Vehicular Cycling (VC) - Hurst's Art of Cycling

At a guess,I think the main difference between Hurst and Forester is that Hurst has ridden in DC in the past decade,while Forester rides with HH.

Keep up the good work Robert. Your book is spot-on for cycling in the DC area,and I found it very helpful when I first started commuting. If you're ever in town,look up the Pirates and we'll do a pillage for you.

I don't think Forester even rides with HH. Both are in my area, and frankly I think the biggest irony is that the little burg where Forester lives has installed bike lanes since he moved there.

HH is a regular cyclist... I've ridden with him and he has good legs. If Forester rides regularly, it is to very local destinations. He is getting on in years, so I rather doubt he puts in any serious mileage.

If john forester rides more than 300 miles a year these days, I'll eat a bicycle tire and style my hair with Phil Wood Grease till Christmas.

What it comes down to is that John probably doesn't deal with daily rush hour traffic on arterial roads, and motorists distracted by cell phones and other new devices. I venture to say that he probably relates to and seeks comfortable situations, rather than situations that regular transportation cyclists must face daily.

Locally there is a person in power who IMHO is following in John's footsteps, does not ride much or in a wide verity of situations and is trying to assert his minority opinion on the rest of us. So my question is the lack of experience of "riding like I do" enough to discount what a so called expert wants to assert that is contrary to what those who are riding like this want?

What it comes down to is that John probably doesn't deal with daily rush hour traffic on arterial roads, and motorists distracted by cell phones and other new devices. I venture to say that he probably relates to and seeks comfortable situations, rather than situations that regular transportation cyclists must face daily.

You are a fool, genec, to make such statements about situations of which you are completely ignorant. I ride whenever the need arises, without waiting for low traffic time. I ride on whichever arterial roads serve my purposes. University, El Cajon, Normal, Federal, Fletcher Parkway, no problem. It is true that I don't ride very much; I have many aches and pains. But it is not true that traffic bothers me -- it never has.

I can't help it if you are so bothered by traffic that you cannot perceive that there are those who aren't.

You are a fool, genec, to make such statements about situations of which you are completely ignorant. I ride whenever the need arises, without waiting for low traffic time. I ride on whichever arterial roads serve my purposes. University, El Cajon, Normal, Federal, Fletcher Parkway, no problem. It is true that I don't ride very much; I have many aches and pains. But it is not true that traffic bothers me -- it never has.

I can't help it if you are so bothered by traffic that you cannot perceive that there are those who aren't.

hey! You're back. I'd love to have you weigh in on our discussion in this thread (http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=513638)

You are a fool, genec, to make such statements about situations of which you are completely ignorant. I ride whenever the need arises, without waiting for low traffic time. I ride on whichever arterial roads serve my purposes. University, El Cajon, Normal, Federal, Fletcher Parkway, no problem. It is true that I don't ride very much; I have many aches and pains. But it is not true that traffic bothers me -- it never has.

I can't help it if you are so bothered by traffic that you cannot perceive that there are those who aren't.

Back at you John. My comments were made based on me remembering you saying that you typically visited local stores in LG.

I know that neither University, nor El Cajon is a high speed road, having speed limits of 35MPH typically. Fletcher Parkway on the other hand is a 45MPH road with bike lanes... and no doubt motorists leaving and entering Highway 8 probably do so at even higher speeds.

You also vastly misunderstand me. I am not bothered by traffic, however, I see that the situation we have in the US is such that we will never have the modal share for cycling as many European countries, due to the very auto centric designs of roads here.

What drives me is that by wholly adopting and holding onto a VC "as the only way..." mentality, cycling leaders like yourself encourage situations like cities turning back TEA funding; meanwhile, road speeds continue climb higher (in spite of posted limits), road design engineers continue to design roads that look more and more like freeway lanes, all while cars get larger and faster.

In the Feb 9 issue of Time Magazine, Briefing column, page 16, there is an article discussing fuel efficiency... "a Brief History of Fuel Efficiency." The article points out that on average, today's cars can do 0-60 in 9.6 seconds vrs the average car of 1975 going 0-60 in 14.1 seconds; and the average power has climbed from 137 HP in 1975 to 222HP in 2008, all while gas mileage has not changed much since the Model T got 21MPG. This means that the same humans that get no more driver training than then drivers did in 1975 (and may be getting less) are now driving much faster, more powerful cars and consuming vast quantities of limited resources.

You mentioned to me in a private email that you relished your youth and vehicular cycling from 1936 "when everyone did it." Well, it is not 1936, nor even 1975. If we expect cycling to ever really be a part of the overall transportation picture, in the US, there has to be major changes in the environment to make that environment more inviting to folks that do not consider themselves cyclists.

This is why, in spite of the fact that I am a well experienced vehicular cyclist, I strongly encourage modification of our auto centric environment in a manner that supports and encourages the use of the bicycle. I fully expect this effort may take well over 40 years or so to implement, as was the case in Copenhagen; but unless there is such support... I doubt that cycling in this country will ever be anything but a "game" for the few, skilled and brave among us. In the US, bicycles are "toys," and cycling is a "sport," whereas in other locations, bicycles are transportation.

While indeed, in your 1936 "everyone may have been cycling in a vehicular manner..." [paraphrased] it is not that way today, with cycling now having a modal share of less than 2% in your country of birth. The result has been that large cars now fill the streets to overcrowding. London has confronted this reality with congestion charges. Other major cities in the world are also coming to the realization that the auto, while convenient, has the penalty of terrible inefficiency, noise, pollution, and is a terrible use of space for moving around the individual person. Whether you agree or not, changes will be made over time to correct this problem, and no doubt, due to the individual freedom that cycling offers, cycling will be part of the solution.

... I am not bothered by traffic, however, I see that the situation we have in the US is such that we will never have the modal share for cycling as many European countries, due to the very auto centric designs of roads here.

What drives me is that by wholly adopting and holding onto a VC "as the only way..." mentality, cycling leaders like yourself encourage situations like cities turning back TEA funding; meanwhile, road speeds continue climb higher (in spite of posted limits), road design engineers continue to design roads that look more and more like freeway lanes, all while cars get larger and faster.

In the Feb 9 issue of Time Magazine, Briefing column, page 16, there is an article discussing fuel efficiency... "a Brief History of Fuel Efficiency." The article points out that on average, today's cars can do 0-60 in 9.6 seconds vrs the average car of 1975 going 0-60 in 14.1 seconds; and the average power has climbed from 137 HP in 1975 to 222HP in 2008, all while gas mileage has not changed much since the Model T got 21MPG. This means that the same humans that get no more driver training than then drivers did in 1975 (and may be getting less) are now driving much faster, more powerful cars and consuming vast quantities of limited resources.

You mentioned to me in a private email that you relished your youth and vehicular cycling from 1936 "when everyone did it." Well, it is not 1936, nor even 1975. If we expect cycling to ever really be a part of the overall transportation picture, in the US, there has to be major changes in the environment to make that environment more inviting to folks that do not consider themselves cyclists.

This is why, in spite of the fact that I am a well experienced vehicular cyclist, I strongly encourage modification of our auto centric environment in a manner that supports and encourages the use of the bicycle. I fully expect this effort may take well over 40 years or so to implement, as was the case in Copenhagen; but unless there is such support... I doubt that cycling in this country will ever be anything but a "game" for the few, skilled and brave among us. In the US, bicycles are "toys," and cycling is a "sport," whereas in other locations, bicycles are transportation.

While indeed, in your 1936 "everyone may have been cycling in a vehicular manner..." [paraphrased] it is not that way today, with cycling now having a modal share of less than 2% in your country of birth. The result has been that large cars now fill the streets to overcrowding. London has confronted this reality with congestion charges. Other major cities in the world are also coming to the realization that the auto, while convenient, has the penalty of terrible inefficiency, noise, pollution, and is a terrible use of space for moving around the individual person. Whether you agree or not, changes will be made over time to correct this problem, and no doubt, due to the individual freedom that cycling offers, cycling will be part of the solution.

great post.:thumb:

edit: BTW - I am bothered by traffic. And I am not afraid to admit it. It bothers me when I drive and I am not fond of it on my bicycle. I resent sitting in traffic in my car and I'd prefer not to deal with it on my bike. Give me a car free open road any day. You can all have your traffic but me- I'm much happier without it.:p

Back at you John. My comments were made based on me remembering you saying that you typically visited local stores in LG.

I know that neither University, nor El Cajon is a high speed road, having speed limits of 35MPH typically. Fletcher Parkway on the other hand is a 45MPH road with bike lanes... and no doubt motorists leaving and entering Highway 8 probably do so at even higher speeds.

You also vastly misunderstand me. I am not bothered by traffic, however, I see that the situation we have in the US is such that we will never have the modal share for cycling as many European countries, due to the very auto centric designs of roads here.

What drives me is that by wholly adopting and holding onto a VC "as the only way..." mentality, cycling leaders like yourself encourage situations like cities turning back TEA funding; meanwhile, road speeds continue climb higher (in spite of posted limits), road design engineers continue to design roads that look more and more like freeway lanes, all while cars get larger and faster.

In the Feb 9 issue of Time Magazine, Briefing column, page 16, there is an article discussing fuel efficiency... "a Brief History of Fuel Efficiency." The article points out that on average, today's cars can do 0-60 in 9.6 seconds vrs the average car of 1975 going 0-60 in 14.1 seconds; and the average power has climbed from 137 HP in 1975 to 222HP in 2008, all while gas mileage has not changed much since the Model T got 21MPG. This means that the same humans that get no more driver training than then drivers did in 1975 (and may be getting less) are now driving much faster, more powerful cars and consuming vast quantities of limited resources.

You mentioned to me in a private email that you relished your youth and vehicular cycling from 1936 "when everyone did it." Well, it is not 1936, nor even 1975. If we expect cycling to ever really be a part of the overall transportation picture, in the US, there has to be major changes in the environment to make that environment more inviting to folks that do not consider themselves cyclists.

This is why, in spite of the fact that I am a well experienced vehicular cyclist, I strongly encourage modification of our auto centric environment in a manner that supports and encourages the use of the bicycle. I fully expect this effort may take well over 40 years or so to implement, as was the case in Copenhagen; but unless there is such support... I doubt that cycling in this country will ever be anything but a "game" for the few, skilled and brave among us. In the US, bicycles are "toys," and cycling is a "sport," whereas in other locations, bicycles are transportation.

While indeed, in your 1936 "everyone may have been cycling in a vehicular manner..." [paraphrased] it is not that way today, with cycling now having a modal share of less than 2% in your country of birth. The result has been that large cars now fill the streets to overcrowding. London has confronted this reality with congestion charges. Other major cities in the world are also coming to the realization that the auto, while convenient, has the penalty of terrible inefficiency, noise, pollution, and is a terrible use of space for moving around the individual person. Whether you agree or not, changes will be made over time to correct this problem, and no doubt, due to the individual freedom that cycling offers, cycling will be part of the solution.

Discussion of the state of bicycle transportation is a very different subject than blasting me. There was no justification for your statements about my cycling, about which you know nothing. That was the content of my reply.

Back at you John. My comments were made based on me remembering you saying that you typically visited local stores in LG.

I know that neither University, nor El Cajon is a high speed road, having speed limits of 35MPH typically. Fletcher Parkway on the other hand is a 45MPH road with bike lanes... and no doubt motorists leaving and entering Highway 8 probably do so at even higher speeds.

You also vastly misunderstand me. I am not bothered by traffic, however, I see that the situation we have in the US is such that we will never have the modal share for cycling as many European countries, due to the very auto centric designs of roads here.

What drives me is that by wholly adopting and holding onto a VC "as the only way..." mentality, cycling leaders like yourself encourage situations like cities turning back TEA funding; meanwhile, road speeds continue climb higher (in spite of posted limits), road design engineers continue to design roads that look more and more like freeway lanes, all while cars get larger and faster.

In the Feb 9 issue of Time Magazine, Briefing column, page 16, there is an article discussing fuel efficiency... "a Brief History of Fuel Efficiency." The article points out that on average, today's cars can do 0-60 in 9.6 seconds vrs the average car of 1975 going 0-60 in 14.1 seconds; and the average power has climbed from 137 HP in 1975 to 222HP in 2008, all while gas mileage has not changed much since the Model T got 21MPG. This means that the same humans that get no more driver training than then drivers did in 1975 (and may be getting less) are now driving much faster, more powerful cars and consuming vast quantities of limited resources.

You mentioned to me in a private email that you relished your youth and vehicular cycling from 1936 "when everyone did it." Well, it is not 1936, nor even 1975. If we expect cycling to ever really be a part of the overall transportation picture, in the US, there has to be major changes in the environment to make that environment more inviting to folks that do not consider themselves cyclists.

This is why, in spite of the fact that I am a well experienced vehicular cyclist, I strongly encourage modification of our auto centric environment in a manner that supports and encourages the use of the bicycle. I fully expect this effort may take well over 40 years or so to implement, as was the case in Copenhagen; but unless there is such support... I doubt that cycling in this country will ever be anything but a "game" for the few, skilled and brave among us. In the US, bicycles are "toys," and cycling is a "sport," whereas in other locations, bicycles are transportation.

While indeed, in your 1936 "everyone may have been cycling in a vehicular manner..." [paraphrased] it is not that way today, with cycling now having a modal share of less than 2% in your country of birth. The result has been that large cars now fill the streets to overcrowding. London has confronted this reality with congestion charges. Other major cities in the world are also coming to the realization that the auto, while convenient, has the penalty of terrible inefficiency, noise, pollution, and is a terrible use of space for moving around the individual person. Whether you agree or not, changes will be made over time to correct this problem, and no doubt, due to the individual freedom that cycling offers, cycling will be part of the solution.

Now you are discussing your view of the present state of bicycle transportation. I'll have you know that when I taught Effective Cycling in the SF Bay Area, I taught my students to make repeated left turns from (and then onto for the next turn) El Camino Real in Sunnyvale, a road with 45,000 ADT, rather near the intersection with Mathilda, a similar road with ADT of 38,000, both posted at 45 mph. People can learn to do it, and to enjoy it. I both taught cycling on those roads, I frequently cycled them at evening rush hour, just because I had need to go to places along them. And, for my fifth-grade class, in the Menlo Park area, I had them cycling on El Camino Real there. It was also part of the final test ride for those students, though, not having taught them how to handle multi-lane arterials, they turned right onto El Camino Real, rode several blocks, and then turned right off it.

If it is your view that bicycle transportation must be developed in such a way as to reduce motoring, which means appealing to the frightened ignorant, that's fine as an opinion. However, you need to recognize that doing so reduces the effectiveness of bicycle transportation, of cycling, if you will, and increases both the social and governmental pressures against effective cycling. It is no wonder, is it, that those who are not great optimists about your proposed course of action resist being endangered or inconvenienced (often a trade-off) by the product that you desire.

... I taught my students to make repeated left turns from (and then onto for the next turn) El Camino Real in Sunnyvale, a road with 45,000 ADT, rather near the intersection with Mathilda, a similar road with ADT of 38,000, both posted at 45 mph. People can learn to do it, and to enjoy it.

ahhh, nothing I enjoy more than repeated left turns on high speed arterials. One of the great hidden secrets of cycling. Let's go play in traffic!!:rolleyes:

Now you are discussing your view of the present state of bicycle transportation. I'll have you know that when I taught Effective Cycling in the SF Bay Area, I taught my students to make repeated left turns from (and then onto for the next turn) El Camino Real in Sunnyvale, a road with 45,000 ADT, rather near the intersection with Mathilda, a similar road with ADT of 38,000, both posted at 45 mph. People can learn to do it, and to enjoy it. I both taught cycling on those roads, I frequently cycled them at evening rush hour, just because I had need to go to places along them. And, for my fifth-grade class, in the Menlo Park area, I had them cycling on El Camino Real there. It was also part of the final test ride for those students, though, not having taught them how to handle multi-lane arterials, they turned right onto El Camino Real, rode several blocks, and then turned right off it.

If it is your view that bicycle transportation must be developed in such a way as to reduce motoring, which means appealing to the frightened ignorant, that's fine as an opinion. However, you need to recognize that doing so reduces the effectiveness of bicycle transportation, of cycling, if you will, and increases both the social and governmental pressures against effective cycling. It is no wonder, is it, that those who are not great optimists about your proposed course of action resist being endangered or inconvenienced (often a trade-off) by the product that you desire.

Ah yes, the "frightened ignorant" and of course, your other favorite term, "cyclist inferiority syndrome." Never mind the physical realities of the differences in speed and mass of motor vehicles and bicycles. Never mind the vast difference in the numbers of motor vehicles and bicycles. No, those realities mean nothing, eh. :rolleyes:

So John, if a motorist decides to avoid an unpleasant drive... and takes an alternate route... is it because that motorist has "motorist inferiority syndrome?"

Discussion of the state of bicycle transportation is a very different subject than blasting me. There was no justification for your statements about my cycling, about which you know nothing. That was the content of my reply.

Well I have some free time coming up... care to "educate" me? I can join you anywhere in San Diego county? Will you then reciprocate and join me any where in San Diego county?

Ah yes, the "frightened ignorant" and of course, your other favorite term, "cyclist inferiority syndrome." Never mind the physical realities of the differences in speed and mass of motor vehicles and bicycles. Never mind the vast difference in the numbers of motor vehicles and bicycles. No, those realities mean nothing, eh. :rolleyes:

So John, if a motorist decides to avoid an unpleasant drive... and takes an alternate route... is it because that motorist has "motorist inferiority syndrome?"

The fact that motor vehicles are heavier and usually travel faster than cyclists has been true since about 1900, and that argument has been made, to my knowledge, for some seventy years. So what? The fact that there have been many more motor vehicles than bicycles in American traffic has been true since about 1920. Again, so what? These characteristics have no relevance to the proper operation of bicycles. No, not quite. These characteristics make it more important that cyclists operate by the rules of the road.

Ah, yes, the question of motorists choosing between one route and another. So what? However, if the motorist chooses a route with less traffic that takes longer, and thereby loses out on a job interview, or similar, then I would consider that he had operated according to an emotion such as you choose to call a "motorist inferiority syndrome."

I understand that there are motorists who fear operating on freeways and use surface streets instead, when, in most such cases, using the freeway would be both faster and safer. These certainly are affected by an emotion which ought to have a name, but I don't know what name has been assigned.

The difference between the motorist who fears freeway driving and your proposals is that there is no program to prohibit the use of freeways just because some motorists fear them. With your proposals, redesigning the road system to accommodate the frightened ignorant incompetents produces the effect of prohibiting lawful, competent cycling and thereby reduces the value of bicycle transportation.

Well I have some free time coming up... care to "educate" me? I can join you anywhere in San Diego county? Will you then reciprocate and join me any where in San Diego county?

Educate you? In what subject? I thought that you considered yourself to be a lawful, competent cyclist. Do you feel the need of education in that subject?

This obviously refers to your claim that I planned my trips to avoid situations involving heavy traffic. I replied that I did not so limit my trips. My cycling history and my cycling films do not satisfy your thirst for knowledge? What, then, do you want?

It appears that you propose some kind of test. Well, tests must be designed to support, or not, some hypothesis. What is your hypothesis, and how do you propose to test it?

Whatever might be that test, as I have written, I have too many aches and pains to do much cycling now. Those aches and pains have caused me to give up skiing, mountaineering, hiking, swimming, exhibition folk dancing, exhibition ballroom dancing, fencing, plain folk dancing, and now plain ballroom dancing. One reason that I now do little cycling is the pain and risk in just mounting my bicycle. Once on, I'm better. I gave up Look pedals and shoes for SPDs, to get a better grip on the ground while mounting, but I still have to screw up my courage. I have no intention of putting my decrepitudes on view to be sneered at by a person whose intentions I suspect.

john, its sad you are too addled to ride much anymore.

it is also sad you're so out of touch with the human experience that you think bicyclists- in any significant numbers- could ENJOY cycling in the midst of a high ADT, 45mph traffic cooridor.

even the exhaust is offensive along high ADT cooridors....not to mention some of the motorists. Closing speeds and vehicle crosses along high ADT, high speed cooridors can give even experienced vehicular cyclists pause and tremble.

john, your american bicyclist ethos is so far removed from reality it's accurate to describe you as delusional.

That conceptual bicycling world of yours is a faulty construct.

Robert's book paints contemporary american bicycling accurately, john. your blather is artifice and bankrupt.

While I have noticed locally that some of our aging bicycle advocates are not as good as they once were, the fact that they are not riding like they used to is not what I consider the sole contention of their decreased advocacy effectiveness.

But with that said, the merit of an idea should be able to stand without the age of the person getting into the discussion. It is a very cheep shot to make this a major point IMHO.

While I have noticed locally that some of our aging bicycle advocates are not as good as they once were, the fact that they are not riding like they used to is not what I consider the sole contention of their decreased advocacy effectiveness.

But with that said, the merit of an idea should be able to stand without the age of the person getting into the discussion. It is a very cheep shot to make this a major point IMHO.

The age of the person is part of the discussion as very few people of age here in the US will use a bicycle in the manner John Forester describes. However, in many European countries, persons of age regularly use a bicycle for daily trips.

John asserts that this is simply due to people here in the US being "frightened ignorant" while dismissing the simple physics of sharing the roads with larger faster vehicles.

John also asserts that geographical differences make it easy for folks to ride bicycles in relatively flat areas of the European countries. Fine, I will admit climbing hills can be an issue for some folks, but this nation also has plenty of relatively flat areas and similar climates as many areas of Europe.

What roads my Mom (82) chooses to bike on or not (in Mesa AZ) are probably not that much different then someone 1/4 of her age nor much different then what she has always biked on. I would state that people of John's age bike like they have always biked. Your points how the roadways have changed over the years I think have a more compelling component then anything presented so far on John's lack of riding.

What I see as the major issue is the attitudes about roads have morphed over the years from initially improving safety, to the roads are unsafe (without seat belts and airbags) and I will suggest that we are starting to see some effort to assert that the roads should be unsafe for those who do not drive the vehicle type of choice.

I think John has some valid points about the perceived lack of safety on today's roads being hogwash but his points on why that is I don't think hit dead center on the problem.

The age of the person is part of the discussion as very few people of age here in the US will use a bicycle in the manner John Forester describes. However, in many European countries, persons of age regularly use a bicycle for daily trips.

John asserts that this is simply due to people here in the US being "frightened ignorant" while dismissing the simple physics of sharing the roads with larger faster vehicles.

John also asserts that geographical differences make it easy for folks to ride bicycles in relatively flat areas of the European countries. Fine, I will admit climbing hills can be an issue for some folks, but this nation also has plenty of relatively flat areas and similar climates as many areas of Europe.

I wrote that the policy of people such as genec, in league with the majority, is to set up a traffic system that appeals to the frightened ignorant. It is their belief that these, to be attracted, are the majority of the people. Well, do these people know lawful, competent cycling according to the rules of the road? Genec & Co assert that they do not. They also do not understand the traffic system such that they are able to judge what is necessary for safe operation. Therefore, in the practical sense of bicycle transportation, they are ignorant. Are these people frightened of lawful, competent cycling? Well, Genec & Co, witness genec's recent essay in this discussion, are teaching them how dangerous the roads are, how dangerous is motor traffic, how they really ought to get out of its way. And, of course, there is the prevalent public belief that bikeways make cycling much safer.

I know that some of those who know the facts have taken to downplaying the safety argument that they cannot win in favor of the comfort argument, which is so amorphous that it means nothing. Is comfort merely another name for the false belief in safety? I suspect so. I support of my opinion, I have never read or heard of anyone arguing that they want bikeways because they make the cyclist feel comfortable, and he is willing to give up some safety and efficiency to get the comfort. Rather unlikely, that argument, isn't it?

The age of the person is part of the discussion as very few people of age here in the US will use a bicycle in the manner John Forester describes. However, in many European countries, persons of age regularly use a bicycle for daily trips.

John asserts that this is simply due to people here in the US being "frightened ignorant" while dismissing the simple physics of sharing the roads with larger faster vehicles.

John also asserts that geographical differences make it easy for folks to ride bicycles in relatively flat areas of the European countries. Fine, I will admit climbing hills can be an issue for some folks, but this nation also has plenty of relatively flat areas and similar climates as many areas of Europe.

Genec asserts the belief that where bikeways are provided, old Americans would regularly use bicycle transportation. I see no evidence of that hope, no more than the fact that Americans generally choose motoring when they have it available. Genec asserts, based on some misinformation of his own, that the primary difference has to do with flat topography. I don't say that, so I don't know where genec thinks he has got that information. I say that those European places with large cycling volumes developed as walking cities, so that their entire layout is adapted to that style of living, which naturally suits walking and, as the Europeans say, is suited for that slightly faster mode, bicycling.

Genec asserts the belief that where bikeways are provided, old Americans would regularly use bicycle transportation. I see no evidence of that hope, no more than the fact that Americans generally choose motoring when they have it available. Genec asserts, based on some misinformation of his own, that the primary difference has to do with flat topography. I don't say that, so I don't know where genec thinks he has got that information. I say that those European places with large cycling volumes developed as walking cities, so that their entire layout is adapted to that style of living, which naturally suits walking and, as the Europeans say, is suited for that slightly faster mode, bicycling.

John ever notice where bikeways ARE provided in the US such as in parks, all ages enjoy them? People actually travel to those bikeways to enjoy them. They go out of their way to get to such environments. Go figure.

I wrote that the policy of people such as genec, in league with the majority, is to set up a traffic system that appeals to the frightened ignorant. It is their belief that these, to be attracted, are the majority of the people. Well, do these people know lawful, competent cycling according to the rules of the road? Genec & Co assert that they do not. They also do not understand the traffic system such that they are able to judge what is necessary for safe operation. Therefore, in the practical sense of bicycle transportation, they are ignorant. Are these people frightened of lawful, competent cycling? Well, Genec & Co, witness genec's recent essay in this discussion, are teaching them how dangerous the roads are, how dangerous is motor traffic, how they really ought to get out of its way. And, of course, there is the prevalent public belief that bikeways make cycling much safer.

I know that some of those who know the facts have taken to downplaying the safety argument that they cannot win in favor of the comfort argument, which is so amorphous that it means nothing. Is comfort merely another name for the false belief in safety? I suspect so. I support of my opinion, I have never read or heard of anyone arguing that they want bikeways because they make the cyclist feel comfortable, and he is willing to give up some safety and efficiency to get the comfort. Rather unlikely, that argument, isn't it?

And yet oddly enough that very comfort is given to motorists... :rolleyes:

... the merit of an idea should be able to stand without the age of the person getting into the discussion. It is a very cheep shot to make this a major point IMHO.

Barry,

I have genuine empathy for John's advanced age; I have nothing but respect for John's age and his having gotten there.

My statement to john
it is also sad you're so out of touch with the human experience that you think bicyclists- in any significant numbers- could ENJOY cycling in the midst of a high ADT, 45mph traffic cooridor.

Even the exhaust is offensive along high ADT cooridors....not to mention some of the motorists. Closing speeds and vehicle crosses along high ADT, high speed cooridors can give even experienced vehicular cyclists pause and tremble.

john, your american bicyclist ethos is so far removed from reality it's accurate to describe you as delusional.
That conceptual bicycling world of yours is a faulty construct... your blather is artifice and bankrupt.

regarding his weakness of argument stands independent of his age and I would say the same of any 'cyclist' that is so out to lunch about human nature, 21st century traffic, and transportation engineering.

John ever notice where bikeways ARE provided in the US such as in parks, all ages enjoy them? People actually travel to those bikeways to enjoy them. They go out of their way to get to such environments. Go figure.

Is this some new discovery that you are announcing to us? I suggest that, to stay within the context of this discussion, that you reserve your momentous announcement until you have determined what proportion of these people are traveling for transportation.

Is this some new discovery that you are announcing to us? I suggest that, to stay within the context of this discussion, that you reserve your momentous announcement until you have determined what proportion of these people are traveling for transportation.

Hey they might actually travel for transportation if those very bikeways went anywhere...

Is this some new discovery that you are announcing to us? I suggest that, to stay within the context of this discussion, that you reserve your momentous announcement until you have determined what proportion of these people are traveling for transportation.



Hey they might actually travel for transportation if those very bikeways went anywhere...

I know you may not spend all that much time in the Commuting Forum but if you read the regular posts in "How was your commute today?" or threads like this one: http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=515319 I'd guess that roughly 1/3 of the posters that are regular commuters use MUP's or bike paths for all or part of their commute.

here's an example:


27 miles, each way, on paved bike trails, using 3 different MUP's and two recently built connectors. Running on 700x28's.

Lots of transportation cyclists use these paths daily. I see them everyday on my commute on a bike path.

I noticed that this thread has once again become bogged down in personal attacks. The reality is that there's not much difference between Hurst and Forester. What differences exist are mostly emphasis. Forester emphasizes the norm; Hurst emphasizes preparing for the unusual.

A beginning or intermediate cyclist would learn a lot by reading either author. An experienced cyclist would pick up tips from either author.

I respect Forester's work on traffic cycling. It stands on its own. It's too bad both he and his critics get bogged down in personal attacks.

I know you may not spend all that much time in the Commuting Forum but if you read the regular posts in "How was your commute today?" or threads like this one: http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=515319 I'd guess that roughly 1/3 of the posters that are regular commuters use MUP's or bike paths for all or part of their commute.

here's an example:

Lots of transportation cyclists use these paths daily. I see them everyday on my commute on a bike path.


Yeah, I've seen many posts like that, as well as ridden a bike on some great paths (do not call these "bikeways," a term which mixes "bike lanes" with well designed bike paths ) both here and abroad. (especially in Finland).

Indeed denial of the usefulness of such paths for cyclists is akin to denial of the usefulness of freeways for cross country automobile travel.

Originally Posted by John Forester
Is this some new discovery that you are announcing to us? I suggest that, to stay within the context of this discussion, that you reserve your momentous announcement until you have determined what proportion of these people are traveling for transportation.


Hey they might actually travel for transportation if those very bikeways went anywhere...

+50
:thumb:

You can add me to the list that agrees. I am assuming that this one thread contains all of his new posts. And this is the VC subforum ... essentially the subforum for bike lane rants ... so if John can't rant here and this page encompasses his recent bikeforum transgressions then there is a long list of others that should be on the chopping block.

Chainguard is pretty boring and its list is only about how to further VC advocacy. I think that you will find more "dissent" than ILTB claims -- I'll interpret his comments as there is zero variation among the population's beliefs there -- but substantively, I would say that he is correct.

Add me as well. Any thread in P&R has people 10 times more insulting and inflammatory than JF. If people don't wish to engage him in debate, then go to the hundreds of threads more to their liking.

Too bad what could have been a pretty cool legacy for the cycling community has to be ruined by dogmatism, envy and sour grapes. When I first got into commuting, Hurst's book was probably the single best I read on the topic, so I guess opinions vary.

I tend to agree with you. Robert's book was pretty much my main source of reference when I first started commuting by bicycle - and I don't live in the US. I live in Singapore which was a formerly a British colony so we drive on the left (or the "wrong) side of the road. Nevertheless, I had no difficulty adapting Robert's work to our traffic system with great success.

The irony is that Robert's mention of Vehicular Cycling led me to read John's work. Personally, I feel that both these gentlemen have done much to collectively improve cyclists' safety and their works should be read as complimentary to each other.

I trust that neither Mr Hurst nor Mr Forester will take umbrage at this comment and I would like to express my appreciation for their rather extensive and impressive efforts.

I can't believe it's been so long since I've ventured into this forum. I've missed this!