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

The historic American policy regarding cycling has always been one of incompetent cycling through deliberate ignorance, administered through fear of same-direction motor traffic. I deliberately say deliberate, because America has always chosen cyclist-inferiority education instead of vehicular cycling education whenever the choice was open to it. And now, of course, that policy has morphed into one of incompetent cycling on bikeways.

We few vehicular cyclists have held to a second policy, that of following the rules for drivers of vehicles, which has been written up in several books.

So far as I know, nobody has written books about incompetent cycling or about bikeway cycling; the skills for these actions are just supposed to be natural, instruction unnecessary. But for the last four years vehicular cycling has had a different challenger in the form of Robert Hurst's Art of Cycling. Hurst accepts typical lawless cycling, and justifies it by arguing that motor traffic is also lawless (except for its own mysterious laws, whatever these may be). However, Hurst raises lawless cycling to a high performance art by applying super competence to it. So he says, but, like other descriptions of art, without being able to specifically describe it.

I have produced a detailed evaluation of Hurst's arguments and posted it to my website, johnforester.com. The following items are the introduction that I wrote for my page on cycling sociology, and the URL for the evaluation follows.

http://johnforester.com/Articles/Social.htm

Traffic Cycling: No Rules, No Laws, Just Perfect Performance Art?

Vehicular cycling is following the traffic rules. Typical American cycling is disorganized lawlessness because its cyclists believe that the laws don't apply to them and, as cyclists, they are not very competent. Robert Hurst, a former bicycle messenger, in The Art of Cycling, denigrates motorists by saying that they don't obey the traffic laws and vehicular cyclists by arguing that they think they do. Instead, Hurst takes typical American lawless cycling to the utmost level by advocating super-competent lawlessness as much better than vehicular cycling in the real, chaotic traffic world. "A successful, safe ride through American traffic is not an exercise in rule following , but a beautiful piece of performance art."

http://johnforester.com/Articles/Social/Hursts%20Art.pdf

Vehicular cycling is following the traffic rules.

What are these "traffic rules" of which you speak? The written rules that all road users must somehow memorize and follow intently? (and which are hardly even enforced by the enforcers... even in your own neck of the woods) Or the real rules which govern the streets that include "Might is Right," and the reality of physics, and the quick getaway of the distracted motorist?

a lot of Hurst's riding advice is more grounded and realistic than yours, john. i will admit, that first paragraph of yours left me chuckling from its inaccurate rhetorical invective.

I don't want to speak for him, but Hurst's schema suggests to be aware because other road users might not be, and not to blindly follow the traffic rules to the extent a bicyclist leaves themself more vulnerable.

Ahhhh ... well John certainly lives up to his reputation.

I think R. Hurst has some good points. My personal opinion is that he puts too much weight on personal vigilence and too little on that of others. That is, within some fairly broad bounds, following the rules makes it easier for others to sucessfully interact. As circumstances get more exceptional then it becomes easier to consider alternatives. Moreover, personal vilgilence or general attentiveness is subject to user error. It isn't clear to me whether the average cyclist's error rate will be greater/smaller than the average driver's error rate. I think some of John's critiques are petty -- failing to describe how to cross perpendicular to railroad tracks?

Oh well, back to turkey and pie!

Is there any point to this thread other than an attack on a BF.net contributer and his book?

What are these "traffic rules" of which you speak? The written rules that all road users must somehow memorize and follow intently? (and which are hardly even enforced by the enforcers... even in your own neck of the woods) Or the real rules which govern the streets that include "Might is Right," and the reality of physics, and the quick getaway of the distracted motorist?

Genec, if you actually believe what you have written, you are a fool because the world doesn't work that way. If you don't believe it, then you should not have written it.

If you are as ignorant as your statement claims, then you are unfit to participate in serious conversation. Say what you mean, or ask reasonable questions, instead of trying to make points with scurrilous rhetorical statements.

a lot of Hurst's riding advice is more grounded and realistic than yours, john. i will admit, that first paragraph of yours left me chuckling from its inaccurate rhetorical invective.



Please provide evidence to support your claim.

I don't want to speak for him, but Hurst's schema suggests to be aware because other road users might not be, and not to blindly follow the traffic rules to the extent a bicyclist leaves themself more vulnerable.

Please explain why following the traffic rules makes one more vulnerable than does disobeying them.

Ahhhh ... well John certainly lives up to his reputation.
snips
I think some of John's critiques are petty -- failing to describe how to cross perpendicular to railroad tracks?

Oh well, back to turkey and pie!

I think that in a book supposedly of instruction, acts to be taken should have their methods described. That's not the only part of Hurst's book that does not provide instruction for whatever it is he recommends done.

Basic Principles of Traffic Cycling
by Donald Tighe




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cyclists fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles.


That is the basic principle behind the League's Effective Cycling Program. Basic rules for safe cycling in traffic all conform to this simple principle.


To cycle safely and efficiently on crowded roads, you must follow both traffic law and safe cycling principles.


Legislators frequently find that it is far more difficult to tell you how to do something right than it is to tell you what not to do. That is why traffic laws cannot tell you all you need to know. Traffic law can be viewed as elementary knowledge, whereas safe cycling principles are the advanced knowledge and skills necessary for improving your performance and safety.


The five basic principles of cycling in traffic are:


Ride on the right side of the road with traffic--never against traffic and never on the sidewalk.
When you reach a more important or larger road than the one you are on, yield to traffic in the new lane or line of travel. [Yielding means looking forward and backward, and waiting until you see that no traffic is coming.]
When you intend to change lanes or move laterally on the roadway, yield to traffic in the new lane or line of travel.
When approaching an intersection, position yourself with respect to your destination direction: on the right near the curb if you want to turn right, on the left near the centerline if you want to turn left, and between those positions if you want to go straight.
Between intersections, position yourself according to your speed relative to other traffic; slower traffic is nearer the curb and faster traffic is nearer the centerline.
By obeying these five principles, you can cycle in many places with a low probability of being involved in traffic conflicts. With these principles alone you might not do absolutely everything in the best possible way, and you might not know how to get yourself out of troubles that other drivers cause, but you are sure to do better than those on the road who do not follow these guidelines.
There are many other aspects to sharing the road safely with others, from signaling intent to arranging your riding position on multi-lane roads. By recognizing and following these principles from the moment you leave your driveway, you can cycle safely while gaining the experience to understand and practice more advanced habits and maneuvers.


For additional training that can increase the enjoyment and safety of cycling, contact the League of American Bicyclists at bikeleague@aol.com, or www.bikeleague.org to locate a certified Effective Cycling Instructor near you.


This E.C. Notebook was adapted from the "Basic Principles of Traffic Cycling" and "The Why and Wherefore of Traffic Law" chapters of Effective Cycling by John Forester, Sixth Edition, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.


Reprinted from "Bicycle USA", magazine of the League of American Bicyclists. Effective CyclingTM.
For more information about the League of American Bicyclists, visit their web site, www.bikeleague.org, or e-mail them at bikeleague@aol.com.

Here we go again.....

Welcome back John.

I think that in a book supposedly of instruction, acts to be taken should have their methods described. That's not the only part of Hurst's book that does not provide instruction for whatever it is he recommends done.

Hmmmm ... well there are instruction manuals of varying specificity. I think that my specific example is one that most people would not bother explaining. Notice that I wrote some of your comments were petty, not all. You have some good points.

EDIT: More importantly, I find that discussing the petty issues is simply a distraction from the serious topics.

Hmmmm ... well there are instruction manuals of varying specificity. I think that my specific example is one that most people would not bother explaining. Notice that I wrote some of your comments were petty, not all. You have some good points.

EDIT: More importantly, I find that discussing the petty issues is simply a distraction from the serious topics.

I'll echo the same thing, personally I would like to see Johns paper organized with the more serious topics first and the nit picks later.


Hurst here claims that traffic does not operate according to the rules of the road, the traffic laws, that have been enacted by man, but according to its own different laws. This contrasts with the conventional view of traffic law and highway engineering.
As far as traffic laws go in Maryland it is illegal for a motorist to pass on the shoulder for a left turning car but you're darn straight I'll anticipate a motorist doing such a illegal maneuver. In VA it's common that one car will make a left just as the light turns green again not exactly legal but again its something cyclists should be on the watch for. Also it is not that uncommon here for motorists coming from a minor intersection (to make a right turn) to stop/slow just outside the travel lane and not stop at the stop sign or stop bar as legally required, again something a cyclists needs to be mindful of. The "rules of the road" are not what has been codified but what is observed, so I agree more with Hurst then you on this point but with that said a cyclist can deal with these situations while obeying the "rules of the road."

PS. Welcome back John

PS. Welcome back John

While he was on self banishment, he wrote and posted the John Forester version of his experience at BF proving (i.e. JF style) everybody wrong unless they agree with him. http://www.johnforester.com/Articles/Social/Year.htm

Don't miss it THC, the convoluted nature of your argument is specifically pointed out. Lots of laffs if you have the stomach, or sense of perverse humor to read another JF essay on bicycling truth as handed down from Mount Forester.

Fixed that link for you, John. http://johnforester.com/Articles/Social/Hursts%20Art.pdf

I have not had time to read through your entire piece, but I did get through this part and will comment on it.

2.1 Opposition to rules: what I get from Hurst here is quite simple and valid...not opposition to rules in general, but opposition to rules that are not reflected by reality. The actual flow of traffic in any given environment does not necessarily always conform with traffic laws or even the basic rules of the road...in those cases it is best to ride according to the actual flow of traffic rather than to work against in in a vain attempt to impose the letter of the law upon it. If you wish I can give some lengthy real-world examples of this, but as an experienced cyclist you should already understand what I am saying and know it to be true.

The "rules of the road" are not what has been codified but what is observed, so I agree more with Hurst then you on this point but with that said a cyclist can deal with these situations while obeying the "rules of the road."

PS. Welcome back John

I agree with the statement in this font. In reference to Gene's comment, I think that this set of norms is followed pretty closely by the vast majority of drivers making them quite predictable in a majority of situations.

Although one needs to put the term vast majority in the right context. In many settings, people would say that 95, 99, and 99.9% all constitute a vast majority. But across a population these differences would result in drastically different results. My personal experience is that as driving becomes more congested and aggressive -- rush hour -- people break those norms at a higher frequency.

I strongly suggest John Forester find himself a tough editor to help him resist minor digs and focus on his main argument.

While he was on self banishment, he wrote and posted the John Forester version of his experience at BF proving (i.e. JF style) everybody wrong unless they agree with him. http://www.johnforester.com/Articles/Social/Year.htm

Don't miss it THC, the convoluted nature of your argument is specifically pointed out. Lots of laffs if you have the stomach, or sense of perverse humor to read another JF essay on bicycling truth as handed down from Mount Forester.

Wow, thanks for the link, that conversation on BF had to be the most surrealist conversations in A&S ever. Tsk tsk on John for not providing a link to the discussion almost as bad as Hurst not providing references for his graphs. (To (sort of) get back on topic.)

Genec, if you actually believe what you have written, you are a fool because the world doesn't work that way. If you don't believe it, then you should not have written it.

If you are as ignorant as your statement claims, then you are unfit to participate in serious conversation. Say what you mean, or ask reasonable questions, instead of trying to make points with scurrilous rhetorical statements.

John I actually believe what I wrote... and I am far from unfit to participate in serious conversation... I carry out serious conversation daily in my career as an engineer, and from time to time I have been known to contribute here on bike forums... that you make such an assessment of regular cyclist and contributor here causes me to question your cognitive abilities.

If for some reason you honestly believe that the vast majority of the driving public is actually following the "traffic rules" (which you cannot readily define, apparently) then there should be no reason for traffic light cameras nor the deaths of 45,000 drivers each year nor the 85 percentile rule (as motorists would not be driving over the speed limit in the first place...) Nor would bike forums contain the stories of hit and run motorists. Now I know that you will next take the tack of listing the millions of traffic miles that are traveled which result in a mere tick of number of deaths, and you will cite this meaningless statistic as "successful," in spite of the mandates to the auto industry to increasingly improve the safety of the vehicle, in spite of the operator.

John there is a prime example of this lack of knowledge of "traffic rules" right in your back yard, on Dehesa road...

From the SDCBC web site I offer you this shining example of lack of knowledge by law enforcement:

OK. This is my first post to this forum after a year of reading the various posts and opinions. But something happened today that I would like to get some feedback on. This morning I am riding down Dehesa Grade in east county, a winding single narrow lane road. I was going around 35mph not too fast but within the speed limit. Now the Speed limit is 50 mph for the whole length but because of the blind turns and safety concerns the yellow speed signs are posted as 30 mph. So I figure that 35 is a fairly safe speed. There are two sections on the down hill side that have enough of a shoulder to pull over. One about 3/4 mile down from Japatul and another about 1/2 mile down from there. There is maybe an average of 3 to 12 inches of shoulder, give or take, on the upper area aproaching the first safe area to pull over. So I hope I've painted a decent general picture of the road. OK back to what happenned. I'm cruising down Dehesa on the narrow winding section and a Sheriff approaches from behind. I am in the road right of center. I have a blinking red tail light. There are two groups of cyclist cimbing up the grade from the other direction. The Sheriff tries to pass into the other lane in front of the oncoming cyclist, which I'm not sure that he can see due to the blind corners. I put my hand out to signal not to pass as I felt his passing was too fast and too close to me and the oncoming cyclists. He did brake and fall back behind. He never had his lights on and I always had him in my mirror. At that point he turned his lights on and started using his loudspeaker to pull over. Which I did but only untill I reached the first section that is wide enough to do so.
Well, to say the least he was more than miffed. And this is what he said.
1. I was impeeding the flow of traffic and I should not ride in the lane unless I was going the speed limit. He said there is a minimum speed allowed on roads. (I did not think to ask him what that was at the time.
2. That I would be liable and charged with manslaughter if some was killed trying to avoid me.
3. That he could arrest me and take my bike for not pulling off the road immediately when he came up from behind.
Just a note. He was not in a hurry or on a call to go anywhere because when I got down to the bottom at Harbison and Dehesa he was sitting in his car hanging out amd when I drove by in my car 30 minutes later he was still there, hanging out.

So, Is he right?


If the LEO cannot properly cite the rules of the road, where do you get the idea that the general public is knowledgeable enough to manage to follow the rules of the road?

The "rules of the road" are not what has been codified but what is observed, so I agree more with Hurst then you on this point but with that said a cyclist can deal with these situations while obeying the "rules of the road."



Exactly... reality vice fantasy.

:popcorn

While he was on self banishment, he wrote and posted the John Forester version of his experience at BF proving (i.e. JF style) everybody wrong unless they agree with him. http://www.johnforester.com/Articles/Social/Year.htm

Don't miss it THC, the convoluted nature of your argument is specifically pointed out. Lots of laffs if you have the stomach, or sense of perverse humor to read another JF essay on bicycling truth as handed down from Mount Forester.

Whoa what a read...

I think the oddest statement made is this:

The bikeway advocates who participated in this discussion cannot be considered typical, not even, I suppose, typical of the participants in Bicycle Forums, because they were self-selected to participate in the Vehicular Cycling subgroup, largely for the purpose of opposing vehicular cycling. Presumably, they considered themselves to be both particularly interested and particularly competent in this subject. Bearing this in mind, however, one can still reach some reasonable conclusions from these discussions.

In the statement above JF denies that those visiting the VC subforum are typical cyclists as we chose to visit the VC subforum... Great logic.

Of course JF may not fully understand that every one of us also choses to participate in many other of the subforums... does that then render us typical or atypical... if at anything, I might agree that we cyclists are atypical American cyclists, in that we do use computers, and also chose to participate in a cycling forum... and since only 1% of all transportation in most of America is done on bicycle, we are indeed atypical Americans.

But we are indeed typical American Cyclists. :D

BTW my apologies to our international visitors.

personal vigilance = defensive driving

makes a lot of sense to me

it's just plain stupid to expect anyone else on the road to 'do the right thing'. Traffic laws were made to be broken, just ask any speeding or red light running motorist; the vast majority of motorists break the law when it benefits them and/or when they think they can get away with it, and enforcement is not a deterrent.

Great logic.

Of course JF may not fully understand that...
There is only one type of black and white logic from Mount Forester. A cyclist either agrees with everything Forester ever uttered about cycling to include his wardrobe of excess baggage, and always rides as Forester believes a Vehicular Cyclist™ should; or a cyclist is an incompetent lawless lout unworthy of any consideration by Forester and his Vehicular Cycling™ disciples.

Forester has given up on the goal of training the great unwashed in Vehicular Cycling.™ The public has not been receptive to his brand of safety or advocacy, and his logic demands that there is no point to wasting time on unworthy cyclists. "Protecting" the interests of Vehicular Cyclists™ (from whatever threats Forester has nightmares about) through bike facilities obstructionism is his only remaining advocacy or safety goal.

John I actually believe what I wrote... and I am far from unfit to participate in serious conversation... I carry out serious conversation daily in my career as an engineer, and from time to time I have been known to contribute here on bike forums... that you make such an assessment of regular cyclist and contributor here causes me to question your cognitive abilities.

If for some reason you honestly believe that the vast majority of the driving public is actually following the "traffic rules" (which you cannot readily define, apparently) then there should be no reason for traffic light cameras nor the deaths of 45,000 drivers each year nor the 85 percentile rule (as motorists would not be driving over the speed limit in the first place...) Nor would bike forums contain the stories of hit and run motorists. Now I know that you will next take the tack of listing the millions of traffic miles that are traveled which result in a mere tick of number of deaths, and you will cite this meaningless statistic as "successful," in spite of the mandates to the auto industry to increasingly improve the safety of the vehicle, in spite of the operator.

John there is a prime example of this lack of knowledge of "traffic rules" right in your back yard, on Dehesa road...

From the SDCBC web site I offer you this shining example of lack of knowledge by law enforcement:


If the LEO cannot properly cite the rules of the road, where do you get the idea that the general public is knowledgeable enough to manage to follow the rules of the road?

Genec, your words to which I responded are quoted below.

genec
genec

Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: san diego

Originally Posted by John Forester View Post

Vehicular cycling is following the traffic rules.
What are these "traffic rules" of which you speak? The written rules that all road users must somehow memorize and follow intently? (and which are hardly even enforced by the enforcers... even in your own neck of the woods) Or the real rules which govern the streets that include "Might is Right," and the reality of physics, and the quick getaway of the distracted motorist?

Nobody, Genec, carries on a physical activity by memorizing the rules and following them intently. I know, you know it, Why on earth do you think that I didn't know this? That's what's absurd in your own words.
Furthermore, "Might is Right" is both atypical of traffic operation and completely against the rules. Drivers who use this, very rare examples, get taken out quite quickly. Of course the laws of physics apply, and in consequence both the rules of the road and road engineering have been developed in accordance with them. As for the "quick getaway of the distracted motorist", what's that in English?

I will discuss your point about the sheriff in another post.

snipped. This post concerns only the events referred to by genec in the quotation below.

If the LEO cannot properly cite the rules of the road, where do you get the idea that the general public is knowledgeable enough to manage to follow the rules of the road?

It is well known that the general public has an inaccurate view of the traffic laws that apply to cyclists. However, the general motoring public has a pretty good idea of the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles, because they use them very frequently. You, genec, say that the number of casualties indicates that the rules are infrequently obeyed, or, at least, you complain that that number indicates that bad driving practices abound. Well, that's not what the statistics say, because they say that when a rule of the road needs to be obeyed, only extremely rarely is it disobeyed to cause a collision.

The real point of the events described is that the sheriff was threatening to make unlawful use of his police powers, something that no private motorist can do. That's what's wrong. And such events have been known for decades; nothing unusual there.

I'll echo the same thing, personally I would like to see Johns paper organized with the more serious topics first and the nit picks later.


As far as traffic laws go in Maryland it is illegal for a motorist to pass on the shoulder for a left turning car but you're darn straight I'll anticipate a motorist doing such a illegal maneuver. In VA it's common that one car will make a left just as the light turns green again not exactly legal but again its something cyclists should be on the watch for. Also it is not that uncommon here for motorists coming from a minor intersection (to make a right turn) to stop/slow just outside the travel lane and not stop at the stop sign or stop bar as legally required, again something a cyclists needs to be mindful of. The "rules of the road" are not what has been codified but what is observed, so I agree more with Hurst then you on this point but with that said a cyclist can deal with these situations while obeying the "rules of the road."

PS. Welcome back John

I was documenting facts about Hurst's book rather than writing a popular review. It appeared to me that any reasonable view of his book must be founded on the facts of the book, not on the easy writing style or the general claim that you, too, can be superman. So, the facts about any particular aspect are arranged in the order they appear in the book, with page references, with my conclusions, based on those facts, at the end.

It is well known that the general public has an inaccurate view of the traffic laws that apply to cyclists. However, the general motoring public has a pretty good idea of the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles, because they use them very frequently. You, genec, say that the number of casualties indicates that the rules are infrequently obeyed, or, at least, you complain that that number indicates that bad driving practices abound. Well, that's not what the statistics say, because they say that when a rule of the road needs to be obeyed, only extremely rarely is it disobeyed to cause a collision.

The real point of the events described is that the sheriff was threatening to make unlawful use of his police powers, something that no private motorist can do. That's what's wrong. And such events have been known for decades; nothing unusual there.

Your first paragraph outlines exactly what I expected... less the actual statics, but the same message... that message is one that says the formal rules of the road are to be ignored as long as the motorist rolls on... those informal rules also say "bikes stay out of the way," and "might makes right," which exemplifies your cyclist inferiority complex as those ARE the informal rules that apply in America... Cyclists are inferior in the mind of the American Motorist, thus following those informal rules, cyclists find that they have little room on American roads... thus cyclists are left to the whim of the automobile driving public.

Now is that what you really mean when you say: "Vehicular cycling is following the traffic rules." Cyclists stay out of the way because the driving public knows what it is doing... :rolleyes:

Your last paragraph is pure assumption about the sheriff's motives... Other (now) retired officers have clearly stated that cyclists do not belong on the roads... regardless of how they ride.

The historic American policy regarding cycling has always been one of incompetent cycling through deliberate ignorance inaccurate rhetorical invective, jon!

From the 19th century, thru the 20th and into the 21st, the historic american policy regarding cycling has been one of recognizance of our rights to travel public rights of way. New York City granted bicyclists all the rights of carriages in 1886. Directly contradicting john is historical reality - bicycling led Connecticut, New York, and West Virginia to enact statewide traffic laws before the turn of the 20th century.

Support and solidification of our rights continues to the present day. bikes as a transportation mode merit consideration in federal roadway design guidelines. Bicycle commuting was recently recognized in congress by the bicycle commuter act, a federal subsidy to employers supporting use of bikes for commute trips.

john, i won't belabour your glass house with the details as where you're sitting looks pretty fragile.

The historic American policy regarding cycling has always been one of incompetent cycling through deliberate ignorance, administered through fear of same-direction motor traffic. I deliberately say deliberate, because America has always chosen cyclist-inferiority education instead of vehicular cycling education whenever the choice was open to it. And now, of course, that policy has morphed into one of incompetent cycling on bikeways.

We few vehicular cyclists have held to a second policy, that of following the rules for drivers of vehicles, which has been written up in several books.

So far as I know, nobody has written books about incompetent cycling or about bikeway cycling; the skills for these actions are just supposed to be natural, instruction unnecessary. But for the last four years vehicular cycling has had a different challenger in the form of Robert Hurst's Art of Cycling. Hurst accepts typical lawless cycling, and justifies it by arguing that motor traffic is also lawless (except for its own mysterious laws, whatever these may be). However, Hurst raises lawless cycling to a high performance art by applying super competence to it. So he says, but, like other descriptions of art, without being able to specifically describe it.

I have produced a detailed evaluation of Hurst's arguments and posted it to my website, johnforester.com. The following items are the introduction that I wrote for my page on cycling sociology, and the URL for the evaluation follows.

http://johnforester.com/Articles/Social.htm

Traffic Cycling: No Rules, No Laws, Just Perfect Performance Art?

Vehicular cycling is following the traffic rules. Typical American cycling is disorganized lawlessness because its cyclists believe that the laws don't apply to them and, as cyclists, they are not very competent. Robert Hurst, a former bicycle messenger, in The Art of Cycling, denigrates motorists by saying that they don't obey the traffic laws and vehicular cyclists by arguing that they think they do. Instead, Hurst takes typical American lawless cycling to the utmost level by advocating super-competent lawlessness as much better than vehicular cycling in the real, chaotic traffic world. "A successful, safe ride through American traffic is not an exercise in rule following , but a beautiful piece of performance art."

http://johnforester.com/Articles/Social/Hursts%20Art.pdf

I am confused by your critique as I don't advocate "lawlessness" in Art of Cycling and wonder how anybody who actually read the book could come away with that impression. What you seem to have done here is confused my expressions of disrespect for lawfulness as a reliable safety strategy for an advocation of lawlessness.

There are a few instances in Art of Cycling where I suggest it might be okay to stretch the rules a bit. For example, deserted red light intersections that aren't tripped by bikes: "A rider might need to treat such a light like a stop sign in order to get anywhere in a reasonable time. If busting the light would mean crossing in front of cars on the intersecting street, don't do it, even if there is plenty of space. If there are any cars behind or across from you waiting at the same light, resist the temptation to go through. This is just good form. It sends a message of solidarity: If you gotta wait, buddy, I'll wait too."

"Treating the occasional red light like a stop sign is a practice for mature, adult riders only. The traffic lights are in place to keep people from thinking for themselves. You think you can do a better job of thinking than a traffic light? Don't be too sure." (p. 102)

Elsewhere I try to explain when and how it might be okay for a bicyclist to roll through a four-way stop, and when it's not. And since bicyclists have been unconstrained by bans on sidewalk riding, I try to explain how to ride on sidewalks safely and courteously -- slowly, with complete deference to pedestrians, and while paying special attention to the various hazards which I try to spell out.

It's far from advocating lawlessness. What I have tried to do is recognize the limitations of lawfulness as a safety strategy, such recognition as I believe is utterly lacking in your writings. That lawfulness is extremely limited in its effectiveness as a safety strategy is an incontrovertable and obvious fact that jumps out at anyone looking at car-bike collision statistics: Adult riders are more likely to be victimized by a driver's looked-but-failed-to-see error while riding lawfully than smacked while riding unlawfully. But the answer to those limitations is not to be unlawful.

You also claim that it is part of the 'strategy' of my book to promote 'bikeways.' That is simply false and laughable. There is a discussion of the advantages, and disadvantages of MUPs, complete with Forester's own statistics illustrating the elevated danger thereupon, included without question in fact. There is virtually no discussion whatsoever of your dreaded bike lanes, except to point out that "the advantages of bike lanes are primarily psychological." (p. 138) The disadvantages too, I would hasten to add.

Why are you so desperate to look at everything through a bike lane lens? I don't care much about bike lanes. They have virtually no effect on my daily travels. And yet I can pretty much guarantee that JF's posts in this thread with the title of my book will be focused squarely on the subject of 'bikeways.'

Furthermore, as some readers already know, bike lanes are out. Sharrows are it. The war is over, although stragglers will no doubt be emerging from the caves of Iwo Jima for decades to come, having sustained themselves on their own urine in the pitch black.

Okay, I just read through Forester's pdf, and I have to say for the record it is one wacky falsehood after another, the whole way through. Looks good though.

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.

...Why are you so desperate to look at everything through a bike lane lens? I don't care much about bike lanes. They have virtually no effect on my daily travels. And yet I can pretty much guarantee that JF's posts in this thread with the title of my book will be focused squarely on the subject of 'bikeways.'...

Re JF's Bike Lane lens: I feel your pain.

Furthermore, as some readers already know, bike lanes are out. Sharrows are it. The war is over, although stragglers will no doubt be emerging from the caves of Iwo Jima for decades to come, having sustained themselves on their own urine in the pitch black.

I like SHARROWs too. The problem so far, however, has been implementation. I have seen gutter sharrows as well as Big Foot-esque sharrows in the middle of the lane ... and this is just in Northern Virginia.

He got banned already?

Yep ... looks like it has been the case since 8:30 PM.

http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?p=7936126#post7936126

Portland of all places has yet to implement any significant sharrows projects, City Traffic Engineer Rob Burchfield has been inexplicably blocking their implementation for the past ten years, while he continues to approve a bunch of other unproven and non-standard designs, like these proposed 'cycle tracks' (http://bikeportland.org/2008/11/26/portland-and-the-rise-of-the-american-style-cycle-track/)

Portland of all places has yet to implement any significant sharrows projects, City Traffic Engineer Rob Burchfield has been inexplicably blocking their implementation for the past ten years, while he continues to approve a bunch of other unproven and non-standard designs, like these proposed 'cycle tracks' (http://bikeportland.org/2008/11/26/portland-and-the-rise-of-the-american-style-cycle-track/)

It seems to me that downtown Portland is well-suited for sharrowization. And being Portland, they could really bring the sharrow-topia into fruition, with quite large markings (I'm thinking 10 feet wide, 20 feet long or thereabouts, about twice as large as the current large sharrows) which would be so large that lateral placement would almost be a mute issue as they would substantially span the lanes, and mini-sharrows in the left turn lanes. That's my sharrow vision.

He got banned already?

Aw, fiddlesticks. I was hoping to get some new material for my signature.

Aw, fiddlesticks. I was hoping to get some new material for my signature.

You could always take a break and visit the ChainGuard site. Lots of "material" there. Good for lots of laffs. JF and his pals, some of whom are current and past contributers to BF, keep up the good fight and keep high fiveing each other over their opposition to bike lanes and the cyclists who might want/use them.

The historic American policy regarding cycling has always been one of incompetent cycling through deliberate ignorance, administered through fear of same-direction motor traffic...

Stop right there. Who's afraid of same direction motor traffic? I have a rear view mirror, I know what those turkeys are up to.

He got banned already?

Wow... too bad. Sort of makes things somewhat one sided here on BF.

THAT was a bizarre return to bike forums and remarkably quick flareout of john forestor.


...... bike lanes are out. Sharrows are it. The war is over, although stragglers will no doubt be emerging from the caves of Iwo Jima for decades to come, having sustained themselves on their own urine in the pitch black.


' caves of Iwo Jima.... sustained on their own urine in the pitchblack'? wow, i thought john's screed about bike lanes was classy!

Despite Robert's premature reporting above,

Sharrows ARE NOT a universal solution to accommodating bicycling traffic on american roads.

Sharrows do not address conflicts between bikes and cars due to speed differentials - these problems persist even with full lane sharrows.
Fast heavy traffic continues to stunt bike modal share along high ADT, higher speed roads. Riders will still be prone to dodge in and out of parked cars and move towards curb in midst of heavy traffic.
Sharrowed streets do little to mitigate intersection conflicts between motorists and bicyclists.
Sharrows, even full lane sharrows, leave bicyclists more prone to be caught in traffic congestion and/or engage in unsafe lane filtering.

Sharrows are well suited for bicycle boulevards, connector and arterial roads too narrow for bikelanes, and placements on roads integrated with bikelanes as part of hybrid streetscape designs. sharrows are only one of the tools of accommodation that include bikelanes, sharrows, MUPs, bridge access, wide lanes, unaccommodated streets and end of trip facilities.

Portlands' 'bike boulevards' and streets with middle of the street wayfinding bike symbls were not the easiest to find or navigate with compared to some I've ridden in San Francisco.

He got banned already?

I sent a PM to tha admins asking them to reconsider. I mean the guy might be a piece of work or <insert your own adjectives here>, but he IS Mr. Vehicular Cycling and should be allowed to post his views on the subject for the rest of us to discuss/disagree with/dismiss/agree with. You really can't blame a dawg for being a dawg, and banning JF from the VC subforum for being himself is kinda like banning George Bush from the P&R forum for being a misunderestimated decider and mangling the English language. :eek:

I sent a PM to tha admins asking them to reconsider. I mean the guy might be a piece of work or <insert your own adjectives here>, but he IS Mr. Vehicular Cycling and should be allowed to post his views on the subject for the rest of us to discuss/disagree with/dismiss/agree with. You really can't blame a dawg for being a dawg, and banning JF from the VC subforum for being himself is kinda like banning George Bush from the P&R forum for being a misunderestimated decider and mangling the English language. :eek:

+1. If he's not allowed back to defend himself, then all rants against him might as well be shut down.

I sent a PM to tha admins asking them to reconsider. I mean the guy might be a piece of work or <insert your own adjectives here>, but he IS Mr. Vehicular Cycling and should be allowed to post his views on the subject for the rest of us to discuss/disagree with/dismiss/agree with. You really can't blame a dawg for being a dawg, and banning JF from the VC subforum for being himself is kinda like banning George Bush from the P&R forum for being a misunderestimated decider and mangling the English language. :eek:

+1000, I tend to agree, on exactly those grounds.

Banning JF from here is too much akin to Chainguard and their introspective discussions.

Sharrows ARE NOT a universal solution to accommodating bicycling traffic on american roads.

Sharrows do not address conflicts between bikes and cars due to speed differentials - these problems persist even with full lane sharrows.
Fast heavy traffic continues to stunt bike modal share along high ADT, higher speed roads. Riders will still be prone to dodge in and out of parked cars and move towards curb in midst of heavy traffic.
Sharrowed streets do little to mitigate intersection conflicts between motorists and bicyclists.
Sharrows, even full lane sharrows, leave bicyclists more prone to be caught in traffic congestion and/or engage in unsafe lane filtering.

Sharrows are well suited for bicycle boulevards, connector and arterial roads too narrow for bikelanes, and placements on roads integrated with bikelanes as part of hybrid streetscape designs. sharrows are only one of the tools of accommodation that include bikelanes, sharrows, MUPs, bridge access, wide lanes, unaccommodated streets and end of trip facilities.



Well stated.

The other hindrances to popular cycling are an overwhelming car culture with the resultant freeway like road designs (free merges, wide radius sweeping turns and ramps, especially when coupled with multiple lanes and freeway on/off ramps).

Chip, jon can't have reasonable discussions. he's such a diatribe.

regarding Robert Hurst's book ,the Art of Cycling, I can highly recommend it. having 35 + years of cycling behind me, reading that book still opened my eyes to new ways of looking at traffic. His book is very well written, colorful and a well reasoned look at bicycling from a seasoned veteran traffic cyclists' eyes.

Robert is still riding miles in contemporary american traffic and road conditions. Accurate and timely instead of john's repeated referencing the motorist orderliness, bicycling advocacy climate and traffic conditions he observed in 1950's Great Britain to the 70s USA.

Robert's book is much better read and more timely than jon's dated and virtually incomprehensible texts.

Chip, jon can't have reasonable discussions. he's such a diatribe.

regarding Robert Hurst's book ,the Art of Cycling, I can highly recommend it. having 35 + years of cycling behind me, reading that book still opened my eyes to new ways of looking at traffic. His book is very well written, colorful and a well reasoned look at bicycling from a seasoned veteran traffic cyclists' eyes.

Robert is still riding miles in contemporary american traffic and road conditions. Accurate and timely instead of john's repeated referencing the motorist orderliness, bicycling advocacy climate and traffic conditions he observed in 1950's Great Britain to the 70s USA.

Robert's book is much better read and more timely than jon's dated and virtually incomprehensible texts.

I agree with you on all points...which is why I would rather have JF here, posting his views so the contrast stands out to all the noobs and others who may not have ever been exposed to JF, Robert or the ramblings of the rest of us.

Wow... too bad. Sort of makes things somewhat one sided here on BF.


I sent a PM to tha admins asking them to reconsider. I mean the guy might be a piece of work or <insert your own adjectives here>, but he IS Mr. Vehicular Cycling and should be allowed to post his views on the subject for the rest of us to discuss/disagree with/dismiss/agree with. You really can't blame a dawg for being a dawg, and banning JF from the VC subforum for being himself is kinda like banning George Bush from the P&R forum for being a misunderestimated decider and mangling the English language. :eek:


I agree with you on all points...which is why I would rather have JF here, posting his views so the contrast stands out to all the noobs and others who may not have ever been exposed to JF, Robert or the ramblings of the rest of us.

I wholeheartedly agree. There are many who might not agree with what he has to say, but the discussion itself is educational. If he is banned, then it should be because of the way he says things, not the content of what he has to say. If it is truly the case that he is banned for personal insults rather than simply being "high maintenance," then the mods need to take a good hard look at some on the other side of the discussion. Frankly, as someone who found these forums six months ago and approached these issues with no predisposition to one side or the other, it has been my observation that the personal insults come from both sides of the argument, but that only the VC advocates get banned for it.

JF's ban announcement also indicates that he is being banned for being "high maintenance." What exactly does that mean? That he is a catalyst for discussion? And that discussion becomes heated? So what if that discussion gets heated? Discussion is what forums are about. Eliminate one side of the discussion, and these forums will become exactly what ILTB claims the Chainguard list to be, and that is not really useful to anyone. I would much rather read, and certainly learn more from, heated discussions about cycling advocacy than 15 different parody threads about who dropped whom.