Advocacy & Safety - What do you think?

Vehicular cycling is much better than the most complex alternate that has been developed, cyclist-inferiority cycling on bikeways

By John Forester MS, PE | www.johnforester.com

Consider the modern industrial state up to 1920 or so. Although some people had cars, most people got along without them. The modern developing-world cities are much the same. In such cities, choosing not to own a car presented little difference in lifestyle. One had much the same choice of employment and of social events, while one's choice of residence was still quite wide. However, with the growth of the modern decentralized or distributed urban area, this is no longer so. Not having easy access to motoring greatly restricts one's choices of employment, of social events, and of residence location. The private motor vehicle provides transportation that is so much better than its competition that our cities and lifestyles have developed around easy access to motoring. We cyclists recognize that the ability to cycle eases those restrictions but does not eliminate them. To live the typical modern life requires easy access to motoring. Those without such easy access, whether or not of their own choice, have to accept a very limited range of choices in employment, social life, and residence, limitations that can only be transgressed by great effort that cannot be frequently used. That is just the way it is.

There are those who disapprove of the way it is, and advocate changing that way. That's fine, let them work on their agenda. The vehicular cycling program is based on the here and now, how best to travel by bicycle in the modern urban areas of the industrialized world. Vehicular cycling is what the cyclist needs to do to best get around by bicycle. It so happens that vehicular cycling is much better than the most complex alternate that has been developed, cyclist-inferiority cycling on bikeways. There's no point in advocating imaginary systems that appear to be best of all, when such have never been proved practical for general urban bicycle transportation. This means that, whatever one's opinion about the acceptability of modern cities, the best strategy is to get society to accept vehicular cycling as the proper method of cycling, available to all those who choose to cycle and implemented with appropriate laws, facilities, and customs.

John Forester MS, PE

Forester litterally wrote the book on effective cycling. I don't always agree with his thoughts but he makes excellent points. We can complain about the autocentric nature of society and fantasize about a utopia where bicycles are the center of individual transportation or we can work with what we have, try to get along with motorist, and constantly work towards the acceptance and appropriate treatment of bicycles as ligitimate means of transportation.

City streets would provide much better transportation if parking at the sides of the streets were banned. This would allow wider traffic lanes that could fit both multi-wheeled and two-wheeled vehicles at the same time.

Forester litterally wrote the book on effective cycling. I don't always agree with his thoughts but he makes excellent points. We can complain about the autocentric nature of society and fantasize about a utopia where bicycles are the center of individual transportation or we can work with what we have, try to get along with motorist, and constantly work towards the acceptance and appropriate treatment of bicycles as ligitimate means of transportation.

Forester sure is wordy and cumbersome in his writing. You made his point in far fewer words, and without the haughty pretentious 'i know it all' style that is the trademark of 'intellectuals' these days.


roughstuff

Lawful vehicular cycling works splendidly on low-speed local roads, such as in central business districts and most residential neighborhoods. It works adequately on major arterials with wide curb lanes or smooth, well-maintained shoulders. It works poorly on high-speed, heavily-traveled, freely-flowing freeway-style intersections, merges, and diverges, which really should have been built only on limited-access freeways. It also relies heavily on the cooperation, competency, attention, and attitude of motorists.

In a residential neighborhood or central business district, give me motorist education and lack of distraction. On a fast arterial, give me a wide curb lane, sans parking. At a Gordian knot interchange, give me a bicycle path bypass.

Forrester makes many good points but is very dogmatic and as a result he also has his detractors. Here's a review of Effective Cycling that I think does a pretty good job of nailing both sides of the effective cycling point of view:

http://www.imaja.com/change/environment/mvarticles/EffectiveCycling.html

Forrester makes many good points but is very dogmatic and as a result he also has his detractors. Here's a review of Effective Cycling that I think does a pretty good job of nailing both sides of the effective cycling point of view:

http://www.imaja.com/change/environment/mvarticles/EffectiveCycling.html

By far the single most important (and scary) line in this review, and the single most important point in the entire safety discussion, is: "As long as there are drunk, drugged, angry, and simply absent-minded drivers on the road, riding in traffic will never be 'safe.'" Of course, it is very accurate to add that neither driving nor walking in traffic are truly "safe" either, for the same reason.

cars are for times when you must cover many long distances in a day... or go to home depot.

By far the single most important (and scary) line in this review, and the single most important point in the entire safety discussion, is: "As long as there are drunk, drugged, angry, and simply absent-minded drivers on the road, riding in traffic will never be 'safe.'" Of course, it is very accurate to add that neither driving nor walking in traffic are truly "safe" either, for the same reason.

Nor will riding outside that traffic be safe. A friend of mine can testify to that, after having a drunk driver literally try to drive straight through his house a couple of years ago.

Forester certainly believes he is right. Sometimes he comes off as a bit of a curmudgeon, but that might be what it takes to challenge a system that seeks to cancel your options. He's done a fantastic job standing up to the scare-tactics and false arguments that some use to try to remove cyclists from the road. His influence is effective and I'm glad for it.

A big proablem I see is, it is far too easy to get and keep a drivers license. Raise tha bar till only 3/4 of those now driving pass.
2: require those wanting to opperate a vehicle of more than 2 ton net to pass a far harder test yet, including a hands on test.
3: Raise taxes on gas to cover true costs.

A big proablem I see is, it is far too easy to get and keep a drivers license. Raise tha bar till only 3/4 of those now driving pass.
2: require those wanting to opperate a vehicle of more than 2 ton net to pass a far harder test yet, including a hands on test.
3: Raise taxes on gas to cover true costs.
You got it man!!!

I still don't get it? Does vehicular cycling refer to bikes and cars on the same track? I don't really like bike paths because around here it develops the idea in motorists that bikes don't belong on the road after all tax dollars go to these bike paths that are full of baby strollers and carefree walkers...

Nor will riding outside that traffic be safe. A friend of mine can testify to that, after having a drunk driver literally try to drive straight through his house a couple of years ago.

Scary thing is, this is probably not all that uncommon. I had a coworker tell me that his loser of a brother-in-law got drunk and drove into someone's house just as you describe.

Quick, alert the media - it's not safe to buy a house that sits roadside. Banish all roadside housebuilding now and remove the existing ones!

A big proablem I see is, it is far too easy to get and keep a drivers license. Raise tha bar till only 3/4 of those now driving pass.


I reckon the driving age should be raised to 25. Let the young immortals seek out their thrills in places other than the public roadways.

A big proablem I see is, it is far too easy to get and keep a drivers license. Raise tha bar till only 3/4 of those now driving pass.

Agreed. The operator's test in most states in way too easy. Look to countries like Norway, whose driving test is quite stringent.

2: require those wanting to opperate a vehicle of more than 2 ton net to pass a far harder test yet, including a hands on test.

It's called a Commercial Driver's License. It's for vehicles above 12,000#, or placardable quantities of hazardous materials. And it's still too easy, even with the hands on road test.

3: Raise taxes on gas to cover true costs.

No way. Then cage drivers really would own the road and have a valid argument to push cyclists off the road.

I reckon the driving age should be raised to 25. Let the young immortals seek out their thrills in places other than the public roadways.

Seconded. Doubly so before I forget about Schoolies' Week last year.

I reckon the driving age should be raised to 25. Let the young immortals seek out their thrills in places other than the public roadways.

I agree. The reality however is quite different. Here in Georgia the General Assembly has tried several times over the years to raise the driving age. We have had many young people die on metro Atlanta roads. "Affluenza" has a firm hold on metro Atlanta families, with many teens driving fast, expensive autos. In the last few years there have been several incidences of high speed wrecks with multiple teen deaths. Our legislature has tried to raise the driving age to 18 (currently it's 16) but has failed due to extreme pressure from PARENTS. It seems that parents like the idea of their children being able to drive. We do have a "graduated" license that limits what new drivers can do for the first six months but it's ineffective and not enforced.

Our legislature has tried to raise the driving age to 18 (currently it's 16) but has failed due to extreme pressure from PARENTS. It seems that parents like the idea of their children being able to drive. We do have a "graduated" license that limits what new drivers can do for the first six months but it's ineffective and not enforced.

Although I got my first driver's license at age 16 and subsequently proved that I was mature enough to drive responsibly, I did not let my elder son drive until he turned 18. I will probably treat my younger son, who turns 15 early next month, the same way, even though I am anticipating a loud protest.

Parents everywhere -- if you really care about your kids, withhold the driving privilege as long as you can. It is about the last parenting carrot you have in your arsenal, and it is literally a matter of life-and-death.

By the way, California's graduated licensing system has lowered the teenage CARnage rate significantly, but it is still too high.

I reckon the driving age should be raised to 25. Let the young immortals seek out their thrills in places other than the public roadways.

I think that is a bit extreme. I got my license when I turned 16 and like most new drivers I was a bit reckless and inexperienced. Currently I am 20, in college, don't have a car and barely ever drive. Without others my age having cars it would be extremely difficult to live on my own at college. Considering many people go to college or out on their own at 18 what are they to do if they cant drive a car. Sure a bicycle is a valid means of local transportation, but how do you shop for food or clothes or anything else substantial in size?

I would support moving the driving age to 18 and maybe putting restrictions on until 21, but I think anything beyond that is a bit extreme. Personally though, I think everyone talking on their cell phones are far worse than young drivers.

I think that is a bit extreme. I got my license when I turned 16 and like most new drivers I was a bit reckless and inexperienced. Currently I am 20, in college, don't have a car and barely ever drive. Without others my age having cars it would be extremely difficult to live on my own at college. Considering many people go to college or out on their own at 18 what are they to do if they cant drive a car. Sure a bicycle is a valid means of local transportation, but how do you shop for food or clothes or anything else substantial in size?

I've been shopping for food, clothes and anything else I want without a car for years. It isn't really that difficult. In anycase, given the number of people in the 16-24 age group that are involved in crashes where either they or the innocent party are killed, I think being without a car for a few years is a relatively minor inconvenience.

When I was stationed in the Va beach area for 18 months I did okay without a car and bought plenty of clothes and food. I would either ride the bicycle or take the bus.Occasionally I would need a ride, but a military base is much like a college campus a car was not really essential for me.