Awesome piece about John Forester and "Vehicular Cycling."

I've watched about an hour so far (in pieces) -- I will continue listening later starting with the chapter titled: The actual problems with bike lanes.''

I've heard of this guy, but that's about it, so really no previous opinion on him. I think my riding style is very similar to what he describes; however, I totally disagree with him about bike lanes being more dangerous than roads without bike lanes. I think it's kind of funny/ironic that he calls for slightly wider right-hand lanes, but is against bike lanes.

As for off-road bike infrastructure. It's not true bike infrastructure, it's more like the wild west, where dogs replace horses and don't get me started on the kids.

It's an overstatement to blame this guy on the dangerous roads in America. So many other factors, but he was hyper-focused on cycling.

I'll stick to the roads

He was a fairly-regular poster here on the "Vehicular Cycling (VC)" subforum.

The vibe that Forester engendered is why I quit posting on BF.

He was fairly-well cordoned-off in the VC subfolder (the only place he tended to post and not that regularly, AFAIC) and that subforum wasn't that active. If so, it doesn't seem like he would have had much effect on the other subforums.

You also have a fair number of posts to have done too much "quitting".

I haven’t posted much here since, I guess, maybe 2012. (built my BMC in the summer of 2010 and sold off my other bikes not long after that) It’s been a while. You can snoop my post history if you want.

The “take the lane” and “roads are safer than bicycle paths” mentality bled over into the S&A forum, and what I remember is that he was often quoted or cited as good advice even if he didn’t post there himself.

Don't remember for sure, but I think the Vehicular Cycling sub-forum was split off from the main S&A forum because the main forum had come to be dominated by back-and-forth arguing between the pro- and anti-VC factions. There aren't all that many threads in VC, but a large proportion of them are many, many pages in length.

Disagreeing without being disagreeable is an art, and unfortunately one that a number of people on BikeForums and in the general population are not all that proficient in, so it would seem. Ideally, one should be able to tell someone else to go to heck when needed, but in a manner that has them looking forward to the journey.

When I chaired my technical committee on US bicycle facility traffic control for 15 years, my rule #1 for members and guests was "play well with others" (although the committee product was a lot of hard-earned work). As far as I was concerned, a person could be a galactic-class expert in their areas of knowledge, but if they couldn't work productively with others who might not always share those opinions, then I didn't want them on the TC, and the Board would back me up. I actively recruited members from a wide variety of backgrounds and viewpoints in the cycling field, as long as they were knowledgeable in traffic control for bicyclists and could respond to challenges objectively and productively. And I think it's still one of the few groups that has this useful range of opinions, as nearly all others in the area of US cycling technical oversight have purged diverse viewpoints to create a "community consensus". I ended up losing my position representing a national cycling organization on the voting oversight body because I wouldn't immediately terminate the memberships of the people "standing in the way of progress", when in reality better and more informed progress was made by including them. When I stepped down as chair, my succeeding chair worked hard to maintain that balance of viewpoints. There is now another committee chair, and it remains to be seen if he will continue to support diversity of opinions or just go along with activist-driven "consensus".

It's crazy that one pompous crank managed to set back cycling infrastructure in the US by decades. Even crazier to see that some people still subscribe to his views.

Now with e-bikes (or various electric things) that go pretty fast the whole VC thing takes on different meaning.

How One Cycling-Obsessed Weirdo's Pro-Bike Crusade Actually Made Riding Bikes Worse For Everyone Else

Read More: https://www.jalopnik.com/2026904/joh...-for-everyone/

There probably isn't a single person in existence who's actually happy with the current state of cycling in the U.S. If you're pro-cycling, you hate how dangerous it is to ride your bike anywhere and how strong the opposition is to anything that would make riding safer. If you're anti-cycling, the fact that bikes are even legal to ride on public roads in the first place offends you to your core. But while you might assume their unhappiness is the only thing those two sides share, they also have a common enemy: a now-deceased cycling-obsessed weirdo named John Forester.

And when I say Forester was a weirdo, I truly mean it. The man didn't just love riding his bike. No, that would be too normal. In Forester's mind, there was only one way to be a proper cyclist, and that was by being the kind of stereotypical, aggressive rider that so many people love to hate. Want to ride a comfortable bike to the store in regular clothes? That's wrong, and you aren't a real cyclist. Prefer mountain bikes over road bikes? That's wrong, and you aren't a real cyclist. Want a front suspension and straight handlebars? You guessed it — wrong and not a real cyclist.

Read More: https://www.jalopnik.com/2026904/joh...-for-everyone/

I watched it few days ago. Nothing awesome about it. He is way too dogmatic and extremist on his approach to cycling.

I watched the entire NJB video. 30 yrs ago, I read John Foresters Effective Cycling. Both told you what kind of bike to ride. Both said their system was the best, but acknowledged, under the right circumstances, the other system would be better. Both are arrogant. I find NJB to be a hateful person.

I’ve never ridden on the Dutch system; it looks like a good idea. But implementing such a system in the USA will never happen. It seems we must apply Vehicular Cycling to our existing system.

NJB said several times that JF has done a lot of damage to road design. He doesn’t say where. There are a few bike lanes around, but most roads have not been affected by Vehicular Cycling ideals. I bet most cyclists & most roadway designers have never heard of John Forester.

I almost had a heart attack several times watching the vid. There were times when a cyclist came within inches (er, centimeters) of another cyclist, pedestrian or car.

isnt there another similar thread called 'changing attitudes'?

In my career, I've observed and studied several European-type separated bicycle facilities installed in the US and Canada. At each one, I have observed a number of conflicts between motor vehicle and bicycle traffic at intersections, where riders or drivers must stop or turn suddenly to avoid a collision. In locations where the built environment constrains maximum motor vehicle speeds to around 20-25 mph, there are many conflicts (almost one per signal cycle on some busy paths), but almost no reported collisions or injuries, as the traffic on two and four wheels swerve, brake, and yell a lot in the local profanity of choice (in Montreal, I'm sure most of the words I heard weren't in a French textbook). But the official records note very few of them are getting hurt. However, where such a facility is adjacent to and crosses roads with suburban-type speeds above 30-40 mph, some of the conflicts become severe or fatal angle crashes, as the driver no longer has as much time/distance to perceive and react. Signalization has been used to try to restrict bicycle and motor vehicle movements to phases with no conflicts, but many observed cyclists (especially in dense urban areas) enter or cross when they choose regardless of the signal display to reduce their overall delay. As an experiment on the Pennsylvania Avenue median cycling facility in NW DC, I strictly obeyed the bicycle signals from the Capitol to the White House. I was 15 minutes late for my meeting.

I'm new here and discovered this forum by accident when googling about the reaction to the NJB video. Hello everyone!

I have thoughts...
Not sure I want to quote Inigo Montoya here, but pointing out the problems with John Forester's (JF) belief system—given how many people it has affected, directly and indirectly—is not hateful. There are a lot of people who are dead because of JF. NJB did display a frustrated emotion, yes, but not hateful. NJB isn't the first to discuss JF at length, by the way, and arguably, those other discussion might drift into what some might call hateful. For instance, the podcast "War on Cars" discussed some aspects of JF personal life, his use of racial slurs, and other critiques. That being said, the "War on Cars" episodes did spend more time discussing JF's work to kneecap the AASHTO standards in the late 1970s thru the 1990s. However, I personally feel that this very detailed discussion is weakened by some of the personal attacks.

As the NJB video pointed out (and as others have noted; more on that in a moment), the reason we don’t have a Dutch system in the U.S. is largely because of JF. The early designs in Davis, California (embryonic as they were) were actually ahead of the European designs in the 1970s. In fact, the 1974 AASHTO guide even included these designs. The Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center has an excellent webinar that discusses of how JF and Vehicular Cycling delayed these early steps until essentially 2014 (seriously). Their summary is called "Evolution of Bicycle Infrastructure and the AASHTO Bike Guide". Now, after Europe as sprinted ahead, cities could implement the CROW (Dutch) guidelines without conflicting with state or federal standards. The CROW guidelines are flexible enough that they could be used alongside your state DOT’s standard plates. But again, the damage done by JF meant that even now, engineers are still behind the curve.

Where did JF do damage to road design? Is “everywhere” a complete enough answer? I’m going to quote Eno here, because they said it better than I can: “[Forester’s] recommendations were easily adopted by roadway engineers, as he called for no additional infrastructure, safety measures, or funding.” The fact is (as previously noted) by the mid-1970s we already had the beginnings of separated bicycle infrastructure. What happened is that Vehicular Cyclists came in and killed it. Again, the "War on Cars" podcast goes into great detail about how JF and his Vehicular Cycling allies spammed DOTs to prevent separated infrastructure. It even includes a quote from JF himself bragging about getting separated facilities essentially banned. Here’s the kicker: the core idea behind Forester’s dogma - that “bikes are like cars and should be treated the same” - is still deeply embedded in the transportation engineering world. There’s a long article in the Dallas Observer titled “Dallas’ Former Bike Czar Tells Newbie Riders to Go Play in Traffic” that is well worth reading. Individuals like Mighk Wilson continue promoting Vehicular Cycling, and he currently sits on the Bicycle Technical Committee of the National Committee on Uniform Traffic Control Devices.

Lord, don’t watch videos of club cyclists in Korea then… South Korea has a lot of paved multi-use paths, and they are heavily used. However, the paths inside towns are fully striped, and users rigidly follow the rules. As a result, it’s considered safe for a cycling club to do a 30–40 kph sprint along the Han River, blasting past other users. I commute on a MUP myself, and I’ll be the first to admit that this level of speed and interaction doesn’t look comfortable to me. The point is that infrastructure isn’t just infrastructure, it’s also the culture that forms around it. In Seoul, the culture is “stay right unless you’re passing,” so having dozens of club cyclists chasing a Strava PR a foot away from 85-year-old grandma isn’t the same as what we see in the U.S., where joggers often run down the middle with earbuds cranked to 11. So when you see videos of cyclists in Amsterdam doing things that look strange to us, it’s important to understand the culture that has developed around their infrastructure. And, side note: get yourself to Europe to check it out - it’s very cool.

I want to be clear: there is a place for certain tenets of vehicular cycling. Where I live, with small towns (fewer than 1,000 people) separated by dozens of miles of rural roads (both paved and gravel) that’s simply how you ride. But that approach isn’t workable in downtown Chicago or on a stroad-filled suburban Atlanta corridor. As a hobby, I do mountain bike trail design, specifically urban shared-use (hiker/biker) trail design, where the overriding principle for safe sharing is user volume. Low volumes of users require few controls. As the volume of either group increases, the controls must become more stringent - eventually leading to some level of separation (hiker-only or biker-only). That concept of volume is probably the best way to think about cycling infrastructure: the more automobiles there are, and the faster they travel, the more separation cyclists need.

There is a sort of rainbow of options for safe cycling infrastructure, including none. But trying to have "one type to rule them all" isn't workable.

I'm currently in Tucson helping with El Tour through the weekend. I'll reply to CycleKrieg next week as I have time.

The term "kneecap" seems excessive. Davis installed some facilities in the early 1970s that exhibited operational issues and were revised or removed. The first two editions of the AASHTO Bike Guide, along with Part 9 of the MUTCD, was driven heavily by Caltrans and California experience, as that state was ahead of the curve in terms of implementing cycling infrastructure. And it's my clear recollection that Mr. Forester was opposed to many of the designs in those editions of the AASHTO Guide, so stating he was primarily responsible for the technical content seems an exaggeration.

Only a few slides in the Toole presentation at PBIC deal with that aspect of the history of the Guide, and they seem to be similar to the video and your position that Mr. Forester, who had no position in any DOT, personally had the ability to control these issues. Activists have used Forester as a polarizing figure for decades seemingly because it's easy and it can deflect from deeper discussions on operational issues. AASHTO design references are thoroughly reviewed and balloted by state DOT technical professionals, not politicians or advocates. I'll note that I was involved with developing content for the 3rd and 4th editions of the AASHTO Bike Guide, and the clear consensus in the state DOTs was that those editions reflected accepted US practice at the time.

Also, I find it interesting you bring Mr. Wilson's name into this discussion. I'm acquainted with him, and in my observation he has always been quite professional in his interactions with others, even if he does not agree with them. He's recently performed some interesting analyses of bicyclist crashes in Florida.

And if you are perturbed by the presence of Mr. Wilson on NCUTCD, then you may be interested to know that John S. Allen (who is doing a fine job with Harriet Fell in maintaining sheldonbrown.com) and John Schubert are also on the NCUTCD Bicycle Technical Committee. And why are they on the BTC? Because I personally recruited them and others to the committee upon becoming chair in the early 2000s. I wanted a full range of opinions and viewpoints on the BTC. Mr. Allen wrote "Street Smarts", which is still used by states and local agencies as a cycling information guide. Mr Schubert has served as an expert witness in cyclist litigation. But also on the BTC are Peter Koonce of Portland, Dongho Chang (previously of Seattle, now WSDOT), Rock Miller, Jeremy Chrzan, and others who are more aligned with NACTO design approaches. Far too many cycling organizations have become monocultures, as valid differing opinions are removed and exiled. Andy Clarke bitterly criticized my membership recommendations, as he saw including people he didn't agree with as "divisive". I disagreed, and the NCUTCD Board fully supported me. Instead, with the balanced membership, proposals were thoroughly evaluated, discussed civilly, and improved. This made it easier to gain approval from the NCUTCD Council, as they were aware that these concepts had been looked at from a variety of viewpoints. I stepped down as BTC chair in 2017, and Bill DeSantis of VHB did a great job of keeping a variety of viewpoints and a productive discussion around the table. I now serve as NCUTCD Executive Secretary (essentially the COO of the organization) and I'm no longer involved with the technical details, but I think that the Bicycle TC is still doing well. Remember that NCUTCD doesn't control the MUTCD - that national manual belongs to FHWA, and NCUTCD is only in an advisory role. There have been situations where FHWA has decided to implement devices differently than NCUTCD recommendations, including several instances in Part 9.

Also, you mentioned CROW. A more useful reference in that vein might be the NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide in its more recent editions. That reference has evolved quickly in modifying designs that have shown issues where installed in the US. I personally professionally don't agree with all of the UBDG content, but it has some useful material.

Unfortunately, many cycling facilities don't cooperate by remaining "low volume", which could be seen as indicating the demand for them. And measures to separate pedestrians and cyclists on busy facilities have seen rather low compliance, as users walk or ride where they find it most convenient, regardless of markings, signs, and other devices.

Unless you have full grade separation, bicycle traffic and motor traffic must eventually interact, and if those interactions occur in an unexpected manner, there can be severe crashes. Separation can make cyclists feel safer, and it is now national policy that perceived safety is valued more highly than actual safety, in order to increase mode share (I personally don't agree, but this was a very political decision, and what's done is done). If separated facilities are chosen, the challenge is to develop a design that can provide good visibility and work well with road user expectations. If typical motor vehicle travel speeds are low (25 mph or less) such as in an urban core, users have time to react to each other without colliding, although there may be other interactions. Where motor travel speeds are higher, facilities of this type have shown problematic crash histories, and static devices such as signs or markings seem to not be effective in changing behaviors. Sometimes agencies have tried restricting cyclists to a small part of a signal cycle to create separation by time instead of space, but this induces delay and frequently sees riders proceeding anyway when they think they can get through (occasionally unsuccessfully).

One more observation: my experience has been that the persons most resistant to different viewpoints have been of the ideology opposite that of Forester. As noted above, there has been a deliberate effort to eliminate differing opinions from the national discussion. Professional venues that include the full range of viewpoints are an asset, not a liability, and can result in better designs and infrastructure.

I don’t think that’s excessive. The claim that JF and vehicular cyclists “kneecapped” early bike-infrastructure designs comes directly from their own statements. A good source on this is "A Historical Perspective on the AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities and the Impact of the Vehicular Cycling Movement" by William Schultheiss, PE, Rebecca L. Sanders, PhD, and Jennifer Toole, AICP, ASLA. I’m quoting from that document because the authors compile the relevant sources more thoroughly than I can. Quotes below include page numbers:To be clear, based on JF’s own claims (as documented by the authors with references) he and other like-minded cyclists directly influenced the removal of early bikeway designs from the CalTrans guides rather than allowing them to be improved. But what about the 1981 AASHTO guide? Again, quoting:Even if JF overstated his role in removing bikeway designs from CalTrans documents in the late 1970s, others involved in the process have noted that he inundated them with comments, which did influence the final documents. Many bike advocates in the 2000s and 2010s also reported receiving frequent, sometimes daily, messages from JF. Given that pattern, it seems plausible that his level of activity in the 1970s and 1980s, despite relying on typewriters, was not exaggerated.
I know I’m new here (BikeForums), but I’m not new to this subject. I’ve been doing civil engineering design for 26 years, so I’m familiar with how AASHTO guidelines are developed.

Regarding the PBIC presentation: yes, it’s just a few slides, but the accompanying webinar discussion referenced the same historical context mentioned above. The point isn’t that JF had direct control over guideline development (though he claimed he did, see above); it’s that through personal relationships and by mobilizing club cyclists to apply pressure, he had a significant negative influence. And that’s assuming he was exaggerating when he claimed he “wrote probably about half of the paperwork” for the 1978 CalTrans update. That document fed directly into later AASHTO guides, which, again, were then heavily commented on again by JF and other vehicular cyclists.

This leads to the broader issue: many transportation PEs only know design practices shaped by a historical animus toward separated infrastructure. JF’s campaign for vehicular cycling and against separated facilities began around the year I was born, and I’m now approaching the age where I qualify for the Bob Evans senior discount, so this isn’t recent history. “Thoroughly reviewed and balloted by state DOT technical professionals” sounds reassuring - until you understand those professionals largely belonged to the generation most influenced by vehicular-cycling ideology.

There are multiple reasons JF is considered problematic. Some relate to his personality, especially online, and more recently, to reevaluations of some of his eyebrow-raising comments from the 1970s and 1980s. But more importantly, he managed, through sheer force of will, to impose a concept on the nation that never had a solid scientific basis. And when evidence accumulated showing that separated infrastructure improved a person's comfort with and safety riding compared to vehicular cycling, he never updated his views to reflect that data.

I mentioned Mr. Wilson’s name only as an example of a vehicular cyclist participating in discussions about infrastructure. Because vehicular cyclists are, by definition, opposed to cycling infrastructure, having individuals with that perspective in decision-making roles can lead to biased outcomes. I don’t know Mr. Wilson personally, but I’m familiar with his writings. I'm familiar with John Allen, too... He largely has taken up the mantle of disagreeable online persona from JF. He has gotten a few special shout-outs by advocates due to his actions.

I want to push back a bit on the idea that “far too many cycling organizations have become monocultures, with differing opinions removed or exiled.” In my experience, that hasn’t been the case. Though, I live in a rural area so it’s hard for any organization here not to include a range of perspectives simply due to small numbers. Even at the state level, most advocacy groups I’ve worked with understand that there’s no single silver bullet. It’s more like a silver shotgun shell - many different interventions together make a big impact.

But here’s where things get complicated, at least when it comes to cycling advocacy. We do know how to create systems that:

1. increase cycling mode share within cities, especially for women and newer riders,
2. provide broader benefits for non-cyclists, and
3. keep everyone safer.

We’ve seen it implemented in northern/Nordic Europe, Paris is doing it in real time, and Oh The Urbanity! recent video highlighted 10 years of progress in Victoria, B.C. And what ties all of these together? Dutch-style separated cycling infrastructure.

We can debate CROW vs. NACTO or any other design guide. But at the end of the day, those approaches all share the same underlying goal - designing streets to fit people (including pedestrians) - rather than forcing people to fit streets. But vehicular cycling, and its advocates, argue that playing human frogger is the answer, people fit the streets, in other words, the results from places that fully implemented the separated approach be damned.

So the real challenge is this: how do you integrate a group of people who view that infrastructure as “for children” or “substandard”? How do you include a perspective that dominated the cycling safety debate (and road design) for nearly 50 years and, in practice, has made cycling less safe? Those are genuinely difficult questions without, I would argue, a real simple answer.
I have the NACTO guidelines up on the shelf at work. They are pretty good and are easier to point to here in the USA, as they aren't considered "foreign". Though, if you are going to create something, why not look to the best (CROW).
I think my earlier point wasn’t clear. I wasn’t arguing for one universal type of infrastructure. I was arguing for a clear, consistent way to determine what type of infrastructure fits a specific location. It shouldn’t be a dice roll. There are places where full Dutch-style separation makes perfect sense. There are places where shared-use paths are the best fit. (Section 3.4G of the Minneapolis Street Guide lays this out well.) Where I work, that town has embraced shared paths instead of sidewalks + bike lanes, and it works surprisingly well. And of course, some areas genuinely don’t need dedicated infrastructure at all, say, 20 mph residential streets or low-volume rural roads, for example.

That’s why this line stood out to me: “Where motor travel speeds are higher, facilities of this type have shown problematic crash histories, and static devices such as signs or markings seem to not be effective in changing behaviors.”

Exactly. Which is why there are discussions about imposing upon the drivers with infrastructure. There is a lot of research showing that narrower lanes improve safety.(2023 Johns Hopkins study, Narrow Lanes Save Lives is just one of these) They constrain drivers’ behavior in ways signs never can. In the natural-surface trail world, we say: “If you have to tell the bikes to slow down, you built the trail wrong.” The same principle applies on streets: design should fit people, not the other way around.

And, side bonus here, narrower streets free up space for other uses (like separated bike infrastructure).

I’m not going to defend anyone here, that’s not why I’m in the discussion, and I don’t have a stake in those personal disputes. What I can speak to is my own experience: vehicular cyclists, as a group, have done quite a bit to make themselves pariahs within the broader cycling community.

Some of that is interpersonal. JF was known for spamming organizations and flooding comment sections. John Allen has done similar things, especially in the Boston area. But much of the friction stems from the core vehicular-cycling belief that there should be no bike infrastructure - which naturally puts its adherents in opposition to nearly every infrastructure project. And they often ally with whoever shares that short-term goal, regardless of the larger implications.

A few examples:

1. St. Paul (Summit Avenue): A NIMBY group is fighting a Dutch style parallel path, and two vocal vehicular cyclists there (one a bike-shop owner, the other a race organizer) have been loudly repeating JF-style “statistics.” This is on a corridor where someone was killed just three days ago.
2. Portland: Part of the reason BikePortland exists is because vehicular cyclists found common cause with truck unions in opposing even minimal bike-lane proposals. This was even as there was a rash of truck/bicyclist accidents at the time.
3. San Diego: A group called No Bike Lanes No Change is currently using arguments from JF, John Allen, and others to fight a new lane project, all the while espousing some... let's call it interesting... descriptions of those advocating for bike infrastructure.

These are just three examples (there are plenty more) and it’s easy to see how this pattern has soured many urbanists and bike advocates on anything associated with vehicular cycling. (I wish I could find the article about the vehicular cycling advocates aligning themselves with a group that was an outgrowth of the White Citizens Council, but I can't remember if that was in Alabama or Georgia. It was classic.)

Should that automatically lead to shunning? I don’t think so; Daryl Davis is a hero of mine for a reason (it's why I'm commenting here). But not everyone approaches conflict with that mindset.

There are very legitimate criticism of much of the bike infrastructure/urbanist groups, including NJB. I'll give you 4:

1. They are generally dismissive of MUPS (rail-to-trail).
2. They don't think the separated trails/paths in lieu of bike lanes & sidewalks are good. (And to be fair to them, those items are only good in a more medium-to-low housing/commercial density. Think streetcar suburb or Levittown style neighborhoods.)
3. They want to "glue on" infrastructure (which is expensive) vs. changing a city's typical road sections, so when the street is redone as part of a FDR/utility replacement, its upgraded. (This is an argument I have with local advocates, who say this approach is "too slow". It is slower, yes, but its cheaper and more integrated.)
4. They are far too willing to accept awful bike infrastructure and call it a "win", even if its poorly thought out/integrated, i.e. the "paint and plastic poles" approach.

But at the end of the day, for all their faults, the bike infrastructure/urbanist groups are trying. If the only answer vehicular cyclists have to these efforts is "we ain't the Dutch", then what is the answer? Because the one that the USA has tried, again largely birthed from John Forester, since 1978 hasn't worked and has created a slaughterhouse.

Which brings me back to the core dilemma: How do you integrate people who are fundamentally opposed to the very solutions we know reduce injuries, increase mode share, and make streets safer for everyone? That’s not a rhetorical question, it’s the real challenge.

I'm going to limit my comment for the moment to a few specific statements.

Based on my firsthand work with a wide range of transportation professionals, "Because vehicular cyclists are, by definition, opposed to cycling infrastructure" is a materially false statement. I've worked with Messrs. Wilson and Allen, and characterizing their positions as "opposed" is false and potentially defamatory. A review of Mr. Allen's postings on his website reveals not an oposition, but a critique of designs that could be improved, and this was how I clearly recollect his commentary in the technical committee.

When you say that Mr. Allen is "disagreeable", does this mean he does not agree, or that his absence of agreement is by itself objectionable? As I've posted elsewhere, I have little patience for people who disagree in a manner that is disruptive or damaging to a working relationship, and my extensive past experience with Mr Allen did not reveal such behavior.

Again, a materially false generalization.

Another materially false generalization. The people I've worked with were not opposed per se, but were critical of design details that could create operational problems. If they were opposed to everything, they would not be very productive in committee discussions.

I've tried to evaluate your word choice of "created a slaughterhouse" in every possible charitable manner, and I just can't. And I'll leave it at that.

And again making a materially false mischaracterization by stating every person who shares that viewpoint as "fundamentally opposed".

One more point: as a full-3-term former member of the TRB Committee on Bicycle Transportation and a peer reviewer until very recently, my professional opinion is that the paper by Schultheiss et al in TRR 2672 was not a high point in the editorial judgment of the National Academies. Although TRR occasionally contains position papers instead of the more-typical research-driven studies, the tone and content of this manuscript can often strike a reader as polemical. And since it was published, it has been referred to as "peer-reviewed findings", which can be misleading in that it was peer reviewed, but does not seem to be actual original technical research findings based on a falsifiable hypothesis and objective and reproducible data.

I’m more than willing to be corrected on whether vehicular cycling, as a movement, is welcoming of infrastructure.

The issue with saying “vehicular cyclists are not opposed to cycling infrastructure” is that the most vocal figures in that movement have given us ample evidence, through their own writings, that they are opposed to it. Frankly, if I were writing a research paper or legal brief defending the statement “vehicular cyclists are, by definition, opposed to cycling infrastructure,” I could hardly do better than citing the works of John Forester and others. Add in a handful of news articles about vehicular cyclists opposing infrastructure proposals, plus public records showing their written objections to decision-makers, and I think most readers would agree that a strong case can be made.

Now, if I’m wrong, it should be easy to find writings from vehicular cyclists supporting cycling infrastructure. I’m not asking for a full-throated endorsement by any means. Just something like:

1. “This design is bad, here is a better version,” or
2. An acknowledgement that Dutch-style separated networks achieve higher mode share and better safety outcomes, and that we might learn something from that.

I’m open to seeing those examples. I’ll wait.

Regarding critiques: it’s interesting that you cited John Allen’s older site and not his current John S. Allen’s Bicycle Blog. His most recent post (Oct. 23, 2025) critiques bike boxes. And to be fair, I agree that the American implementation of bike boxes is often terrible. But his post simply declares them unworkable; it doesn’t offer a constructive alternative. A genuine critique would include corrections or improvements. For instance, he could reference the Oslo Street Design Manual (free in English), which draws on CROW and explains how they implement bike boxes vs. the examples he cites. he could directly reference pages 95–98 that outline constraints and proper design, and page 99 shows an alternative treatment.

That’s the difference: pointing out flaws isn’t the same as offering solutions. And too often, vehicular cycling critiques stop at the former without ever attempting the latter.
My view comes partly from others’ descriptions and partly from my own reactions to his work. Most of the people who have issues with him seem to be in the Boston area. And by “disagreeable,” I’m referring to how he expresses his viewpoints. Writers at Streetsblog have mentioned this, and Sarah Goodyear name-checked him on a podcast as a classic “mansplainy” figure. A few years ago, when I was doing volunteer discussions with NEMBA, one member who was active in both mountain biking and infrastructure advocacy, described him as a particularly stubborn opponent of bike infrastructure who often came across as “Listen up, little Missy.”

I can’t remember whether I first heard about him from that NEMBA conversation or a podcast, but I do remember Googling afterward. The first article I found was one mocking Dutch cyclists (“Dutch bike handling skills”), and his reply to the woman in the comments struck me as exactly the sort of interaction that felt disagreeable. It also seemed to have the tone that Sarah Goodyear mentioned. The post is still up by the way.

For the record, a person can be great in some contexts and not great in others. I’ve never met John Allen, he might be wonderful in person. His written articles are generally professional, even if he approaches everything from what I would call an abolitionist stance toward dedicated cycling infrastructure. But there are clearly people who’ve had very negative personal interactions with him. And when I read some of the exchanges on his own site, I can understand why.
On the “human Frogger” phrase, yes, that’s a rhetorical flourish, but it ties into the larger point. The core mantra of vehicular cycling is: “Cyclists fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles.” Everything else rests on that foundation. But that foundation assumes cyclists must adapt their behavior to infrastructure that wasn’t built for them. In other words, the cyclist must change to fit the constraints of the system, rather than the system being changed to fit the needs and patterns of cyclists, pedestrians, and drivers alike. That’s fundamentally different from an approach that says, “Let’s design infrastructure around how each group actually uses the space.”

And when it comes to dismissing the success of places that have designed around those realities (Dutch cities, northern Europe, modern Paris) there’s no shortage of aversion in vehicular cycling writings. Their own texts provide ample evidence of that.
It’s great that your own interactions have been positive and respectful. But it’s also worth considering that others, outside the specific circles you’ve experienced, may have had very different encounters. And it’s not just interpersonal issues. The writings and guidance produced by prominent vehicular cycling advocates often get amplified locally in ways that can be genuinely harmful.

Picture a small Midwestern town trying to put together a bike plan that follows state requirements. Then a “get off my lawn” type discovers a vehicular cycling website or emails one of its champions and receives a ready-made list of talking points. Because those talking points typically boil down to “don’t build anything,” they give local politicians an easy out.

Or think of the woman who commented on John Allen’s “Dutch bike handling skills” post and got a surprisingly aggressive reply. Or the St. Paul controversy I mentioned in a previous comment. There vehicular cyclists literally rushed the stage and grabbed the microphone from the city engineer. Is John Forester (or anyone else) directly responsible for that behavior? No. But when those actions are tied to vehicular cycling rhetoric, it doesn’t exactly convey a tone of respect or collaboration.

I can separate actions from ideology, so I’m not suggesting these figures are personally responsible for every overzealous follower. But the broader perception - that many vehicular cycling advocates come across as negative, dismissive, or even hostile - isn’t coming out of nowhere. It’s grounded in repeated patterns that people have experienced firsthand, including yours truly.
Imagine two timelines:

1. Timeline A - the one we live in, shaped by vehicular cycling.
2. Timeline B - where vehicular cycling never took hold. Maybe John Forester got interested in bird-watching instead.

In Timeline B, the 1974 AASHTO guideline becomes the starting point of continuous refinement of cycling-specific infrastructure. Fifty years later, building protected bike networks is routine, though not perfect, not a “second Netherlands,” but common in most cities.

Now compare outcomes. How many fewer cyclists die in Timeline B than in ours? Even a small reduction, say 50 fewer deaths per year, one per state, adds up to 2,500 people alive today. A modest estimate of 200 fewer deaths per year equals 10,000 saved lives. In 2024 alone, 1,166 cyclists were killed in the U.S. According to the study Risk of Injury for Bicycling on Cycle Tracks Versus in the Street (Lusk et al.), the injury-risk difference between Dutch-style infrastructure and typical U.S. streets is 1:26, meaning the gap between these two timelines could be vastly larger.

We can not perfectly quantify the difference as a thought experiment, but the scale difference could be massive. When you compare these two possibilities - one with 50 years of dedicated infrastructure and one without - the death toll in our own timeline starts to look like a “slaughterhouse,” and that was the point I was making.
Again, if I had to defend that opinion, I would with leading vehicular cyclists' own words. That being said, if that has changed within the vehicular cycling community, great. Just wish there was a way the rest of could know that, because those still active online and in the advocacy space don't seem to have gotten that memo.
Unless you are arguing that the history presented of the with references is wrong, the tone (real or imagined) is not important to me. I was referencing that document to identify history.

This reads like additional overgeneralization. Take the most strident voice, and then ascribe it to the entire group.

Examples of #1 were already given. #2 fits well with the political decision to prioritize perceived safety over actual safety.


I find it sardonically amusing that Mr. Allen is held to a perfectionist standard of behavior. You've admitted you don't know the man, but are entirely happy defining him by the opinions of his stated enemies.

Effective "rhetorical flourishes" shouldn't be defamatory. And the reinterpretation of the principles stated above presupposes the built environment can be readily changed around how users would prefer to use the space. And that is the most difficult issue. Balancing mobility and access for all users while maintaining safety is a big challenge, and there is no "magic wand" to rearrange the built environment and ingrained road user behavior.

This seems as plausible as positing the question "What if the automobile was never invented?" or "What if the US bike boom lasted into and beyond the Arab oil embargo and sold even more bikes?" or "What if the WW II 35 mph speed limit was carried through to the present?" Others have already pointed out that there was a rush to build bicycle facilities in the 1970s, many of them were not good designs, the cohort that was actually riding the most miles at that time pointed out the concerns, and the ones that exhibited fewer problems were carried forward. Attempts of this type at speculative history have no effect on where we are now and seem like retroactive rationalizations.

And since the Lusk study on Montreal facilities is cited: I've read both the original manuscript and the several critiques of the study design and analysis, and I have to agree with the commenters that the study was designed in a manner to produce the intended results. Had I been assigned the study as a peer reviewer, I would like to think I would have red-flagged the selection of sites as a crucial issue and requested reanalysis using less-disjointed and more-representative corridors. Unfortunately, the apparent result I observed in the TRB committee was to more-actively discourage any criticism of studies approved for publication, and an apparent reassignment of reviewers for subsequent studies.

^^^^ inapplicable to Austin Tx roads downright insane if you bike Houston ...............................but doable in places like Marfa

What I find glaringly absent from the discussion is the fact that there is a completely different culture in Europe than in the USA which calls into question the applicability of European models to cities in the US. In my admittedly very limited cycling experience in Europe I was struck by the completely different attitude of all the various users - pedestrians respected bike paths as bike paths which is just not so here, at least in San Diego. In fact, California prohibits by law local governments from restricting the use of bike paths by motorized vehicles, ie e-bikes (which are motorcycles after all). I wouldn't be surprised, but don't know, if that law doesn't also prohibit local governments from restricting the use of bike paths by pedestrians. In any event, dedicated bicycle infrastructure around here is effectively a MUP regardless of design or intent and consequently rather dangerous. Not more than a month or two ago, two cyclists had a head-on collision on a MUP not too far from my house. It resulted in a fatality. Much of what is being implemented in San Diego is so poorly designed and dangerous in so many ways that I go out of my way to avoid it. There are some good improvements but one can only scratch one's head in wonder at a lot of what is done.

Aside from that, most of the cycling miles per my observation are, by a long shot, recreational or for exercise, not transportation. Seems like bike facilities are therefore something to take up with the Department of Recreation not the Department of Transportation.

I live two miles from San Diego State University and rarely see students on bicycles and if I do, they are likely headed right towards me going the wrong way in the bike lane. It used to be that college communities were cycling havens. Build the infrastructure and the commuters will come is a pipe dream, sadly.

I wonder if they get bicycle law and safety as part of their driver's education.