Tour De the **** You

[WPeabody]

Ditto! Seeing those NYC cycling videos sure brings back memories. And yes, it is a city of whackos but also lot of excellent human beings as well. It's just a high concentration of humans squished together at times, who for the most part are just trying to get by.
When I lived there 30 years ago, it seemed the rudest people were the commuters who lived in the suburbs, rushed in, rushed around and rushed out of the city at the end of the day. After hours, it was a different cadence. Dead quiet, nearly deserted in mid-town, and people restaurant-hopping and clubbing on the West Side, Theater District, Chelsea, the Village and SoHo... great places.
I loved riding my bike, even in the rain. It was better to ride in the street during rush hour than the sidewalks, because they were jammed with people, I sometimes got off and walked my bike through some intersections because it was faster, but pedestrians would run into it and get mad at me. I even took my bike on the subway when it was nearly deserted, late at night. MTA used to allow it, not sure if they do any more.
People yell at each other and you just kind of look at them and keep going, or you say something back, depending on the situation... nobody really takes it all that personally, at least they didn't back then... is it really any different now? Dunno...

[Essex]

People still take their bikes in the subways. Sometimes on packed trains. It's better, or worse at times here compared to 30 years ago. People seem to get weirder when there is (naturally) real, or implied stress. After 9/11, during natural disaster warnings (Irene), bad economy during the holiday seasons etc. More pushing, fighting in the subway, cursing. Shoplifting, pick pocketing, etc seem to have gone done due to the increased police presence on the streets & subways.

That said - I would much prefer being and riding in Monterey any day of the week. Good chance I could wake up to a cup of good coffee there vs. waking up to acid attitudes on the street during morning/afternoon rushes. I could easily take a walk in the early AM and not see anyone diving into a garbage pail, or sweeping slop into the road.

At the end of the day NYC seems to be about fighting for turf, making a buck and surviving + carrying a attitude that suggests "don't mess with me." That said - NYC serves only as a part time base of operation because living here full time - 'fuggeaboutit."

[WPeabody]

Monterey has its share of former New Yorkers, as well, it seems. Takes one to know one, LOL!
Apparently some Californians think using a strong tone of voice is considered "rude". But for the most part, quite bike-friendly here compared to some other places.

[RobertHurst]

That's a nice philosophy, but...

...though a lot of people may be able to follow it, their example, when followed by those with less social intelligence, will not lead to smooth interaction on the streets, but to the opposite. And one should remember that there's quite a lot of socially stupid people ut there. Which is why it's better, IMO, to take the rules as a guide that should only be departed from if really necessary.

Your response indicates that you assume there a lot of "socially stupid" people out there who are restrained by written traffic laws from acting unacceptably on the streets, and that without the written rules, all hell would break loose. That's not the way it works.

People don't follow the written rules in traffic in the first place. They might follow some other set of unwritten cultural mores, but not traffic rules. You need only watch traffic work for a few minutes to see it, although you may not have realized it before. First of all it is obvious that where the formal traffic rules can be displaced by the informal rules, for the sake of simple convenience, they are ignored and displaced. We always point to the behavior of bicyclists, but drivers also do this, routinely rolling stops where they can, driving 5-10 mph over the written speed limits as a cultural unit, etc. Pedestrians routinely ignore traffic signals, as a cultural unit. So, when it appears that people ARE following written traffic rules, I submit that even then they are really following a much more powerful set of rules. They happen to be following the written rules. The written laws are almost irrelevant compared to the cultural laws of traffic. But has all hell broken loose due to this primacy of cultural rules and the constant rule-breaking listed above? Would we have significantly fewer problems if the written rules were so much more powerful than the cultural rules? Only if the problems were caused primarily by deliberate breaking of formal rules. But the problems are not caused by deliberate rule-breaking, for the most part, but by inadvertent, accidental rule-breaking by well-meaning road-users.

What we really have is a sort of market for ideas about moving around in cities, and those ideas are being created as we speak. In the end the cultural consensus for movement in any given locale may or may not have much to do with the static written laws.

People are attracted to formal rules (and rulers too) because they'd like to escape this sort of market, which they mistakenly see as chaotic.

[hagen2456]

I think you may be right. Food for thought.

[RobertHurst]

I think you may be right. Food for thought.

Having said that whole piece, I think formal written rules are important too. They definitely serve a purpose, but probably not the purpose we think they do. And I think they need to be changed when needed, to more accurately reflect the cultural rules that actually govern traffic movement. >>>>Idaho Stop<<<<

[gcottay]

If you must ride the sidewalk do it at pedestrian speeds.

[lostarchitect]

The guy was a jerk, but you really should stay off the sidewalk. I don't care about the fact that it's illegal, I care about the fact that it's dangerous to you and pedestrians. Just because you didn't see someone, doesn't mean they're not there--And they're certainly not expecting to see you. You might have to go a block out of your way--no big deal, more time on your bike, right?

[John Forester]

Your response indicates that you assume there a lot of "socially stupid" people out there who are restrained by written traffic laws from acting unacceptably on the streets, and that without the written rules, all hell would break loose. That's not the way it works.

People don't follow the written rules in traffic in the first place. They might follow some other set of unwritten cultural mores, but not traffic rules. You need only watch traffic work for a few minutes to see it, although you may not have realized it before. First of all it is obvious that where the formal traffic rules can be displaced by the informal rules, for the sake of simple convenience, they are ignored and displaced. We always point to the behavior of bicyclists, but drivers also do this, routinely rolling stops where they can, driving 5-10 mph over the written speed limits as a cultural unit, etc. Pedestrians routinely ignore traffic signals, as a cultural unit. So, when it appears that people ARE following written traffic rules, I submit that even then they are really following a much more powerful set of rules. They happen to be following the written rules. The written laws are almost irrelevant compared to the cultural laws of traffic. But has all hell broken loose due to this primacy of cultural rules and the constant rule-breaking listed above? Would we have significantly fewer problems if the written rules were so much more powerful than the cultural rules? Only if the problems were caused primarily by deliberate breaking of formal rules. But the problems are not caused by deliberate rule-breaking, for the most part, but by inadvertent, accidental rule-breaking by well-meaning road-users.

What we really have is a sort of market for ideas about moving around in cities, and those ideas are being created as we speak. In the end the cultural consensus for movement in any given locale may or may not have much to do with the static written laws.

People are attracted to formal rules (and rulers too) because they'd like to escape this sort of market, which they mistakenly see as chaotic.

I disagree strongly with Hurst's description of the relationship between the written traffic laws and traffic behavior. Note that I have frequently criticized people who demand that child cyclists be taught traffic law as in the rules of the road. My reply is that no-one, especially children, learns how to drive by learning the rules. What I teach is how to behave in the way that obeys the rules. In that way, there is some merit to Hurst's argument. However, the traffic laws were not written arbitrarily and handed down as the Seventeen Commandments from On High. They have been developed to express, as carefully as is possible, the behavior that constitutes the boundary between acceptable and unacceptable traffic behavior. They reflect, as carefully as is possible, the behavior of drivers driving wheeled vehicles, taking into account the operating characteristics of both human drivers and wheeled and powered vehicles.

That there is this working relationship is demonstrated when some legislature enacts a traffic law that contradicts the usual operating principles; that law causes confusion, disobedience, and collisions, until the error gets corrected by new legislative action. This is most typically seen in the stupid laws enacted for only cyclists to obey, but there have been other such events applicable to all drivers.

[jfmckenna]

I never ride the sidewalk unless I can absolutely help it. No one is on the block (with exception of the slob), it's 10:00 am in the morning and I am riding 2-3 mph so I can get into the road. If it were you would you walk your bike on a empty sidewalk? If some dude went out of his way to block you and put his hands on your chest you would be OK with? I call BS.

BTW - most folks can't take NYC for too long. It's great for a few years, but after that it becomes a rat race filled with all sorts of weird stuff. And I mean weird, sick and gross. Unlike other North American mega cities.

I see things have not changed much in NYC Weird sick in gross pretty much described the 70's there for sure.

[hagen2456]

I disagree strongly with Hurst's description of the relationship between the written traffic laws and traffic behavior. Note that I have frequently criticized people who demand that child cyclists be taught traffic law as in the rules of the road. My reply is that no-one, especially children, learns how to drive by learning the rules. What I teach is how to behave in the way that obeys the rules. In that way, there is some merit to Hurst's argument. However, the traffic laws were not written arbitrarily and handed down as the Seventeen Commandments from On High. They have been developed to express, as carefully as is possible, the behavior that constitutes the boundary between acceptable and unacceptable traffic behavior. They reflect, as carefully as is possible, the behavior of drivers driving wheeled vehicles, taking into account the operating characteristics of both human drivers and wheeled and powered vehicles.

That there is this working relationship is demonstrated when some legislature enacts a traffic law that contradicts the usual operating principles; that law causes confusion, disobedience, and collisions, until the error gets corrected by new legislative action. This is most typically seen in the stupid laws enacted for only cyclists to obey, but there have been other such events applicable to all drivers.

I can't see where you two actually disagree on that issue

[rando]

Should riding a bike at walking pace on a near-empty sidewalk in a way that respects the right-of-way of the few pedestrians present be illegal?

the correct answer is: No.

[John Forester]

I can't see where you two actually disagree on that issue

As I see the difference between the views of Hurst and myself, I consider that the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles prescribe well-tested orderly behavior that is largely obeyed and should be obeyed by cyclists, who benefit from operating in accordance with the largely orderly behavior of almost all drivers. Hurst appears to argue in his books that drivers largely don't obey the rules of the road but operate in a chaotic manner, and that cyclists should take advantage of every opportunity they see to get ahead in reasonable safety.

There are difficulties with the written rules of the road for drivers of vehicles as they exist in America, and these difficulties are reflected in these discussions. There are too many stop signs (erected for political reasons) that should be yield signs, and while the stop-sign statute first requires a stop and then a yield, the appropriate positions for these two steps are not appropriately described. The result of these two errors (too many stop signs, poor description of the sequence of actions), American motorists developed the "California Stop", which is really appropriate for a Yield sign. The other major error is defective speed limits (also too often established for political reasons), so that American motorists come to expect disobeying the speed sign as rather normal behavior. However, since these are rather normal operating conditions, they rarely affect the orderly operation of traffic.

[hagen2456]

As I see the difference between the views of Hurst and myself, I consider that the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles prescribe well-tested orderly behavior that is largely obeyed and should be obeyed by cyclists, who benefit from operating in accordance with the largely orderly behavior of almost all drivers. Hurst appears to argue in his books that drivers largely don't obey the rules of the road but operate in a chaotic manner, and that cyclists should take advantage of every opportunity they see to get ahead in reasonable safety.

That's not how I understand his posts. The thing you percieve as "chaos" is more like a "social contract". Where his and your points of view, at least as I percieve it, seem to meet is that he believes that the laws more or less reflect what is already the common sense on the roads.

[RobertHurst]

As I see the difference between the views of Hurst and myself, I consider that the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles prescribe well-tested orderly behavior that is largely obeyed and should be obeyed by cyclists, who benefit from operating in accordance with the largely orderly behavior of almost all drivers. Hurst appears to argue in his books that drivers largely don't obey the rules of the road but operate in a chaotic manner, and that cyclists should take advantage of every opportunity they see to get ahead in reasonable safety.

I never argue in my books "that cyclists should take advantage of every opportunity they see..." My book is not about taking advantage. If you're on a bike, you're already taking advantage. My book (Art of Cycling) is about understanding traffic and applying basic defensive driving techniques to bicycling.

Forester often mischaracterizes my book as promoting aggressive, even illegal bicycling. Maybe he read some other book and got us mixed up.

[kalliergo]

Well, since the thread is wandering rather off-topic (sidewalk cycling). anyway. . .

forester-hurst.png

[John Forester]

I never argue in my books "that cyclists should take advantage of every opportunity they see..." My book is not about taking advantage. If you're on a bike, you're already taking advantage. My book (Art of Cycling) is about understanding traffic and applying basic defensive driving techniques to bicycling.

Forester often mischaracterizes my book as promoting aggressive, even illegal bicycling. Maybe he read some other book and got us mixed up.

Here are some quotations from Hurst's Art:

66 "We will abandon the pretensions of principles and rules and will adapt to the everchanging chaos of city life....Instead of attempting to dictate the flow of traffic, we will become the flow of traffic and it will become us."
109 Instinct Unveiled "The city moves according to principles that are more powerful and more interesting than the traffic ordinances. These laws are mysterious but not unfathomable." If the cyclist has come to understand these laws, then "you are some pedal strokes ahead and laughing all the way when traffic reaches out to bludgeon you with one of its tentacles of disorder."
The function of engineering is to understand the characteristics of substances, processes and activities in order to produce useful results. Hurst is here claiming that traffic engineering has failed to understand traffic. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, none of which Hurst advances. I see why it is that Hurst has failed to provide instruction for operating under the conditions that he classifies as mysterious but has never actually described. The task is logically impossible.

240 Epilogue: Of Bicycles and Cities: City cycling is really living. "It becomes apparent that unpredictability, chaos, and madness are some of the most important cogs in the city's machinery. The deck is stacked with jokers. There is a ghost in this machine and it appears to be stupid/and or drunk. ... The patient observer will not fail to notice that the messy reality of the Real American City does not coincide with the tidy vision of it that has been offered over the decades by some of the grand, old wise men of cycling. Theirs is a city governed by order: white lines, laws, and foregone conclusions. In their city, cyclists need only obey a few simple principles to get along successfully. Theirs is just another dream city, and not a very exciting one at that.
"The masterful urban cyclist finds him- or herself in a strange sort of dance, moving to all those drummers. There is no single principle that will see us through. But we have much more powerful tools at our disposal: timing, flexibility, and flow. Freedom. A successful safe ride through American traffic is not an exercise in rule following, but a beautiful piece of interactive performance art."

[kalliergo]

Robert: Have you ever been called as an expert witness? If so, assuming you were qualified by the court, did you share your assertion that "unpredictability, chaos, and madness are some of the most important cogs in the city's machinery?"

[RobertHurst]

Here are some quotations from Hurst's Art:

66 "We will abandon the pretensions of principles and rules and will adapt to the everchanging chaos of city life....Instead of attempting to dictate the flow of traffic, we will become the flow of traffic and it will become us."
109 Instinct Unveiled "The city moves according to principles that are more powerful and more interesting than the traffic ordinances. These laws are mysterious but not unfathomable." If the cyclist has come to understand these laws, then "you are some pedal strokes ahead and laughing all the way when traffic reaches out to bludgeon you with one of its tentacles of disorder."
The function of engineering is to understand the characteristics of substances, processes and activities in order to produce useful results. Hurst is here claiming that traffic engineering has failed to understand traffic. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, none of which Hurst advances. I see why it is that Hurst has failed to provide instruction for operating under the conditions that he classifies as mysterious but has never actually described. The task is logically impossible.

240 Epilogue: Of Bicycles and Cities: City cycling is really living. "It becomes apparent that unpredictability, chaos, and madness are some of the most important cogs in the city's machinery. The deck is stacked with jokers. There is a ghost in this machine and it appears to be stupid/and or drunk. ... The patient observer will not fail to notice that the messy reality of the Real American City does not coincide with the tidy vision of it that has been offered over the decades by some of the grand, old wise men of cycling. Theirs is a city governed by order: white lines, laws, and foregone conclusions. In their city, cyclists need only obey a few simple principles to get along successfully. Theirs is just another dream city, and not a very exciting one at that.
"The masterful urban cyclist finds him- or herself in a strange sort of dance, moving to all those drummers. There is no single principle that will see us through. But we have much more powerful tools at our disposal: timing, flexibility, and flow. Freedom. A successful safe ride through American traffic is not an exercise in rule following, but a beautiful piece of interactive performance art."

I thank you for quoting from my book The Art of Cycling (formerly titled The Art of Urban Cycling). But the quotes don't support any claims you've made so I'm not sure why you copied them here. Thanks anyway.

Yes, the most important feature of traffic is the MISTAKE. Not your mistake, someone else's. What mistake? A looked-but-failed-to-see error, most likely. This is clear from available evidence. Is the looked-but-failed-to-see error part of "the largely orderly behavior of almost all drivers"? Nope. No it is not. But is it the most important feature of traffic if you're a bicyclist in traffic? Oh yes. Yes it is. Even though these mistakes may be relatively rare compared to "the largely orderly behavior of almost all drivers," all that orderly behavior is inconsequential next to the mistakes.

There's nothing mysterious about this. If you're focused on "the largely orderly behavior of almost all drivers," that's not safe cycling.

[RobertHurst]

Robert: Have you ever been called as an expert witness? If so, assuming you were qualified by the court, did you share your assertion that "unpredictability, chaos, and madness are some of the most important cogs in the city's machinery?"

I've consulted for attorneys in civil cases, but never been deposed as a witness.

The attorneys in question possessed a much better understanding of the book and its message than Forester does.

[hagen2456]

The function of engineering is to understand the characteristics of substances, processes and activities in order to produce useful results. Hurst is here claiming that traffic engineering has failed to understand traffic. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, none of which Hurst advances. I see why it is that Hurst has failed to provide instruction for operating under the conditions that he classifies as mysterious but has never actually described. The task is logically impossible.

I don't know when Hurst wrote his book, but during the last 20 years, a lot of what seemed "mysterious" in traffic has been studied with the help of the advances made in understanding turbulence and near-chaos. Before that, traffic engineering had a very mechanichal approach to traffic, thus only being able to handle the parts of it that was orderly. In many ways, I think Hurst's approach comes closer to catching the kind of awareness that will bring one safely through traffic than yours, for all your experience

[John Forester]

I don't know when Hurst wrote his book, but during the last 20 years, a lot of what seemed "mysterious" in traffic has been studied with the help of the advances made in understanding turbulence and near-chaos. Before that, traffic engineering had a very mechanichal approach to traffic, thus only being able to handle the parts of it that was orderly. In many ways, I think Hurst's approach comes closer to catching the kind of awareness that will bring one safely through traffic than yours, for all your experience

Hagen please support your claim that traffic engineering has studied "turbulence and near-chaos" with studies demonstrating the types of traffic flow being studied, and with evidence that these types of flow are relevant to the study of car-bike collisions. You made the claim: now support it with evidence.

[John Forester]

snip In many ways, I think Hurst's approach comes closer to catching the kind of awareness that will bring one safely through traffic than yours, for all your experience

It appears, Hagen, that you have failed to note that I wrote that "Hurst has failed to provide instruction for operating under the conditions that he classifies as mysterious but has never actually described. The task is logically impossible." Since Hurst has not provided instructions for the conditions that he describes as mysterious, his book provides little assistance to the cyclist.

[John Forester]

I thank you for quoting from my book The Art of Cycling (formerly titled The Art of Urban Cycling). But the quotes don't support any claims you've made so I'm not sure why you copied them here. Thanks anyway.

Yes, the most important feature of traffic is the MISTAKE. Not your mistake, someone else's. What mistake? A looked-but-failed-to-see error, most likely. This is clear from available evidence. Is the looked-but-failed-to-see error part of "the largely orderly behavior of almost all drivers"? Nope. No it is not. But is it the most important feature of traffic if you're a bicyclist in traffic? Oh yes. Yes it is. Even though these mistakes may be relatively rare compared to "the largely orderly behavior of almost all drivers," all that orderly behavior is inconsequential next to the mistakes.

There's nothing mysterious about this. If you're focused on "the largely orderly behavior of almost all drivers," that's not safe cycling.

Indeed, the MISTAKE is the most important traffic feature when considering collisions. However, since Hurst considers traffic behavior to be chaotic madness, he has no means of instructing readers of how to tell that a mistake is occurring. Contrary to what the opponents of Effective Cycling keep writing, it does not instruct readers that merely obeying the rules of the road will make them safe. It states two things. First, that by obeying the rules of the road you won't cause your own collision. Second, by knowing how traffic is supposed to operate, you will be in the best position to recognize when a mistake is occurring, when there is a deviation from proper operation, and to take avoidance action in ways that are taught.

[kalliergo]

Hagen please support your claim that traffic engineering has studied "turbulence and near-chaos" with studies. . .

Personally, I can't remember seeing such research. But, of course, I'm just an interested amateur. A quick web search did find this:

PAN Xiaodong Relationship Between Eye Movement Index and Horizontal Alignment at Entrance of Highway Tunnel [J]; Journal of Tongji University (Natural Science); 2008-12

By using EMR-8B eye movement recorder, selecting driver's pupil variety of freeway entrance and exit as research object, on the basis of driving experiment, refered [sic] to the phenomena [sic, should be singular] of visual turbulence during light and dark adaption, the conversion duration for visual turbulence was selected as evaluation index of driver's visual comfort degree which was used to evaluate the visual load degree and driving safety of tunnel entrance and exit.The results indicate that the driving speed should not surpass 85 km·h-1 in order to guarantee driver's visual comfort; the stopping sight distance should increase 20~30 m compared to the present standard for tunnel entrance and exit.

Doesn't seem terribly relevant.

Checking Google Scholar for +"traffic engineering" +chaos returned this:

ORDER AND CHAOS IN THE DYNAMICS OF VEHICLE PLATOONS

Accession Number: 00787006

Abstract: This paper takes a new look at the traditional car-following model with a non-linear inter-car separation dependent term added. The generation of chaos is observed in a platoon of vehicles. Such chaotic motion has an inherent lack of predictability associated with it.

Publication Date: July/August 1996
Language: English
Corporate Authors: Napier University. Dept. of Civil and Transportation Engineering
Authors: Addison, Paul S, Low, David J
Pagination: p. 456-459

I admit that I didn't dig deeply into the results, since so many of them, predictably, were actually studies of chaos theory as applied to packet switching networks.

If there actually are studies relating to "turbulence and chaos" as such may affect car-bike crashes, I'd love to read them.