fear is another small way. But don't expect great things.

[markhr]

...As for the fear factor, since that is the typical and "official" public superstition, only a little can be achieved, gradually, over time. Teaching those who choose to cycle how to do it properly, confidently, and proudly will develop a group whose attitude will inevitably touch another small proportion of the cycling-ignorant public. Opposing the bikeway program that is the official physical embodiment of that fear is another small way. But don't expect great things.

+1

[cooker]

That is the basis on which I, long ago, described American voluntary bicycle commuting as being done by those whose professional reputation would not suffer from being known to ride to work. Such people range from low-paid workers and unpaid students, whom American society might excuse, to highly qualified professionals whose reputation depends on their actual professional performance rather than public persona.

I like to think I fall into the latter group, and I worried about the stigma when I started to bike commute in 1992. In the end it was self-stigmatization more than anything else that had held me back - I've had nothing but positive feedback from colleagues and clients. Of course some may sneer behind my back but they are not evident to me.

I'm not sure you've addressed the issue in your body of work - how to destigmatize North American cycling, so that the guy in the Foo forum who is seeking witty one line responses for when co-workers ask if he is homeless, can relax and not worry about it? I suspect many people who disagree with you on bike facilities see them in part as a way to visually reinforce to motorists that bikes have a place on the road, and thus to make cycling seem normal and not a fringe activity.

[Indyv8a]

I suspect many people who disagree with you on bike facilities see them in part as a way to visually reinforce to motorists that bikes have a place on the road, and thus to make cycling seem normal and not a fringe activity.

I would ask either side than, were are the resources best allocated? Until the general public is more comforatable with cycling as transportation, public resources will be limited. Where is the best bang for the buck?

[Indyv8a]

In general, for most American trips by those with access to a car, I say that cycling will be less convenient than motoring and will be chosen only by those whose enjoyment of cycling exceeds the inconveniences associated with it. Enjoy cycling more by being skillful, confident, and proud of your accomplishment in a cycling-ignorant society, and you are more likely to use bicycle transportation.


Would you have a suggestion on making bicycles appear more convenient? Again, getting more out there riding seems to be the goal, whether the facilities are separate or combined. What do you believe it would take to get people out of cars?

[John Forester]

I like to think I fall into the latter group, and I worried about the stigma when I started to bike commute in 1992. In the end it was self-stigmatization more than anything else that had held me back - I've had nothing but positive feedback from colleagues and clients. Of course some may sneer behind my back but they are not evident to me.

I'm not sure you've addressed the issue in your body of work - how to destigmatize North American cycling, so that the guy in the Foo forum who is seeking witty one line responses for when co-workers ask if he is homeless, can relax and not worry about it? I suspect many people who disagree with you on bike facilities see them in part as a way to visually reinforce to motorists that bikes have a place on the road, and thus to make cycling seem normal and not a fringe activity.

I have noticed that the social stigma associated with being a cyclist has diminished a great deal since the 1950s, when, by my experience, it was strongest. In those days, it was far more a matter of socio-economic class prejudice, on the assumption that the cyclist was so incompetent he couldn't afford a car. Cyclists are more frequently praised, today, but there is still the suspicion that the cyclist is taking foolish risks. Society can accept that rock climbers, for instance, run risks for the enjoyment of the sport, but to risk cycling in traffic for doing an unattractive activity is much less understandable.

When I was living in Palo Alto, I had to confer with an attorney in San Francisco who had a bicycle accident case. So I rode up the normal way, mostly along El Camino Real, and returned the same way. During my return ride, I found peculiar traffic situations. At places where the right-hand lane was normally free, it was clogged with stationary or slow moving motor vehicles. So I overtook them on their left side, in the normal manner. And, what's more, there were people along the road cheering me. The damnedest situations I had ever encountered, not even in races, when the cheers were desired but the motor congestion was absent. It was only when I got home and learned the news that the mystery was solved. That was the afternoon when the Arabs turned off the oil shipments and all the panicked motorists were lining up at gas stations.

I agree with you that many in this forum see bike lanes as a way of visually reinforcing to the public that bikes have a place on the road. After all, they present that argument quite frequently. Of course, as a person who has always believed that cyclists are legitimate road users, the bike lane denotes the only part of the road that society thinks we should use. And, I don't think that there is an opposite side to this consideration, as in persuading someone who thinks that cyclists don't belong on the road. It appears to me that a person who thinks that, but is persuaded by the presence of a bike lane, is most likely to conclude that the bike lane represents the area which motorists have had to give up in order to give cyclists a place. In short, from whichever way you look at it, the bike lane looks like the only part of the roadway cyclists should use.

I think that there is no direct way to destigmatize bicycle transportation in American public opinion. Destigmatization will occur only when the public reduces its fear of cycling in traffic. I suggest that there are two ways by which this might occur. One way is through the bikeway program, because the public believes, falsely, that bikeways make cycling safe for beginners. The other way is through an increase in vehicular cycling, which demonstrates that competent cycling in traffic is reasonably safe. Obviously, achieving destigmatization through recognition of vehicular cycling is the preferable alternative. However, the bikeway advocates argue for the bikeway route, because they believe that destigmatization, which is closely related to the public superstitious fear of cycling in traffic, will produce such an upsurge in bicycle transportation that motoring will be reduced by a transportationally significant amount. Since I see no evidence that such a significant switch from motoring to bicycling has been produced in a motoring nation, I don't accept the argument by the bikeway advocates.

[John Forester]

Would you have a suggestion on making bicycles appear more convenient? Again, getting more out there riding seems to be the goal, whether the facilities are separate or combined. What do you believe it would take to get people out of cars?

When I compare the comparative utility of motoring versus cycling in automotive-era American cities, including the transportational, financial, commercial, employment, and social patterns that such cities have developed, I conclude that only some catastrophic disarrangement of the current condition can do so. Frankly, I prefer the present conditions to such a catastrophic event, but, in any case, how that will occur and what results it will produce is unpredictable, let alone trying to predict what we should do, today, in the cycling field.

I think that the best that we can do is to make cycling better for those who choose to engage in it.

[Indyv8a]

I have noticed that the social stigma associated with being a cyclist has diminished a great deal since the 1950s, when, by my experience, it was strongest. In those days, it was far more a matter of socio-economic class prejudice, on the assumption that the cyclist was so incompetent he couldn't afford a car. Cyclists are more frequently praised, today, but there is still the suspicion that the cyclist is taking foolish risks. Society can accept that rock climbers, for instance, run risks for the enjoyment of the sport, but to risk cycling in traffic for doing an unattractive activity is much less understandable.

When I was living in Palo Alto, I had to confer with an attorney in San Francisco who had a bicycle accident case. So I rode up the normal way, mostly along El Camino Real, and returned the same way. During my return ride, I found peculiar traffic situations. At places where the right-hand lane was normally free, it was clogged with stationary or slow moving motor vehicles. So I overtook them on their left side, in the normal manner. And, what's more, there were people along the road cheering me. The damnedest situations I had ever encountered, not even in races, when the cheers were desired but the motor congestion was absent. It was only when I got home and learned the news that the mystery was solved. That was the afternoon when the Arabs turned off the oil shipments and all the panicked motorists were lining up at gas stations.

I agree with you that many in this forum see bike lanes as a way of visually reinforcing to the public that bikes have a place on the road. After all, they present that argument quite frequently. Of course, as a person who has always believed that cyclists are legitimate road users, the bike lane denotes the only part of the road that society thinks we should use. And, I don't think that there is an opposite side to this consideration, as in persuading someone who thinks that cyclists don't belong on the road. It appears to me that a person who thinks that, but is persuaded by the presence of a bike lane, is most likely to conclude that the bike lane represents the area which motorists have had to give up in order to give cyclists a place. In short, from whichever way you look at it, the bike lane looks like the only part of the roadway cyclists should use.

I think that there is no direct way to destigmatize bicycle transportation in American public opinion. Destigmatization will occur only when the public reduces its fear of cycling in traffic. I suggest that there are two ways by which this might occur. One way is through the bikeway program, because the public believes, falsely, that bikeways make cycling safe for beginners. The other way is through an increase in vehicular cycling, which demonstrates that competent cycling in traffic is reasonably safe. Obviously, achieving destigmatization through recognition of vehicular cycling is the preferable alternative. However, the bikeway advocates argue for the bikeway route, because they believe that destigmatization, which is closely related to the public superstitious fear of cycling in traffic, will produce such an upsurge in bicycle transportation that motoring will be reduced by a transportationally significant amount. Since I see no evidence that such a significant switch from motoring to bicycling has been produced in a motoring nation, I don't accept the argument by the bikeway advocates.

Is there any relavent psychological or sociological research on attitudes about transportation?

[John Forester]

I would ask either side than, were are the resources best allocated? Until the general public is more comforatable with cycling as transportation, public resources will be limited. Where is the best bang for the buck?

That question is impossible to answer, because you have not defined the characteristics of the bang that is to be the criterion.

If you define the desired result as safer cycling, a lower cyclist crash rate per mile traveled, then the clear answer is teaching cyclists to ride in the vehicular manner, along with some subsidiary effort directed at motorists. Such a program can be expected to also produce some increase in the amount of bicycle transportation, but not a large one.

If you define the desired result as a transportationally significant switch from motoring to bicycling, then the bikeways advocates make their argument, but, unfortunately, they have no evidence to support such a switch being produced by a bikeway program in a modern motoring nation.

[John Forester]

Is there any relavent psychological or sociological research on attitudes about transportation?

Yes, there is quite a lot. The late Professor John Finley Scott, Sociology, UC Davis, very active in the field of bicycle transportation, made that one of his specialties. He and I were close associates for thirty-five years in the bicycle transportation field, and we mostly agreed, though he said that he thought that I spread my brush a little too wide in some theories.

However, bicycle transportation is not a field that has attracted serious intellectual attention. There's neither prestige nor money in it. Those in the field who are paid are paid to support and to implement the public superstition that explains (justifies is not the word that should be used) the government's bike program. Because that program has no scientific basis, that work is an intellectual dead end. Almost the only work with intellectual substance in the field of bicycle transportation has been done by amateurs. The strongest exception to that is the statistical study of car-bike collisions done by Kenneth Cross for the National Highway Safety Administration, but that was contracted before the government realized that its results would undermine its bikeway program.

The professional intellectual and practical work in the psychology and sociology of transportation has been done where the money is: motorcar manufacturing and airline operation, because they need to be profitable, and mass transit, because that depends on making the public willing to pay the necessary subsidies.

[genec]

Considering casualties rather than only fatal casualties then results in one casualty per 3 x 10^5 estimated vehicle interactions. Still looks like an acceptably safe operation.


And yet those very same statistics are often touted to show how dangerous driving is, relative to cycling...

[genec]

This is the most positive and practical thing which anyone has written so far in this discussion. There is an example of a highly successful program of this sort taught by one of the Long Beach based LCI instructors (who was also a teacher at the school). I forget his name, but the reports of the program were that it was both eagerly demanded by the kids and very successful in teaching reasonable road behaviors. It culminated with a group cycling trip of several days.

And what, it effected 30-60 people?

[John Forester]

And yet those very same statistics are often touted to show how dangerous driving is, relative to cycling...

You should not attempt to tout to us the gossip you have acquired from other touts.

[John Forester]

And what, it effected 30-60 people?

That kind of sneer discloses your preference for popular superstition over reasonable fact. If you had something worthwhile to say about that subject, you should have written it. Comments like this, from people who support superstitions and dreams about superstitions, are one the items that make so many of discussions of bicycling affairs so stagnant.

[genec]

That kind of sneer discloses your preference for popular superstition over reasonable fact. If you had something worthwhile to say about that subject, you should have written it. Comments like this, from people who support superstitions and dreams about superstitions, are one the items that make so many of discussions of bicycling affairs so stagnant.

How many bicycles in the US?

How many people have been trained to ride by LCIs?

Does the number trained by the LCIs represent anything close to the nearly 2% of the population that supposedly is part of the regular cycling public?

Project on how long it will take to train even that tiny amount of cyclists.

[randya]

That kind of sneer discloses your preference for popular superstition over reasonable fact. If you had something worthwhile to say about that subject, you should have written it. Comments like this, from people who support superstitions and dreams about superstitions, are one the items that make so many of discussions of bicycling affairs so stagnant.

this diatribe is probably reportable for it's contemptuous and insulting tone as a violation of the guidelines. Can't you be civil, John?

btw, you're the one who makes every discussion of bicycling affairs here so stagnant.

[John Forester]

How many bicycles in the US?

How many people have been trained to ride by LCIs?

Does the number trained by the LCIs represent anything close to the nearly 2% of the population that supposedly is part of the regular cycling public?

Project on how long it will take to train even that tiny amount of cyclists.

Why bother to make such calculations that are so unrealistic? And the rate may change, too. Every person trained in vehicular cycling benefits, and, possibly, spreads that benefit wider. Those that are not trained are no worse off than they were before. It would be different if there were another program that had demonstrated its ability to provide the benefits of vehicular cycling to a much larger proportion of the population, but there has been no such demonstration.

You should not sneer at that which is not popular, when you have nothing better to offer than fantasies about bicycle freeways.

[WaltPoutine]

this diatribe is probably reportable for it's contemptuous and insulting tone as a violation of the guidelines. Can't you be civil, John?

It's an irritated reaction to what is at best the thoughtless dismissal of a good deal of work done by the teacher in question. His name was something like "Quint" I think. I'm sure that JF knows him in some capacity or other. I can't prove it, but I'd warrant that the effect of his teaching those kids will do far more to produce some real, actual cyclists than the disastrous monomaniac insistence on bikelanes. The sneer and dismissal belies any actual intent by bikelane advocates to support education although they pay lip service to it while funneling government funding into their pro-motorcar facilities.

btw, you're the one who makes every discussion of bicycling affairs here so stagnant.

Oh, I don't know. I see quite a lot of incivility coming from all sides. At least JF has the willingness to rationally answer some pretty deranged and sustained attacks from people that are apparently obsessed with him and always attempts to back up his assertions.

[WaltPoutine]

How many bicycles in the US?

How many people have been trained to ride by LCIs?

Does the number trained by the LCIs represent anything close to the nearly 2% of the population that supposedly is part of the regular cycling public?

Project on how long it will take to train even that tiny amount of cyclists.

So have you shifted your argument from "I support VC education AND bike facilities" to only supporting bike facilities?

That particular teacher taught his course for several years. Kids loved it. I'm not sure how many years or how many kids in his class. But let's guess that it's somewhere between 50 to 100. That's 50 to 100 kids that aren't going to be lured out under the wheels of a truck by you bike lane advocates.

It's also interesting that in the context of someone actually doing something constructive you've chosen instead to try and sabotage their efforts. It calls into question your willingness to actually get involved in the education side of things.

[John Forester]

When I wrote: "That kind of sneer discloses your preference for popular superstition over reasonable fact. If you had something worthwhile to say about that subject, you should have written it. Comments like this, from people who support superstitions and dreams about superstitions, are one the items that make so many of discussions of bicycling affairs so stagnant."

To which randya replied:

this diatribe is probably reportable for it's contemptuous and insulting tone as a violation of the guidelines. Can't you be civil, John?

btw, you're the one who makes every discussion of bicycling affairs here so stagnant.

Genec's statement was a sneer without providing anything better. Furthermore, almost the only thing that genec has advocated is his fantasy of a system of bicycle freeways. In short, I was referring to well-known factual situations. In any reasonable discussion, the repeated advocacy of fantasies is detrimental to reason and, in most circles, is deemed to be impolite. In short, I was giving genec's statements the description that they deserve.

You criticize my phrasing as contemptuous and insulting. Well, yes, genec's repeated statements that insult the intelligence of the participants do get a bit trying of one's patience. But I do not think that I owe him an apology for accurately describing his arguments.

[Indyv8a]

this diatribe is probably reportable for it's contemptuous and insulting tone as a violation of the guidelines. Can't you be civil, John?

btw, you're the one who makes every discussion of bicycling affairs here so stagnant.


Randya, again, I am trying to learn. Could you please provide me with an explaination of your point of view, without the insulting tone?

John has been very civil to me, and I am trying to be civil to others on this forum. Bekologist has been at best condescending, and your hostility to VC is apparent. I'm not suprised with the constant attacks you and other "advocates" that John's responses to you are less than tolerant.

Again, if we continue to beat each other down for these disagreements, who else will take us seriously? And I continue to ask what is your PRACTICAL suggestion? John has been at this for many years, and is pessimistic, fine. He would rather not have the massive upheaval he believes it would take to change transportation. Do you believe we can alter transportation with a less radical change? What do you want to have happen?

[cooker]

I think that the best that we can do is to make cycling better for those who choose to engage in it.

I hope that's not true.

[Indyv8a]

I hope that's not true.

How would you change it? What can we do? I keep asking. Are there any ideas out there?

[randya]

Randya, again, I am trying to learn. Could you please provide me with an explaination of your point of view, without the insulting tone?

John has been very civil to me, and I am trying to be civil to others on this forum. Bekologist has been at best condescending, and your hostility to VC is apparent. I'm not suprised with the constant attacks you and other "advocates" that John's responses to you are less than tolerant.

Again, if we continue to beat each other down for these disagreements, who else will take us seriously? And I continue to ask what is your PRACTICAL suggestion? John has been at this for many years, and is pessimistic, fine. He would rather not have the massive upheaval he believes it would take to change transportation. Do you believe we can alter transportation with a less radical change? What do you want to have happen?

that's funny because locally I get accused of 'being VC' when I oppose poorly designed 'facilities'. It's too bad that the official VC rep is a cranky, superstitious old man who turns just about everyone off except a few acolytes that choose to ignore his lousy attitude and personality. Because some of us could use some support in the real world for better designed facilities (since most municipalities are determined to build something), and better driver training programs; but all VC offers is the 'no facilities' option, without even basic driver training that would be supportive of an environment where the motorists would actually share the road with cyclists.