John Forester

Like most of the professional journals, you have to subscribe, either personally or through an institution, to read their stuff.

cruiserhead

I'm sorry if it comes across as complaining. You are presenting your facts & observations and drawing conclusions. I simply disagree and/or do not think some of the responses were satisfactory. That is my feeling. Someone else might have a different feeling on it.

Of course I am for cyclists following the rules of the road. What about drivers?
In the real world, the situation is very different.

I don't agree with this point of view.
I also didn't realize I was criticizing "vehicular cycling". Even that term is car-centric. All that says to me is "status quo and cyclists fend for yourselves"
While shared access on public roads (how's that for a term? ) is the way to get around now, and everyone should follow road laws- in the real world, this really circles back to what I posted originally a few posts up.

To me, this is really saying that cyclists should fall in line and suck it up. Cars have no added responsibility other than keep on doing what they are doing.
Now, I'm not saying YOU are saying this. I'm saying this is the impression it leaves me. In the video, it seems it left that impression as well because someone stated as much.

What allows both motorists and cyclists to move safely and encourages both modes of transport?
Vehicular cycling? No. I don't even agree with that terminology.

Again, I agree that while we all share the same roadway, we all should follow the laws. The real world scenario is that it doesn't happen.
When bicycles don't, you call it "typically dangerously incompetent manner just because they feel more comfortable"
but if a vehicle doesn't, you say, "[yeah well cyclists get used to it and you'll be safer.]"

There is a lot of good info presented and progress of people-centric urban planning and cars sharing biking & pedestrian roads, it is good to keep in mind the pros and cons and what we are up against to create a better community. (How's that for terminology? lol)

John Forester

So it is your view that the behavior of American motorists ought to be improved, and, possibly, their view of their place in society. I don't doubt that. After all, I have been criticizing the American motorist-superiority/cyclist-inferiority view for forty years now. However, I note that a large proportion (I have not been counting) of the complaints about motorist behavior discussed in these forums have little to do with cyclist safety. And I maintain that our nation would get a greater reduction in car-bike collisions by paying attention to the competence of cyclists than to the competence of motorists. Does anyone have evidence to suggest the converse?

cruiserhead

Yes, that is part of the solution. The most important part to this change, imo, is the shift in thinking. Once that happens, or starts to, the rest will follow.

I agree. The complaints in these forums cater to people who need to vent or spout about motorists as one of their few outlets to express frustration and anger.
Remember that anger stems from fear. Anger is a reaction, not a cause.

I maintain that our nation would have
-far fewer accidents in total,
-higher quality of life
-faster, sweeping changes
-life saving shifts in lifestyle
- improved vehicle congestion and flow
- billions in national savings
if we change our thinking. I joke about terminology, but it is actually very important to this change.

Saying that cycle safety needs to be improved is like saying salmon need to avoid landing in bears mouths while jumping upstream.
Yes, it's true in fact. Yes, it can be quantifiable.
Is it realistic? Does it take into account what the real wold is like for cyclists and all the reactionary motives?
Does this encourage cycling as a beneficial transport choice?

This logic is what I disagree with. Ignoring the steak and concentrating on the peas.

John Forester

Forty years ago I thought that reason would work to change American opinion to accepting cyclists as drivers of vehicles. Having observed the enormously powerful forces producing the American view that cyclists are to be subservient to motorists, I gave up that hope. That is at least a large part of the "steak" in the meal to which Cruiserhead refers. Well, those of you who intend to change public opinion regarding the status of motoring in America are welcome to work on that. I think that that is a very long-term project. Meanwhile there are two very important things to be done regarding American bicycle transportation. One is getting more cyclists to operate properly, and therefore safely, by obeying the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles. The other is protecting those cyclists who choose to operate according to those rules from unwise actions by government failing to accept that behavior as both legal and desirable. It is unfortunate that these unwise actions by government are too often aided by the anti-motoring advocacies of those concentrating on the bigger picture, the "steak" in that meal. I would rather have peas in the near future than starving until, possibly, the steak gets served.

lostarchitect 

I don't see why we have to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Can't we have some sensible separated lanes and paths where it seems like it will work well, and better driver education, and "take the lane" VC when it also makes sense? It just seems like everyone wants to fight and not actually work on what's best for cyclists in a given area.

hagen2456

There's plenty of diverse evidence for the feelings I write about above. Ranging from child psychology via accident stats for different speeds to accident stats for bike paths etc. It's all out there, and most of it is even round here. I don't care to look for it again. Do that for yourself. You bloody well know I'm right, cause I've shown you it before. Enough is enough.

cruiserhead

I agree lostarchitect, and also with with some of what JF says.
You don't go to extremes and create polarity. (it's already hostile enough). I am commenting on JF's opinions and talks.
Just to be clear, I agree about bike lanes. I'm not a all-or-nothing person. I'm happy with a "share the road" sign. Anything that is going to encourage the share the road mentality.

Yes, seperated lanes (I linked to earlier as an example) and education are great. That's the only way to progress to the next step.

Instead of villifying either the motorist or the cyclist, maybe the problem is the way the roads are designed. Putting cyclists in a position of fearing for their well-being, and reacting becomes a hostile situation because while a driver may see it as illegal, the cyclist may see it as life-saving.

I am not saying the cyclist is right or wrong. What I'm saying is that the conditions exist and are rife where the roadways do not encourage cycling (quite the opposite).
The reactions of motorists and cyclists tells the story. It's putting them into situations that create hostility, danger.

Couldn't it be that what you say is improper operation of bicycles is a symptom, not the cause?
When the Swedish guy in the video says,"bicycling here is too dangerous." Don't you think a reaction while riding would be to react (legally or illegally) to protect himself?

Public opinion changes with one person at a time. That's how stuff gets done. Honestly, I would have never thought they would cut a lane of auto traffic and turn it into a bike only lane in the middle of downtown LA. Not in a million years.

Maybe you're saying I'm too idealistic, but I really believe these changes occur at the grassroots level. Maybe it wasn't time back in the day, but maybe today is.

But, like I said, agree and like a lot of what's said. I just don't agree with the conclusions.
And vehicular cycling is just wrong. That is the kind of term that will never get people to think otherwise.

cruiserhead

Kind of.
What I was thinking of is bike lanes. Buffered or otherwise. When people (motorists, cyclists and pedestrians) see these bike lanes take priority, it tells them something.
Besides being safe and creating a sense of community, it tells everyone that there is a priority shift.
Cars are not the priority- people are.
Don't get bogged in the current system and bending cyclists into a mold that doesn't fit. Instead, create one that everyone can co-exist safely and with improved quality of life and choice of mobility.
So that was what my steak and peas analogy was about.

Please watch this video on buffered lanes in America, narrated by a traffic engineer- does a good job of explaining it
https://www.streetfilms.org/floating-...d-cycletracks/

adamhenry

How about an opportunity to have fun while cycling? There is no time to have fun while sharing the road. Bike lanes and paths are a lot more enjoyable.

John Forester

I don't know where that traffic engineer got his training and certification, but he is either incompetent for lack of knowledge or professionally negligent for hiding the knowledge he is supposed to possess. He fails to mention any of the traffic-engineering difficulties of cycle tracks, then known as side paths, that were published almost forty years ago, and for which California failed to install such facilities and AASHTO recommended against them.

The argument that bike lanes and cycle tracks provide a message for the general public is as old as they are, and just as indeterminate. To the majority of Americans who believe that cyclists should not use the roads, they indicate that those facilities are where the cyclist ought to be, out of the way of motorists. That tells lawful competent cyclists that they are supposed to stay off the roadways. That argument is a two-edged sword, depending on what one initially believes. To those who believe that cyclists should be using the roadways, it tells them that they are being dumped into a second-class facility for second-class road users. To those who believe that cyclists should not be using the roadways it represents a heaven-sent gift.

None of these American bikeways have been proved to be safer than lawful use of the roadway, despite forty years of trying by their advocates, both the motoring establishment and the bicycle advocates. Making American cycling safer and more convenient is going to be a much bigger task than bicycle advocates consider, particularly because that, up to this date, they have no evidence of changes that have done so.

cruiserhead

I don't see it that way at all. But I appreciate this perspective on it. It's thought provoking.

I see it as giving cyclists more priority on the roadway. Roads cannot be widened in the urban setting so these lanes would replace car lanes.
To my eyes, this tells people that cycling is valued and has priority.
Visually, the "world" is not all about cars and get out of the way if you're not one.

Not all roads can have buffered lanes, but that attitude shift will certainly carry over to shared traffic roads. With more cyclists, it also curbs motorists "own the road" mentality as well.

I also like the fact the cars are kept "to the center" and away from pedestrians as well.

When I see the video, the idea that a family can ride bikes- kids and all- on a busy, main street through NYC- with complete safety, it's pretty neat.
It is also attractive in that it is relatively quick and inexpensive to make these kinds of changes, where the city is re-purposing exisiting roadways with road paint and barriers.

Also, the reason there is no growth in cycling could be that there is no infrastructure that supports or encourages it. Despite that, people still do it and at least in my area, it is growing.
If buffered lanes were widespread, i know even more would use it.

John Forester

Referring to that last sentence, and to the traffic engineer presenting cycle tracks, any traffic engineer, for that matter any engineer at all, who bases safety decisions on public popularity should have his certification revoked and be presented with the bill for the injuries he has caused.

So the Swede questioning me in my talk simply stated that cycling in America is too dangerous. I had forgotten that, and did not understand it when played on my computer. But that's nothing new here; all of us have been hearing that from the general public for sixty years or so, and it is all wrong. Cycling when obeying the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles is quite reasonably safe and provides very efficient travel, as so many of us have demonstrated for all of those years. The fear of cycling in traffic has been created by society, by the motoring establishment and by the bicycle advocates, rather than by the experience of cycling competently in traffic.

I read your argument, Cruiserhead, as saying that cycling must be made attractive to the frightened incompetents of the population, so that some outside objective is served. That may be desirable for some, but that program has two drawbacks. One is that attempts to make cycling attractive to the frightened incompetents may not, in America, persuade them switch a transportationally significant proportion of trips from motor to bicycle transport. Nothing of the sort has been demonstrated anywhere in America. The other is that these efforts reduce the legitimacy and acceptance of cycling in accordance with the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles.

John Forester

You simply have not yet understood the meaning of my words. You say kids can ride on cycle tracks in complete safety? You clearly know nothing about car-bike collisions and their statistics. You need to study traffic engineering before you make such statements.

John Forester

Well, neither the motoring establishment nor the bicycle advocates consider that there should be a place in the cycling spectrum for cycling in accordance with the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles. Those cyclists who are sufficiently well-informed to know whether a special bicycle facility or the roadway best serves their needs ought to be both allowed and accepted to make that choice wherever that choice exists. I see nothing being done to advance that principle except that done by we few vehicular cyclists, and much being done against it. If the powers that be, motorists and bicycle advocates and government, would accept that principle, the acidity of the discussion would disappear. It is the fear of being run off the roadway by law or by society that makes the discussions so virulent.

John Forester

You are utterly uninformed. I cycled in traffic for decades because I enjoyed it. When you are confident of your abilities and find that the traffic around you generally respects your operation, the act of cycling becomes enjoyable, so enjoyable that one prefers it to driving, whenever the disadvantages of cycling, for that particular trip, do not outweigh its advantages.

John Forester

Hagen can't see beyond his own backyard. Hagen, you have never provided any data about the traffic-cycling capabilities of children. I did so thirty years ago, and it has been published on my website, but Hagen is ignorant of that. Hagen claims that there are accident stats for bike paths that support his position; however, there are no accident stats for American bike paths that support his claimed position. My presentations refer to cycling on American roads under American conditions, a subject about which Hagen's statements quite strongly support the view that he knows nothing. To say, Hagen, that I "bloody well know [Hagen] is right, cause [Hagen** has shown you [me] it before" is nothing more than a string of lies, because he has done no such thing.

adamhenry

How utterly pompous you are! I am speaking from experience. While I am busy maintaining situational awareness while sharing the road, there is no way to enjoy the ride. Instead of enjoyment it is actually borderline stressful. As soon as I pull into the bike lane, everything slows down and I can actually have fun.

If bike riding is only about getting from point A to point B, what is the point? I expected to enjoy riding when I bought my bike.

cruiserhead

ok, I didn't literally mean "complete" safety. I understand but you have nothing to say about the rest of it?

John Forester

Adamhenry writes that he speaks from experience that he cannot enjoy cycling on the normal roadway, but when he enters a bike lane he finds cycling to be "fun". That statement proves that Adamhenry, like most Americans, is afflicted with the cyclist-inferiority/motorist-superiority complex and, furthermore, is completely ignorant of the real hazards of cycling in traffic and the statistics of car-bike collisions. The major hazards of cycling in traffic come not from the same-direction motor traffic that frightens Adamhenry, but from the turning and crossing movements about which he shows no concern. These latter are not ameliorated by bike lanes, which, indeed, have some effect in increasing the probability that the cyclist will commit a traffic error where it is most significant.

John Forester

So you did not mean to say that cycle tracks make cycling "completely" safe for kids, although that is the word you used. Well, then, please inform us of what you view as the likely reduction in car-bike collisions to be produced when kids cycle on streets with cycle tracks as compared with the normal roadway. It would be nice, but really it is not expected of you, if you could provide a quantitative factual argument to support your opinion.

cruiserhead

No, that is not it.

Cycling infrastructure should be made so to encourage it's use.
This is always done with cars, why not bicycles?
Roads are expanded, they are revised, evolve and built all to encourage car use- to make car travel easier.

The problem is the priority of car travel has overwhelmed everything else- so that cars "own the road" and everyone else (pedestrians and cyclists) is chattle to the demands of the automobile.


Road does not = domain of the car.
Road = shared use roadway for people to travel.

Evolving and re-prioritizing the roadways sounds good to me. Buffered lanes and all.

I take your lack of response to "the rest" of my comments to mean you have no counterpoint for it and thus agree.
Debating the word "completely" while I was just enjoying the video, while ignoring the bulk of what I wrote kind of proves you are stuck on the peas and not the steak.

sudo bike

I agree, but I don't think our infrastructure should be designed around the lowest common denominator of children's transportation. Although I think there is a place for something like Safe Routes to School that plan and advocate for infrastructure on popular routes to a school. I essentially agree with what you're saying, but I think 30mph is still well within the realm of reason for most people, even novices. Personally, my experiences bear this out. While most of my area has 40mph roads (now with bike lanes after some massive advocacy work from local cyclists), I live in a district of town with 30-35mph traffic (small business "main street" sort of design) with narrow roads that are too narrow to effectively share if cars are parallel parked. We have tons of riders down here. You actually seem to see them almost as much as cars. And I've seen less confrontation here than elsewhere in town. Wild guess would be the modal share in just this area is something closer to 20%. When you venture out onto the 40mph streets (before bike lanes... this seems to be changing somewhat now) is when the cycling population plummets. As such, my experience is that people are fine sharing the road at around 30mph with fairly low speed differentials. At higher speeds, while I think cycling vehicularly is a good way to cope with the situation, you won't be seeing many cyclists in it.

B. Carfree

I'm sure JF could offer a better explanation of the dangers of these side paths, but I'll give it a go. Unless the strip between the road and the side path is cleared of such things as light posts, mail boxes, landscaping and parked cars, the view of the side path is obstructed for motorists and cyclists alike. When a motorist attempts to turn across the side path into a driveway, alley or cross street, there is no way to really know if the path is clear until it is too late. I have seen two ways this is dealt with:
1. The cyclist is given yield signs and must keep his/her head on a swivel to avoid being struck by motorists who are crossing his/her path from all angles.
2. The cyclist has the right-of-way, but is in a dead-right sort of situation. What good is the right of way when two tons is coming at you?

The other problem concerns people exiting the driveways and side streets. They can't see down the street until they are blocking the side path with their vehicles. Add in the fact that Americans don't stop at the limit lines (they don't stop until they can see down the road, if then), and you have a dangerous situation.

With these side paths, the risk to the cyclist goes up dramatically with his/her speed, which is the exact opposite of what happens on the road proper. They function like sidewalks, and as such a cyclist whose speed is closer to that of a pedestrian has a better experience.

It is my understanding that the motorists in Northern Europe are better trained and have better incentives to behave properly at these side paths. I have lived in cities that have some of them here in the U.S., and they are frighteningly dangerous.

For what it is worth, Davis, CA put one in in the '70s, back when the bike dominated the landscape in "The Bicycle Capital of the World". I knew of several cyclists who had been seriously injured while riding in town and all of the collisions occurred on that side path. It's just really difficult to adjust to someone overtaking you from behind and turning across you.

Oh, and to amplify Genec's comments on the quality of American motorists: Motorists injure 1.2 Million people per year on our roads. That gives an American even-odds on being injured by a motorist in his/her lifetime. I would say that means our motorists are incompetent, but feel free to disagree.

adamhenry

I freely admit to being new at sharing the road. That is why I am here. I am trying to understand how I should act and what to expect. You may see it as ignorant, but I have trouble dismissing the people who are right behind me as I pedal along. So far I have not been alarmed by any of the crossing or turning activities that effected me. I am just learning as I go and so far I find the bike trails which are devoid of vehicles to be the most comfortable place to be but I have to take streets to get there.