Originally Posted by invisiblehand
Awww, c'mon Diane. Do you really believe that JF does not want more cyclists?
read this:
http://americandreamcoalition.org/forester.pdf
Forester marginalizes every cycling group in his paper except "voluntary transportational cyclists," (VTC) those cyclists that by his description tend to be professionals and who prefer higher speeds on their trips. At the same time, he readily dismisses "involuntary transportational cyclists" (ITC) who oddly enough according to some studies** make up a larger portion of the cycling population... and therefore have as much right and need to cycling advocacy as the "voluntary transportational cyclists;" the vast difference between the two is that VTAs tend to ride vehicularly, where as ITCs tend to ride on sidewalks, paths, etc.
**No I cannot cite the studies at this moment, but I have seen them and they tend to be the reasoning behind the lower speed design of bike paths... as the general population tends to NOT ride at higher speeds. The result is that vehicular cyclists tend to dismiss paths as unsuitable... which indeed they often are, for high speed cyclists. Regarding the ITCs, my personal observations also lead me to the conclusions that there are far more ITC than VTC... on a typical day in the area I live, I see scores of sidewalk riders, yet few truly vehicular cyclists.
Further, Forester dismisses studies that show a relationship between facilities and increased ridership in areas by saying that there is a casual coincidental relationship.
Yes, there is a correlation between the amount of bicycle transportation and the presence of bikeways, but the causal effect is more likely the other way round. That is, the social and urban conditions favorable to bicycle
transportation produce sufficient bicycle transportation to enable the bicycle advocates to prevail upon government to produce bikeways.
Forester also states that 30 years of "cycling advocacy" have yet to produce significant gains for transportational cyclists... dare I mention that "effective cycling" advocacy hasn't fared much better either.
Now I am not dismissing vehicular cycling, but I am suggesting that cycling promotion and advocacy should look at the bigger picture... and work to enable ITCs to access roads and offer wider forms of "education" via signs, PSAs, and yes, even lines on the road, to guide cyclists to better use available roads and to guide motorists to accept all cyclists on the road (thus reduce the "inferiority complex" which Forester states "benefits motorists" far more than cyclists).
I also suggest that cycling advocacy work to design paths to work beyond ITC type cyclists and to serve all cyclists, including high speed VTC, such that well designed paths can act as "bicycle hiways" and allow fast "inertia preserving" access to far reaching areas within a transit corridor.