Cycling and bicycle discussion forums. 
   Click here to join our community Log in to access your Control Panel  


Go Back   > > >

Vehicular Cycling (VC) No other subject has polarized the A&S members like VC has. Here's a place to share, debate, and educate.

User Tag List

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 11-15-12, 10:04 PM   #1
mattotoole
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Potomac MD, USA
Bikes: Klein Quantum Pro w/ Ultegra, Klein Pulse Comp w/ Marzocchi Z3 & XT/LX
Posts: 286
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
The facts about cycling in Holland

http://departmentfortransport.wordpr...about-holland/
mattotoole is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-17-12, 02:53 PM   #2
Daves_Not_Here
On your right
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Southern California
Bikes: Specialized Roubaix Elite
Posts: 694
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Okay, I understand there are many who disagree with Forester and the way he expresses his point of view. What I don't understand is why the level of emotion is so high. Is the idea that Vehicular Cycling has set back cycling in some way, or has actually prevented investments in cycling infrastructure in the US?

I feel like I've shown up late to the brawl -- everybody's sitting around moaning and nursing their wounds and I don't even know what the fight was about.
Daves_Not_Here is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-17-12, 03:27 PM   #3
Sixty Fiver
Bicycle Repair Man !!!
 
Sixty Fiver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: YEG
Bikes: See my sig...
Posts: 27,264
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10 Post(s)
It is the very black and white manner in which John and his disciples present their views on constitutes effective cycling.

I am a vehicular cyclist because I have the skills, experience, and mind set to play in traffic but what works for me does not work for a high percentage of cyclists who would be more comfortable if they could utilize a dedicated bicycle infrastructure.

If I could ride my bicycles everywhere I needed to go on lanes that were dedicated to bicycles it would be awesome... my kids would enjoy riding even more, and I know many people that would ride more than they do.

The infrastructure in North America is poor all the way around and was very car centric for the better part of the 20th century and when cities try to improve their systems to support human powered transportation there will be conflicts and the risk to the rider is increased.
Sixty Fiver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-17-12, 04:56 PM   #4
gcottay
Senior Member
 
gcottay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Green Valley AZ
Bikes: Trice Q; Volae Century; TT 3.4
Posts: 3,772
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
For me the problem is that Forrester wants to pose the issue as "Vehicular Cycling Versus Dedicated Infrastructure" which it seems to obvious that depending on the location both have great promise for cyclists.
gcottay is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-17-12, 07:59 PM   #5
John Forester
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Bikes:
Posts: 4,071
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daves_Not_Here View Post
Okay, I understand there are many who disagree with Forester and the way he expresses his point of view. What I don't understand is why the level of emotion is so high. Is the idea that Vehicular Cycling has set back cycling in some way, or has actually prevented investments in cycling infrastructure in the US?

I feel like I've shown up late to the brawl -- everybody's sitting around moaning and nursing their wounds and I don't even know what the fight was about.
This is an answer not only to Dave, but to the next two articles in this thread. The emotions are so high because some people believe that I have been the leader in preventing American governments from doing what they want to do to cyclists, and what those advocates desperately want to be done. If that is an accurate statement it is one to be immensely proud of. The American bikeway designs were designed by the motoring establishment to make motoring more convenient by forcing cyclists to ride as if they were incompetent children. The American bicycle safety regulation was designed by bureaucrats who had no knowledge of bicycle engineering. The motoring officials claimed that their bikeway designs were justified because they made cycling much safer. They were never able to provide evidence for that claim, and the evidence that was discovered during the creation of the bikeway program demonstrated the falsity of that claim, and the results since show that these bikeways did not make cycling safer. The bicycle design regulation was claimed to make cycling much safer, but because very few injuries were caused by defective design of bicycles and because the bureaucrats knew nothing about bicycle engineering, that regulation has had no effect on cyclist safety. It was entirely proper that well-informed cyclists should have opposed those programs and managed to remove the most dangerous and deleterious features of each of them. That deserves praise.

Since the bicycle design regulation now does nothing, it is no longer subject to active controversy, only academic. However, the bikeway program is still actively operating and is therefore controversial. The bikeway advocates have never demonstrated that bikeways make cycling much safer. They have long advocated bikeways on the basis of comfort for inexperienced bicycle riders. If that comfort is provided, these advocates believe that a great many Americans will switch trips from motoring to bicycling, which is the prime motivation for these "bicycle advocates". They are emotionally upset because my work has largely killed their safety argument, thereby removing the prime governmental justification for the bikeways that these anti-motoring advocates desire.

If you will read the article whose URL is presented in the first post in this thread, you will see that I have not criticized the arrangements operating in the Netherlands. I have made two statements: There is no evidence that attempting to introduce those arrangements into typical American cities will produce either the large bicycle mode share or the cyclist safety typical of the Netherlands. There are a great many significant reasons, concerned with the differences between the two countries, to believe that any such attempt will fail. These statements greatly upset those with the emotional belief that introducing Dutch arrangements into America will greatly reduce motoring.
John Forester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-17-12, 09:47 PM   #6
B. Carfree
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Eugene, Oregon
Bikes:
Posts: 6,405
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 150 Post(s)
I thought it was pretty funny that the author of the anti-Forester blog showed a picture of a narrow side path that had numerous driveways with obscured views as an example of how the Dutch side paths don't have issues with...driveways. Such a set up may well work in their culture, but would lead to some serious collisions here.
B. Carfree is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-17-12, 10:31 PM   #7
Bekologist
totally louche
 
Bekologist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: A land that time forgot
Bikes: the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes
Posts: 18,025
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Look, more "john forester versus the facts"!

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Forester View Post
....... the results since show that these bikeways did not make cycling safer.








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

.
Quote:
They are emotionally upset because my work has largely killed their safety argument.

No one is emotionally upset about john foresters' work killing any bicycle safety arguments. The level of self-aggrandizement is very colorful, however. Maybe trolls existed before the internet?

Last edited by Bekologist; 11-17-12 at 10:35 PM.
Bekologist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-18-12, 12:19 AM   #8
CB HI
Cycle Year Round
 
CB HI's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Honolulu, HI
Bikes:
Posts: 12,346
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 443 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bekologist View Post
The level of self-aggrandizement is very colorful, however. Maybe trolls existed before the internet?
Bek looking in the mirror.
__________________
Land of the Free, Because of the Brave.
CB HI is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-18-12, 05:21 AM   #9
sudo bike
Bicikli Huszár
 
sudo bike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Fresno, CA
Bikes: '95 Novara Randonee
Posts: 2,116
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by gcottay View Post
For me the problem is that Forrester wants to pose the issue as "Vehicular Cycling Versus Dedicated Infrastructure" which it seems to obvious that depending on the location both have great promise for cyclists.
Very true. I think vehicular cycling works really well when speed differentials are low, usually on roads of no more than 30-35mph. In those cases I think infrastructure starts to become more superfluous or at least a luxury rather than really having an effect on safety. More than that is doable, but I think that's the point where your average joe is not going to be too interested in riding in traffic. Higher speed roads than that should ideally have some sort of accommodation, ranging from bike lanes to separated paths.
sudo bike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-18-12, 06:20 AM   #10
Bekologist
totally louche
 
Bekologist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: A land that time forgot
Bikes: the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes
Posts: 18,025
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by CB HI View Post
Bek looking in the mirror.
spoken like a true addled minion. Nice one, stumping for your ideology even in the face of absurd self-importance and delusion.

"John Forester and CBHI versus the facts"
Bekologist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-18-12, 07:51 AM   #11
hagen2456
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Copenhagen
Bikes: A load of ancient, old and semi-vintage bikes of divers sorts
Posts: 1,832
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by B. Carfree View Post
I thought it was pretty funny that the author of the anti-Forester blog showed a picture of a narrow side path that had numerous driveways with obscured views as an example of how the Dutch side paths don't have issues with...driveways. Such a set up may well work in their culture, but would lead to some serious collisions here.
Nah. The most serious collisions are by far those where cyclists are run down from behind.
hagen2456 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-18-12, 08:10 AM   #12
hagen2456
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Copenhagen
Bikes: A load of ancient, old and semi-vintage bikes of divers sorts
Posts: 1,832
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by sudo bike View Post
Very true. I think vehicular cycling works really well when speed differentials are low, usually on roads of no more than 30-35mph. In those cases I think infrastructure starts to become more superfluous or at least a luxury rather than really having an effect on safety. More than that is doable, but I think that's the point where your average joe is not going to be too interested in riding in traffic. Higher speed roads than that should ideally have some sort of accommodation, ranging from bike lanes to separated paths.
Where would I feel that my 11 and 13 year old kids would be safe on their bikes?

Well, anywhere there were Dutch style cycle paths in place of course. But in slow traffic, like up to 20 mph, they might be perfectly safe sharing the lane. As they would in somewhat faster traffic, like 30 mph, with a painted bike lane, given that it were sufficiently wide. And, surprise, on a road with fast, light traffic they might be safe on a wide shoulder, too (anything wider than 4 ft). Bike lanes, bike paths and shoulders will of course have to be free of snow, debris etc. for them to really be safe. And the 20 mph streets would have to be constructed so as to make higher speeds unlikely. Alas, they aren't always, round here, and there are very few 20 mph streets anyway

If we're talking about younger kids, like 6-11 years old, that's a totally different story. Dutch style all the way to make them safe on their own.

There are a lot of "ifs" and "buts" involved, as there are a lot of different ways of making cycling safe. One thing is sure: A lot of the VC advice is very unsafe.

Last edited by hagen2456; 11-18-12 at 08:17 AM.
hagen2456 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-18-12, 08:13 AM   #13
eja_ bottecchia
Senior Member
 
eja_ bottecchia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Bikes:
Posts: 3,552
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 15 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sixty Fiver View Post
It is the very black and white manner in which John and his disciples present their views on constitutes effective cycling.

I am a vehicular cyclist because I have the skills, experience, and mind set to play in traffic but what works for me does not work for a high percentage of cyclists who would be more comfortable if they could utilize a dedicated bicycle infrastructure.

If I could ride my bicycles everywhere I needed to go on lanes that were dedicated to bicycles it would be awesome... my kids would enjoy riding even more, and I know many people that would ride more than they do.

The infrastructure in North America is poor all the way around and was very car centric for the better part of the 20th century and when cities try to improve their systems to support human powered transportation there will be conflicts and the risk to the rider is increased.
This!
eja_ bottecchia is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-18-12, 08:29 AM   #14
eja_ bottecchia
Senior Member
 
eja_ bottecchia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Bikes:
Posts: 3,552
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 15 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by B. Carfree View Post
Such a set up may well work in their culture, but would lead to some serious collisions here.
Why? Explain please.
eja_ bottecchia is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-18-12, 09:53 AM   #15
Daves_Not_Here
On your right
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Southern California
Bikes: Specialized Roubaix Elite
Posts: 694
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by sudo bike View Post
Very true. I think vehicular cycling works really well when speed differentials are low, usually on roads of no more than 30-35mph. In those cases I think infrastructure starts to become more superfluous or at least a luxury rather than really having an effect on safety. More than that is doable, but I think that's the point where your average joe is not going to be too interested in riding in traffic. Higher speed roads than that should ideally have some sort of accommodation, ranging from bike lanes to separated paths.
Thanks for articulating this better than I could -- I think you bring up the key distinction. I'm much more comfortable riding "vehicularly" in calm traffic. When the approaching traffic is 60+ mph, not so much.
Daves_Not_Here is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-18-12, 10:21 AM   #16
John Forester
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Bikes:
Posts: 4,071
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by hagen2456 View Post
Where would I feel that my 11 and 13 year old kids would be safe on their bikes?

Well, anywhere there were Dutch style cycle paths in place of course. But in slow traffic, like up to 20 mph, they might be perfectly safe sharing the lane. As they would in somewhat faster traffic, like 30 mph, with a painted bike lane, given that it were sufficiently wide. And, surprise, on a road with fast, light traffic they might be safe on a wide shoulder, too (anything wider than 4 ft). Bike lanes, bike paths and shoulders will of course have to be free of snow, debris etc. for them to really be safe. And the 20 mph streets would have to be constructed so as to make higher speeds unlikely. Alas, they aren't always, round here, and there are very few 20 mph streets anyway

If we're talking about younger kids, like 6-11 years old, that's a totally different story. Dutch style all the way to make them safe on their own.

There are a lot of "ifs" and "buts" involved, as there are a lot of different ways of making cycling safe. One thing is sure: A lot of the VC advice is very unsafe.
Hagen has provided us with his feelings about cycling, when we would rather receive useful information. Therefore, Hagen, please justify your feelings regarding young cyclists and the speed of traffic. What evidence do you advance to support the argument implied by your feelings? Is is possibly that motorists are more likely to feel that hitting a small cyclist is less likely to damage their car?

Furthermore, what part of the VC advice "is very unsafe"?
John Forester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-18-12, 10:49 AM   #17
Daves_Not_Here
On your right
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Southern California
Bikes: Specialized Roubaix Elite
Posts: 694
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daves_Not_Here View Post
Okay, I understand there are many who disagree with Forester and the way he expresses his point of view. What I don't understand is why the level of emotion is so high. Is the idea that Vehicular Cycling has set back cycling in some way, or has actually prevented investments in cycling infrastructure in the US?

I feel like I've shown up late to the brawl -- everybody's sitting around moaning and nursing their wounds and I don't even know what the fight was about.
John Forester, (and Sixty-Fiver and gcottay) -- thanks for your indulgence in responding directly and sincerely to my question. Here's the answer I've come up with as to why the level of panty waddage is so high when the topic of Vehicular Cycling versus dedicated cycling infrastructure comes up. It's 2-pronged:

1. There are clear and long-standing differences of opinion as to the effectiveness, feasibility, and desirability of these approaches. Forester is seen as the chief proponent for VC and has become its lightning rod.

2. The nature of internet forum debates are such that even trivial differences are argued with high vitriol. As the discussions are of no consequence, participants tend to argue for argument's sake, rather than for any constructive purpose. I am reminded of Henry Kissenger's observation that "University politics are vicious precisely because the stakes are so small".
Daves_Not_Here is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-18-12, 11:32 AM   #18
genec
genec
 
genec's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: West Coast
Bikes: custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2
Posts: 24,975
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 904 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by eja_ bottecchia View Post
Why? Explain please.
American drivers are idiots and feel that they own the road, and therefore give no quarter to anyone not following their example.

Does that work for you? I think this largely comes from the largess of Americans believing that they are blessed enough to use an enormous supply of non renewable resources while engaging a strong military to persuade the world of "the American way."

That and of course the fact that most of our cities have been re-designed for automobile traffic above all else.

But heck, what do I know... John Forester considers me an Anti-motorist. But then I have spent more time than he has actually riding bicycles in countries that have bicycle modal share well above 2%. John makes his proclamations from moving trains.
genec is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-18-12, 12:32 PM   #19
John Forester
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Bikes:
Posts: 4,071
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daves_Not_Here View Post
John Forester, (and Sixty-Fiver and gcottay) -- thanks for your indulgence in responding directly and sincerely to my question. Here's the answer I've come up with as to why the level of panty waddage is so high when the topic of Vehicular Cycling versus dedicated cycling infrastructure comes up. It's 2-pronged:

1. There are clear and long-standing differences of opinion as to the effectiveness, feasibility, and desirability of these approaches. Forester is seen as the chief proponent for VC and has become its lightning rod.

2. The nature of internet forum debates are such that even trivial differences are argued with high vitriol. As the discussions are of no consequence, participants tend to argue for argument's sake, rather than for any constructive purpose. I am reminded of Henry Kissenger's observation that "University politics are vicious precisely because the stakes are so small".
The claim that the vitriol in these discussions is limited to these discussions is inaccurate. That's understandable; few of you readers pay attention to the professional press in bicycling matters. In the bike-planning press I am frequently described, and derided, as the man who has held up American bike planning for forty years. I rarely do anything about these claims; if that's their view, then that is what it is, whether accurate or inaccurate. However, two years ago a bicycle planner, Bruce Epperson, published a full length paper about my actions in the Transportation Law Journal. The paper contained many inaccuracies and falsities that betrayed Epperson's emotional response to his belief that I had held up American bike planning for forty years. The editors of the Transportation Law Journal felt, upon reading my corrections, that their integrity required them to publish my entire corrections, even though they were about half the length of the original paper. My corrections can be found at:
http://www.johnforester.com/Articles...view%20TLJ.htm
So you see that I have strongly upset all those whose primary interest is in persuading people to switch trips from motor to bicycle transport: the bicycle trade, the bike planners whose only justification for being called a profession is that they earn money doing it, and the bicycle advocates.
John Forester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-18-12, 12:44 PM   #20
John Forester
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Bikes:
Posts: 4,071
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by genec View Post
American drivers are idiots and feel that they own the road, and therefore give no quarter to anyone not following their example.

Does that work for you? I think this largely comes from the largess of Americans believing that they are blessed enough to use an enormous supply of non renewable resources while engaging a strong military to persuade the world of "the American way."

That and of course the fact that most of our cities have been re-designed for automobile traffic above all else.

But heck, what do I know... John Forester considers me an Anti-motorist. But then I have spent more time than he has actually riding bicycles in countries that have bicycle modal share well above 2%. John makes his proclamations from moving trains.
Genec provides the typical anti-motoring environmentalist and global policy arguments against motoring. That demonstrates that he is an anti-motorist.

Now, Genec, please provide the evidence to support your claim that I proclaimed something relevant to cycling in nations with a high bicycle modal share that was derived from being on a moving train. That's your accusation. Please provide the facts: that is, if you can find any. Otherwise, stop your stupidity; it gets annoying.
John Forester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-18-12, 01:01 PM   #21
cruiserhead
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Bikes:
Posts: 1,869
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
#t=1060This is the man in question?
The video is interesting. He has many interesting and true observations and research at the beginning. This is all observational and stuff that he looks at in a car-centric view, but is good to hear it coming from a different view.
His observation that traffic is vastly different in the US is true. However, the conclusions he draws from it are ones I do not agree with.
Forrester does come across as a practical cycling proponent of exisiting road structure.

Once they get into practical application and shifting to urban or bike-centered thinking, his position faulters (imo).
38:10 - Swedish audience member comments on bicycle safety and addressing crowded unsafe conditions

So from this point on, it's interesting because Forrester does not clearly, factually respond to the questions.
In fact, the response to the Swede is to "[get used to it, and it will be safer]"
That is not a solution.
What he basically does do, is put the onus on the cyclist. Really, the impression is that accidents are the cyclists fault and there is nothing that drivers do that can help.

Basically, he is advocating no change of focus but that cyclists should follow auto traffic laws. Really, the only things he advocates are 'more right and left turn lanes' and 'parallel sewer grates are bad'. Yes, I agree with that... and?....
His is a car-centric opinion.

It may be my bias watching the video, but I get the sense that the audience does not agree with his conclusions or solutions.
They seem to be more in line with the thinking that change is the future and bike-centric thinking should be focused on in city planning.

I see this happening in urban areas and yes, the US system will be different than Europe but we can have our own system that works to encourage bike commuting

san fran
http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/articl...#photo-2918274

and downtown LA
http://la-bike.org/projects/downtown...s-bike-network

Last edited by cruiserhead; 11-18-12 at 01:07 PM. Reason: imbed video
cruiserhead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-18-12, 01:31 PM   #22
Daves_Not_Here
On your right
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Southern California
Bikes: Specialized Roubaix Elite
Posts: 694
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Forester View Post
... two years ago a bicycle planner, Bruce Epperson, published a full length paper about my actions in the Transportation Law Journal...
John -- is this Epperson's paper in the public domain and linkable? I can get the Journal through interlibrary loan, but thought I'd ask for a link first. I couldn't google it.
Daves_Not_Here is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-18-12, 02:00 PM   #23
John Forester
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Bikes:
Posts: 4,071
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by cruiserhead View Post
#t=1060This is the man in question?
The video is interesting. He has many interesting and true observations and research at the beginning. This is all observational and stuff that he looks at in a car-centric view, but is good to hear it coming from a different view.
His observation that traffic is vastly different in the US is true. However, the conclusions he draws from it are ones I do not agree with.
Forrester does come across as a practical cycling proponent of exisiting road structure.

Once they get into practical application and shifting to urban or bike-centered thinking, his position faulters (imo).
38:10 - Swedish audience member comments on bicycle safety and addressing crowded unsafe conditions

So from this point on, it's interesting because Forrester does not clearly, factually respond to the questions.
In fact, the response to the Swede is to "[get used to it, and it will be safer]"
That is not a solution.
What he basically does do, is put the onus on the cyclist. Really, the impression is that accidents are the cyclists fault and there is nothing that drivers do that can help.

Basically, he is advocating no change of focus but that cyclists should follow auto traffic laws. Really, the only things he advocates are 'more right and left turn lanes' and 'parallel sewer grates are bad'. Yes, I agree with that... and?....
His is a car-centric opinion.

It may be my bias watching the video, but I get the sense that the audience does not agree with his conclusions or solutions.
They seem to be more in line with the thinking that change is the future and bike-centric thinking should be focused on in city planning.

I see this happening in urban areas and yes, the US system will be different than Europe but we can have our own system that works to encourage bike commuting

san fran
http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/articl...#photo-2918274

and downtown LA
http://la-bike.org/projects/downtown...s-bike-network
I disagree with the claim that I did not answer the questions asked during the Q&A session at the end. Cruiserhead complains that I did not provide a solution to whatever were the problems raised by a question. Well, if there is no solution then it was my obligation to say so.

Obeying the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles is the best way to cycle on the American road system. Nobody has invented a better way. And the official way produced by government was, for decades, a childishly simple way for incompetent cyclists that drove them into traffic conflicts. As I said, those cyclists who graduated from the former official method to obeying the rules of the road reduced their car-bike collision rate by 75%. Such an astonishing safety improvement that would never be ignored in any field except that of bicycle transportation, where it is ignored because it is contrary to the political will.

It may be that something might be done to make American cycling both safer and more convenient. However that has not occurred. The most that has been done is to make typical American cyclists feel safer while still cycling in their dangerously incompetent style. I say that vehicular cycling should not be criticized until a new system has been devised that demonstrates that it improves both the safety and convenience beyond that provided by vehicular cycling.

Of course, if the policy is to simply get more people switching trips from motor bicycle transport by having them ride in the typically dangerously incompetent manner just because they feel more comfortable, then I both criticize that policy as being unethical and state that that policy must be formally announced with the proviso that those cyclists who choose to ride safely by obeying the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles must be both allowed and encouraged to do so.
John Forester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-18-12, 02:00 PM   #24
eja_ bottecchia
Senior Member
 
eja_ bottecchia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Bikes:
Posts: 3,552
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 15 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by genec View Post
American drivers are idiots and feel that they own the road, and therefore give no quarter to anyone not following their example.

Does that work for you? I think this largely comes from the largess of Americans believing that they are blessed enough to use an enormous supply of non renewable resources while engaging a strong military to persuade the world of "the American way."

That and of course the fact that most of our cities have been re-designed for automobile traffic above all else.

But heck, what do I know... John Forester considers me an Anti-motorist. But then I have spent more time than he has actually riding bicycles in countries that have bicycle modal share well above 2%. John makes his proclamations from moving trains.
Easy there cowboy. I think that you are guilty of major generalizations here.

Are all American drivers idiot? Really? You have statistical data to back this up?

We use our military to persuade the world that our way is the best? Really? So when Hitler was engaged in that little land grab we should have just sat back and let him have his way?

I think that you might be a lot more persuasive if your rhetoric was less anti-American and more fact-based.

I have no dog in this fight. I drive a car and I ride a bike...either way I am on the road a lot and have to deal with bad drivers and bad cyclists.
eja_ bottecchia is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-18-12, 02:02 PM   #25
CB HI
Cycle Year Round
 
CB HI's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Honolulu, HI
Bikes:
Posts: 12,346
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 443 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bekologist View Post
spoken like a true addled minion. Nice one, stumping for your ideology even in the face of absurd self-importance and delusion.

"John Forester and CBHI versus the facts"
Your still trolling Bek.
__________________
Land of the Free, Because of the Brave.
CB HI is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:32 PM.