Jonahhobbes

Anyone reading/read it? I just bought it and am about 10 pages in. I'm really enjoying it as I did his last book the Art of Urban Cycling.

I also got his little book on commuting, a nice thing to hand to newb commuters.


edit: whoops the title should read Cyclist's not Cyclist.

sd790

I haven't read the Cyclist's Manifesto, but I did just read the Art of Urban Cycling over the weekend. It was a decent book, but I was really surprised at how the author could easily gloss over the responsibilities of a cyclist when they were to the benefit of making the cyclist's ride easier. For instance, he said that "filtering" up through the right side of cars that are stopped at a red light is accepted. WTF? Accepted by who, the cyclist!?

Because of that and other similar comments that I disagree with, I don't give the author much credibility. I definitely would not take everything he has to say as any kind of gospel to ensure the safest forms of riding in traffic.

Pscyclepath

I bought it on sight a few months ago, since I really enjoyed his earlier book, Art of Urban Cycling.

I like it. It's a series of short esaays, connected by theme, and does a good job of bringing many of the themes from Urban Cycling up to date. As for the filtering, Mr. Hurst is a bike messenger, where u do what u gotta do to get the package there on time, or earlier. Consequently, he writes from the perspective of someone who's bounced off more than a few fenders ;-)

genec

I have to ask a loaded question, based on you being an LCI... what do you think of Hurst's writings verses Forester's?

Artkansas 

Perfectly legal in California.

sd790

I don't understand how anyone can think that is the best way to ride, though. It aggravates the motorists, adds to their resentment, AND creates an unsafe situation for right-turning cars.

I know...

genec

And it is very regularly practiced in places in Europe.

Pscyclepath

True... but right-turn-on-red is prohibited in most European countries, though we take it for granted here in the States. European traffic law is subtly different from traffic law here, so things that work well in the Netherlands, Denmark, or Germany won't always work the same way here.

RobertHurst

I don't believe I did actually.

Speedo

Reminds me of this.

Speedo

mconlonx

I got it for my birthday, read it in a couple days. Anyone reading A&S will find nothing new in there--same rants, commentary, and essays that you could pick up in here. However, it is edited, concise, and to the point, with no one stealing his thread. Good read; nothing I hadn't heard before. Perfect for someone who is not aware of resources like this, although it is necessarily one POV. ...Which the author freely admits.

I give it a 8 out of 10, and think it's better than Bicycle Diaries.

sd790

The Art of Urban Cycling, by Robert Hurst. Page 95, Waiting at Traffic Lights:

"Some riders prefer to filter to the very front of the line and wait about 4 feet to the right of the lead vehicle... Other riders preger to lurk just behind and to the right of the lead vehicle.... The key consideration when positioning beside a line of cars at a light is to be aware of, and out of the potential paths of, any cars that may turn right - to enhance one's visibility but avoid becoming completely dependent on it.

Filtering to the front of the line comes with certain obligations. The ethics of sneaking up front, past vehicles that arrived at the light before you, suggest that you should allow the trailing vehicles to pass one the light turns green and traffic starts moving again..."

This text is followed by a sketch of WHERE to position yourself while filtering. This certainly implies that this sort of behavior is generally accepted. Wrong.

randya

nothing wrong with filtering up to the front of a bunch of congested traffic, that's one of the major benefits of being on a bicycle, IMO; plus it beats the heck out of waiting behind a bunch of gas hogs sucking tailpipe exhaust.

closetbiker

Saying that it happens isn't saying that it's accepted.

There's lots of things motorists, cyclists, and pedestrians do that are questionable, but they are, non the less, done.

If the definition of acceptable is a tolerable or standard practice, I'm sure what's acceptable to some, isn't to others.

RobertHurst

It's bad form to quote someone's work so selectively as to misrepresent what they actually wrote and meant. Here's the first sentence of that paragraph about filtering, which you left out:

"Generally, even though cyclists can usually sneak up the side of the road to the front of a line of vehicles at a red light, cyclists are legally supposed to wait out the light behind any vehicles that are already waiting (unless there is a segregated bike lane or a curb lane of vast acreage)."

What does that imply.

I never wrote that filtering was accepted, nor did I write that it was the best way to go about riding. Likewise for sidewalk riding, red-light running, etc. However there is a right and wrong way to go about each of these things.

randya

Actually the law in Oregon was changed a few years back to allow bicyclists to legally pass on the right when it is safe to do so; seems only fair, since cyclists are expected to 'share the lane' and allow faster motorists to pass on the left, according to the FRAP laws.

Pscyclepath

I read Mr. Hurst's comments in Art of Urban Cycling in the same light... He admits that yes, there are a lot of bad practices out there, and if you are going to try a particular stunt, there are some other factors that need to be considered because otherwise you're putting yourself at undue risk.

There are several other books out there that explain (and probably encourage) even riskier tactics, most notably Dave Glowacs' Urban Bikers' Tips & Tricks... . at least Mr. Hurst takes the time to explain that there are specific consequences to certain shortcuts.

RobertHurst

I agree, but also think there are times when it will make our lives easier not to filter, legal or not.

Bekologist

absolutely. its such a judgement call on the part of the cyclist. so is moving a bit left once in front to control the intersection while putting the hammer down once the light turns green.

Generally, ANYTIME you filter motorists will take a dim view on it UNLESS it is in a widely ample lane or bike lane. filtering, weaving thru traffic backups, despite the superior mobility of a bicyclist, will sure to invoke the ire of at least one in each hundred motorists.

they yell at you while they stay backed up in traffic. its hilarious really, the only time i only feel pity on the road ragers.

crhilton

That's what I've always figured. I generally don't filter though. I just end up getting passed again and I don't really like the getting passed part so I try to avoid things that increase it.

Rex G

Filtering on the right seems accepted norm in the Houston, Texas metropolitan area, for whatever that is worth. Of course, OTOH, cyclists taking the lane, around here, is often NOT accepted by motorists. I guess that if motorists expect cyclists to ride by the curb, and those motorists pass cyclists routinely pass cyclists WITHIN the lane, even when there is another lane available, then motorists expect cyclists to filter on the right.

I tend to not routinely filter, for the aforementioned safety reasons more so than the legal reason, though the law is certainly a factor.

Dahon.Steve

Not filtering can be quite dangerous in a city. Once the light goes green, the motorist expect you to hit 35 miles an hour in the next five seconds. If you can't hit that speed, they will either a. Honk the horn LOUD b. Start yelling profanity c. Make an fast but dangerous pass around you. d. Hit you e. All of the above.

closetbiker

What I find hypocritical is the acceptance of a motorist passing a cyclist within a lane on the cyclists left, and the disapproval of a cyclist passing a motorist within a lane on a motorists left

crhilton

Not your point, but isn't that pass legal?

crhilton

How does it change if you're at the front of the line versus the middle of the line?