Commuting - Book Report: The Art of Urban Cycling

I don't know if any of you have read The Art of Urban Cycling (http://www.globepequot.com/globepequot/index.cfm?fuseaction=customer.product&product_code=0-7627-2783-7&category_code=) or not, but I found it to be informative and humorous enough to make it a quick read.

Being relatively new to riding on the roads, I found most of it to be pretty eye-opening. It pointed out several bad habits that I was developing. I also enjoyed the comparisons between the "vehicular cycling" vs. the "invisible cycling". Actually it turned out to be a healthy mix of both was prescribed.

Maybe you all could recommend other books that proved to be useful as well.

Maybe you all could recommend other books that proved to be useful as well.

I've often been fond of two types of books. One type is the in-depth no-holds-barred bigger-than-a-stack-of-encyclopedias books which are very thorough and covers everything in detail. Another type of book I like is the quick-primer. For commuting, I have found that The Bicycle Commuting Book by Rob Van der Plas while being a little old and dated (at least the version I have) is a pretty good book that's easy to read in one sitting (only 120 some-odd pages) and brings you up to speed quickly. It's not very in-depth though but if you're just starting out and want to get the lay of the landscape in terms of commuting information, it's pretty good.

-- Effective Cycling by John Forester
-- The League Guide to Safe and Enjoyable Cycling
all the articles on the LAB website about bicycle commuting.
http://www.bikeleague.org/educenter/factsheets.htm

I would recommend Urban Bikers' Tricks and Tips:Low-Tech and No-Tech Ways to Find, Keep, and Ride a Bicycle, By Dave Glowacz. Practical and informative, with a bit of "outlaw" riding tips as well.

I would recommend Urban Bikers' Tricks and Tips:Low-Tech and No-Tech Ways to Find, Keep, and Ride a Bicycle, By Dave Glowacz. Practical and informative, with a bit of "outlaw" riding tips as well.
I have not yet read The Art of Urban Cycling, but it's in my Amazon cart...

I definitely DO NOT recommend Urban Biker's Tricks and Tips. The "outlaw" riding tips are borderline suicidal. I guess if you ignore those the rest of the book is okay, but other books (including perhaps The Art...) are much better, so why bother?

In particular, Cyclecraft by John Franklin and Effective Cycling by John Forester explain vehicular cycling very well. Both have their relative strengths and weaknesses, but neither makes the blatant errors that does Glowacz. Also, there is rhyme and reason in Cyclecraft and EC that is completely missing from Urban Biker's. Ignoring the "tricks", it's a summary of "tips", without any of the explanation of the basis or underlying principles behind the tips that is explained in the other books. I found John S. Allen's simple but very clear Streetsmarts pamphlet (google it for a free copy), was much more valuable than Tricks and Tips.

I am intrigued about the comparison of "vehicular cycling" to "invisible cycling". I have found that the "opposite"of VC is hard to describe, and "invisible cycling" seems to be at least as good as the others I've heard and come up with myself: "gap cycling", "incompetent cycling", etc.

Serge

Definitely a good book - I found it over the weekend at Border's.

About half-way through - I really enjoyed the history section of the book.

I read the book on the plane over here to Iraq, and even though I had been commuting for a year by bike, there were still tips I found useful. I too enjoyed the history section. I've even been riding over here on a cheap bike I picked up. My goal is decrease my dependancy on cars by at least 80% or more, and some of the tips I picked up, and reminders of things I already knew should help me accomplish that goal. In my opinion everyone should read it, and I might not be sitting in a desert fighting for oil...

Have to also recommend any good bike maintenance book. Save ya lots a money!

I have a thirty year old copy of "Anybody's Bike Book", but there are many others that are good, too.

Again, I have not read the book, but I just ordered it from Amazon and should have it in a couple of weeks (free shipping takes a while!).

Anyway, I inquired about the book on a VC list and someone for whom I have a lot of respect with regard to traffic cycling had this to say:



Hurst doesn't understand VC like we do (his explanation of VC makes that abundantly clear) and he overrates the messenger mindset.
I'm guessing that Hurst might misunderstand VC to be something simplistic like "taking the lane". Can anyone confirm or deny?

I don't think Hurst misunderstands VC, I think he disagrees w/ it.

I don't think Hurst misunderstands VC, I think he disagrees w/ it.
I am curious to see how he perceives VC and what in particular he disagrees with.
Most people I have encountered who express disgreement with VC also seem to think of as it as something other than simply riding in accordance to the vehicular rules of the road.

In particular, does Hurst advocate violating the vehicular rules of the road? If so, which ones and when? If not, then how is it that he disagrees with VC?

Hurst mostly agrees w/ VC, especially on the key issue of road position and bike lanes. The main point of departure is Hurst's argument that it's OK for cyclists to slowly roll through stop signs and red lights.

What fools people into thinking he's anti-VC is that Hurst writes with a non-condescending sense of humor.

Note: I editted this a little as Helmet Head was preparing his response.

Hurst mostly agrees w/ VC. What he disagrees with is some of the silly extensions some VC'ers have made.
Such as?

Such as?
Never, ever break the law. Hurst argues that it's OK for cyclists to roll through red lights and stop signs when traffic permits it. I agree, as long as there's no traffic in any direction, including behind me.

Hurst's Art of Urban Cycling is recommended, although his anti-Forester rants get a little tiresome after a while. He tends to be unkind in Internet discussion forums also. All in all, though, it's a very good book to get even for experienced bicyclists. Getting past his prejudices will take some doing.

Regarding Hurst's understanding (or not) of VC, he tends to criticize some of the hyperbole and rhetoric and seems to paint all VCers as inconsiderate lane-hoggers.

I especially like his chapters on helmet safety and on injuries.

Tips & Tricks is a waste. Don't get it.

RFM

In my opinion everyone should read it, and I might not be sitting in a desert fighting for oil...

wow...
;)
bk

Such as?Never, ever break the law. Hurst argues that it's OK for cyclists to roll through red lights and stop signs when traffic permits it. I agree, as long as there's no traffic in any direction, including behind me.
Got anything else?

I think you (and many others) mistake Forester's adamance about obeying the vehicular rules of the road with obeying the letter of the law. If you read Forester's section on stop signs carefully, for example, you too will see that he allows for not coming to a complete stop when no pedestrians are present and traffic permits it (I addressed this in more detail (http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=1037169&postcount=11) in the Yield vs. Stop Advocacy thread where you made a similar point).

Forester's actual writing is not anywhere near as pedantic as many make it out to be. He even defends sidewalk cycling on occasion, and admits to doing it himself from time to time. Out of context, that's not a big deal, but given what he is alleged to advocate ("Never, ever break the law"), it is totally contradictory. You might want to reread the traffic cycling sections again, perhaps with a bit more care.

I agree with you, Hurst and Forester about occasionally treating Stop signs as Yield signs.
However, I agree with Forester that a RED light means you many not enter the intersection (except to turn right), and certainly do not advocate running reds! Now, if the light is not reacting to the presence of the cyclists, that's a different story, and Forester allows for treating an inoperative light as a STOP sign. But rolling a red light? Under what circumstances would you or Hurst support that?

"Urban Biker's Tricks and Tips" is far and away one of the best books on commuting. "The Art of Urban Cycling" is good, but not as good as tips and tricks. the outlaw tips may be borderline suicidal but they work. the main reason people dont recommend this book is cause it caters to regular people who want to ride bikes rather than lycra clad yuppies on tricked out road bikes.

the outlaw tips may be borderline suicidal but they work.
From a brilliant review of Tips and Tricks on Amazon:

"Just because he hasn't been killed by his own advice yet does not mean it's good advice, or that all of his readers will have the same dumb luck."

Serge

. . . Regarding Hurst's understanding (or not) of VC, he tends to criticize some of the hyperbole and rhetoric and seems to paint all VCers as inconsiderate lane-hoggers. . . .
I don't remember seeing that. WHat I remember is that Hurst basically supported Forester when it came to lane position.

Helmet Head,
I checked out Hurst's book from the library (as I did with Forester's), so I can't quote chapter and verse. I admit that my comments are based on the impressions the books left. My main point remains, there is very little difference between the two (except for writing style). I think we actually agree about that.

When would I run a red? At four in the morning when there is literally no one around (and I've slowed down enough to verify that). And yes, if I got a ticket, I would have to pay it.

When would I run a red? At four in the morning when there is literally no one around (and I've slowed down enough to verify that). And yes, if I got a ticket, I would have to pay it.
But you would probably do that whether you were driving a car or riding a bike... which is the point of VC as Forester presents it... actlng like a vehicle driver.

helmet head,
i disagree. tips and tricks gives down to earth advice in a non-academic tone about real world situations. i especially liked the diagram of where to strike a windshield with your u-lock.

...it caters to regular people who want to ride bikes rather than lycra clad yuppies on tricked out road bikes.

Robert Hurst a "lycra clad yuppy on tricked out road bikes"?! That'll be the day. He's a messenger in Denver, strong path advocate and occasional anti-roadie pundit on wreck.bikes.

RFM

Let me put my original point a little more clearly. When I read Hurst's criticisms of VC, I remember thinking that he was criticizing a caricature of VC rather than VC. Serge, remember, I'm trying to agree with you.

Let me put my original point a little more clearly. When I read Hurst's criticisms of VC, I remember thinking that he was criticizing a caricature of VC rather than VC. Serge, remember, I'm trying to agree with you.
I'd have to agree with that assessment. He's not attacking Forester or what he espouses, but the supposed vehicular cyclists that think they are equal to cars and trucks on the road, to the point of not being courteous to other denizens of the road, and who happen to be staunchly against bike lane or MUP development. Granted, these people may not really exist, but he uses it for some good juxtapositioning between the vehicular cyclist and the invisible cyclist.

I think one of the bigger points is the concept of "Leave No Trace" while cycling. Anticipate and avoid problem situations, rather than asserting a place on the road to the point of annoyance, or riding in an unsafe position because you're afraid of the big mean cars.

I appreciate all the recommendations and will be checking them out shortly.

As far as Hurst's views on "Vehicular Cycling", I didn't perceive any of his comments to attack the VC position. In fact, I thought he supported it more times than not. Basically how I read it was that if you're going to follow the VC style of riding, you'd eleminate many of the benefits of riding a bike. Would any of you sit in a traffic jam just to be a respectable vehicular cyclist? I'm not.

Interesting. I'm in the middle of this book now.

My take so far is that Hurst departs from VC insofar as it has become an ideological fixation for some. In other words, taking the lane is reasonable in some cases, but not in others (e.g., high speed, heavy traffic). He does seem to caricaturize VCists as those who are *always* opposed to bike lanes, and taking the lane under *all* conditions. I don't recall if I've seen the word "invisible cycling", but it seems a lot like what I was taught as an automobile driver in my youth when it was called "defensive driving" -- that you just can't rely on all motorists to comply with all the rules of the road all the time. I would call him "pragmatic".

He does have a good sense of humor, but I'm not all that impressed so far. I was really looking to find something that went in depth into VC and all of its subtle implications.

My take so far is that Hurst departs from VC insofar as it has become an ideological fixation for some. In other words, taking the lane is reasonable in some cases, but not in others (e.g., high speed, heavy traffic). He does seem to caricaturize VCists as those who are *always* opposed to bike lanes, and taking the lane under *all* conditions...
He does have a good sense of humor, but I'm not all that impressed so far. I was really looking to find something that went in depth into VC and all of its subtle implications.

You may find something, somewhere that goes into the alleged subtle implications of VC. Good luck on trying to find on the Internet any hint of subtly from obdurate VC proseltyizers/ideologues.

Interesting. I'm in the middle of this book now.

My take so far is that Hurst departs from VC insofar as it has become an ideological fixation for some. In other words, taking the lane is reasonable in some cases, but not in others (e.g., high speed, heavy traffic). He does seem to caricaturize VCists as those who are *always* opposed to bike lanes, and taking the lane under *all* conditions. I don't recall if I've seen the word "invisible cycling", but it seems a lot like what I was taught as an automobile driver in my youth when it was called "defensive driving" -- that you just can't rely on all motorists to comply with all the rules of the road all the time. I would call him "pragmatic".

He does have a good sense of humor, but I'm not all that impressed so far. I was really looking to find something that went in depth into VC and all of its subtle implications.

I wasn't all that impressed with the book either. I LOVED the early parts, on bicycle history. That was incredibly well written and interesting. However, the rest of the book I found of little practical value. It was too much about the "mind set" of expert bikers (bike messengers), and not enough about real-life, practial situations and recommendations.

Basically how I read it was that if you're going to follow the VC style of riding, you'd eleminate many of the benefits of riding a bike. Would any of you sit in a traffic jam just to be a respectable vehicular cyclist?



In other words, taking the lane is reasonable in some cases, but not in others (e.g., high speed, heavy traffic). He does seem to caricaturize VCists as those who are *always* opposed to bike lanes, and taking the lane under *all* conditions.
The only people I know who consider that VC means sitting in a traffic jam, or being *always* opposed to bike lanes, or taking the lane under *all* conditions, are VC detractors. It certainly does not reflect the views of John Forester, John Franklin, John S Allen, Dan Guttierrez, David Smith, or the countless VC advocates I have read or corresponded with. If that's how Hurst characterizes VC, then he too does not get it.

Serge

I LOVED the early parts, on bicycle history.

A little off-track, but I recently finished "The History Of The Bicycle" (written by a fellow Massachusetts person whose name escapes me right now) which goes into lots of detail on the history, largely from the early 1800's (the Drasine) to present, although it is very detailed until the early 20th century. It's a hard-cover book -several hundred pages - but has some great pictures and stories. The writing was okay, but sounds a little term-paperish at times. If you liked Hurst's synopsis, you'd love this book.

The only people I know who consider that VC means sitting in a traffic jam, or being *always* opposed to bike lanes, or taking the lane under *all* conditions, are VC detractors. It certainly does not reflect the views of John Forester, John Franklin, John S Allen, Dan Guttierrez, David Smith, or the countless VC advocates I have read or corresponded with. If that's how Hurst characterizes VC, then he too does not get it.

Serge
Let us know what you think when you're done reading it. I haven't read the books from the VC advocates yet, so I can't compare. He does seem to have disdain for the advocates against separate facilities (bike lanes and MUPs), who seem to fall under his definition of Vehicular Cyclists. If his style of riding is the same as VC, then he wouldn't have a much of a book to sell, then, would he? By trying to separate himself from VC, he has a different product. People could then say they follow the "Hurst Method", rather than the VC method, and that could possibly fuel his ego.

But that's all just supposition on my part. I doubt much, if anything, he advocates in this book goes against VC principles. It's possibly a way of sneaking VC principles to the masses, without the stigma (which is probably unwarranted) associated with VC.

In my mind there are VC advocates and EC advocates... EC being of the Forester mindset and against bike lanes.

VC is the way that most experienced cyclists do end up riding, and is not in opposition to the use of Bike Lanes... BL simply being another part of the road... to be used when handy.

VC is the way that most experienced cyclists do end up riding, and is not in opposition to the use of Bike Lanes... BL simply being another part of the road... to be used when handy.
"To be used when handy", is very similar to how Forester recommends bike lanes be used. Basically he says you should position yourself according to the situation and various relevant factors. If going through that process puts you in the bike lane, fine. If it doesn't, fine. But your decision of where to position yourself should not be dictated by the presence or absence of a bike lane.

But the opposition to bike lanes has nothing to do with whether they are "handy" or not. It has more to do with the presence of a bike lane leaving the false impression that the cyclist is alleviated from having to go through the process of deciding where he should ride for the given circumstances, conditions and factors.

I've read the book and I have a couple of issues with it in general

1. He makes the assumption that cyclists have the ability to avoid most if not all accidents. He pointed out in one instance that if a car breaks a red light, the cyclists should have seen him and taken the necessary precautions before crossing the green light. This is nonsense. When I'm going through a green light, I hardly ever look to see if cars are going to break the law because I'm not that paranoid!

2. His for and against the helmet law did not make me want to give up my bucket. In fact, the evidence he gave against helmets (Torsion Injuries) was bogus.

3. He discussed lane splitting but didn't really explain how to do it safely

I've read the book and I have a couple of issues with it in general

1. He makes the assumption that cyclists have the ability to avoid most if not all accidents. He pointed out in one instance that if a car breaks a red light, the cyclists should have seen him and taken the necessary precautions before crossing the green light. This is nonsense. When I'm going through a green light, I hardly ever look to see if cars are going to break the law because I'm not that paranoid!
The ability of either party involved in a collision to have avoided that collision, at least in most if not almost all cases, is the basic tenet of defensive driving.

If you reject that, then you reject the basis for defensive driving.

By the way, if you enter an intersection on green, whether on bicycle or driving car, assuming that cross-traffic will obey the red, then you are not riding defensively. It took me less than a minute googling for "defensive driving" to find this:


At an intersection, assume someone will be running the red light
When you get the green, don't immediately take off into the intersection. Look both ways and make sure some idiot isn't running the light. ... http://www.geocities.com/thesciencefiles/defensive/driving.html

[QUOTE=Dahon.Steve]I've read the book and I have a couple of issues with it in general

2. His for and against the helmet law did not make me want to give up my bucket. In fact, the evidence he gave against helmets (Torsion Injuries) was bogus.

Don't really want to defend this book since, if I haven't mixed it up with another, he advocates some marginal practices but I personally wouldn't be to quick to dismiss the Torsion Injures point. Not that it would convince me to abandon helmets all together but does make it seem sensible to consider a commuting helmet without the extra aerodynamic lever on the back.

I hardly ever look to see if cars are going to break the law because I'm not that paranoid!Be that paranoid. Your life depends on it.

I don't recall if I've seen the word "invisible cycling" ....

Hurst devotes a page or two to "invisible cycling" in his chapter on riding at night. He then explains that stealth cycling is dangerous, and that conspicuity plus defensive driving techniques are best while bicycling in reduced visibility conditions. In other words, ride to be seen, but don't count on motorists to see you.

RFM
http://www.masoner.net/bike/index.php4

...It pointed out several bad habits that I was developing. ...

I'm curious about some of these. Can you share? (not looking for a reproduction of the book, just a couple of examples).

Hurst devotes a page or two to "invisible cycling" in his chapter on riding at night. He then explains that stealth cycling is dangerous, and that conspicuity plus defensive driving techniques are best while bicycling in reduced visibility conditions. In other words, ride to be seen, but don't count on motorists to see you.

RFM
http://www.masoner.net/bike/index.php4

I always called this "Casper mode." I do everything I can to be seen (like Casper, the "friendly ghost") and I want to "play" with the cars (so to speak) but they just have a hard time seeing me (I guess they don't believe... )

My references however are not to night riding, but to simple daily commuting... I thought of the ghost reference because all too often as I went right by the front bumper of someone that was looking right at me and then suddenly saw me... their faces looked just as if they had just seen a ghost. :eek:

That part always amazed me... I wear a bright green yellow vest, and contrasting red shirts, I ride across intersections in the right tire tracks of the autos, and I watch people tracking me with their eyes... and yet, clearly, they do not see me.

Now granted, this is a rare event... but sadly, it only takes one "rare event" for a cyclist to be planted on the hood of a car... OUCH!

The Art of Urban Cycling is only one of two bike books I've ever read. It seemed reasonable, but not much in it seemed new to me. I did like his statement near the end of the book about how bike commuting is a way to keep your life from falling into a void of nothingness, which is what you get when you spend a lot of time driving a car.

(The other bike book was about the mechanics of bicycles.)

Be that paranoid. Your life depends on it.

Ach! I totally agree! I feel like Hurst disagrees some aspects of VC. And I also feel like if you disagree w/ some aspects of VC, then you sort of disagree with it fundamentally. Does this make sense? Or am I talking out of my *ss?

Ach! I totally agree! I feel like Hurst disagrees some aspects of VC. And I also feel like if you disagree w/ some aspects of VC, then you sort of disagree with it fundamentally. Does this make sense? Or am I talking out of my *ss?
We haven't found what parts of VC he disagrees with yet (if we leave anti-bike lane advocacy out of the picture).

Here's a nice article from the SF Chron a month or so ago, about hurst and Bert Hill (about whom I know nothing).

Mission: Not Impossible (http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2005/02/17/SPGGJBCK5Q1.DTL)

I happened across this article when it was in the paper and clipped it out for my office door. I especially liked:


"The successful urban cyclist counts on nothing but chaos and stupidity," Hurst says.

"One of the big problems with the vehicular-cycling principle, or any principle of urban cycling, for that matter, is that it fails to account adequately for the complexities, details,and chaos of the city streets." (p. 62)

Just found this quote very quickly--if you keep reading, it points out more, but I must shove off now to go watch the Iditarod on OLN!

"One of the big problems with the vehicular-cycling principle, or any principle of urban cycling, for that matter, is that it fails to account adequately for the complexities, details,and chaos of the city streets." (p. 62)

Just found this quote very quickly--if you keep reading, it points out more, but I must shove off now to go watch the Iditarod on OLN!
That's a generality. Hurst may dis' VC in theory, but when he gets to specifics, pretty much everything he writes is VC. Helmet Head was right to challenge people to show difference between Hurst and Forester on specifics.



I've read the book and I have a couple of issues with it in general

1. He makes the assumption that cyclists have the ability to avoid most if not all accidents. He pointed out in one instance that if a car breaks a red light, the cyclists should have seen him and taken the necessary precautions before crossing the green light. This is nonsense. When I'm going through a green light, I hardly ever look to see if cars are going to break the law because I'm not that paranoid! . . .
I agree with his main point that cyclists can avoid almost all accidents (emphasis on the "almost") by paying attention close attention. When going through an intersection, you can pay attention to the side traffic. Nothing's perfect, but watching the side traffic may just give you enough time to evade a red-light-running car.



. . . Effective Cycling is a dense work. You can miss a lot of what he says if you don't read it very carefully.

Note, this quote is from another thread (http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=97271).
This is the main difference between Hurst and Forester. Hurst is a much better writer. Hurst makes essentially the same points as Forester, but it's easier for the reader to see what Hurst means. Forester is, unfortunately, a jerk. A jerk with a lot of good ideas about how to ride in traffic, but a jerk nonetheless. That puts off readers and alienates would-be friends. My guess is that Hurst's humorous, well-written prose will pull more people to VC than Forester.

I'm curious about some of these. Can you share? (not looking for a reproduction of the book, just a couple of examples).

Riding in the "door zone", riding in the gap (which sometimes seems inevitable, but it's good to know so you keep you eyes open), riding in a driver's blindspot, crossing railroad tracks improperly, and the list goes on chapter by chapter.

If I only came away from reading this book with one good lesson, then it's worth it to me. Hell, it may even save my life. Some of you seem worked up by how, when, and why Hurst adopts the principles of vehicular cycling. To me I thought he presented the information like a responsible parent might talk to their kids about sex and/or drugs. Something like "I know there are temptations out there. You may give in, but if you do here are some of the possible repercussions." It's still early, I'm probably not making any sense and besides, now I'm thinking about sex. :(

For the record, I found myself waiting at several redlights yesterday.

Forester is, unfortunately, a jerk. A jerk with a lot of good ideas about how to ride in traffic, but a jerk nonetheless. That puts off readers and alienates would-be friends.
He does seem to attract a coterie of similar characters who adopt the same methods for promoting VC via Internet discussion groups.

Here's a discussion thread between Robert Hurst and several VC proponents (Frank K, Wayne Pein, etc). Hurst is R15757.

Here's a good place to start (http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.misc/messages/a9bcbe6ad3ff1b1a,62ef4cbf90bc603c,0a963482f03ae06a,32f5d523751ab2db,e49618abf221ffd5,15ac6417b4d1c0c 5,c98fe91dca24825f,5fefc2c2d4979f7a,1f770d990675ffe4,37b69f054411d143?thread_id=60d1772f6936e318&mode=thread&noheader=1&q=#doc_c98fe91dca24825f). Follow the thread.


Here's another discussion (http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.misc/messages/da9400e5a674d7be,61f50aa69f1a2cdd,dfa327c292ad07ea,e110e8f82b75d07f,a34c2625a791a0ec,81500fed0180e67 d,ebcab7c0a4366390,ee3f4ea99857d3ec,a912f9f8c513da81,0c50ec92140b415b?thread_id=ebabfe09a7fdc996&mode=thread&noheader=1&q=%22art+of+urban%22#doc_da9400e5a674d7be) in which Hurst discusses some of his fundamental disagreements with VC philosophy.