alanbikehouston

For some reason, ten or fifteen members of "Bike Forums" invest endless amounts of energy into either defending what they assume (correctly or incorrectly) are Mr. Forester's ideas, or in attacking what they think (correctly or incorrectly) are his ideas.

Mr. Forester has spent his time more productively over the past five decades. He has been a consistent and energetic advocate for the role of the bicycle in daily transportation. And, to be truly useful for daily transportation, it ought to be both practical and safe to ride a bicycle from any "Point A" to any "Point B" in a given community. A worthy goal that seems to be at the core of Mr. Forester's philosophy.

It is sad that America does not have five or ten people such as John Forester in every community. Because we have only one John Forester, the bicycle is being relegated to the role a Sunday afternoon recreation, and cannot be used as a dependable means of daily transportation.

I'm currently spending much of my time in San Antonio, Texas. In San Antonio, all of the new development is on the north side of town. A typical development has a stone wall around it, and residents must enter through a gate. That gate leads to a four, five, or six lane road where the lanes are not as wide as the vehicles that use them. The curbs are black with the rubber from tires that have rubbed up against the curbs. Traffic reaches peak speeds of 40 mph to 50 mph on these roads.

This bizarre urban design means that you may be able to see a friend's home in the next development, perhaps fifty yards beyond the stone wall. To visit your friend by bike requires riding a mile to the gate of your development, riding another mile down that 4 lane highway among bumper-to-bumper traffic going 40 mph, getting admitted at the gate, and then riding a mile to the friend's home. By the way, such neighborhoods have no sidewalks. Walking from one development to the next is difficult or impossible.

So, how do people in such neighborhoods ride bikes? They have racks on the roof of their vehices, and they drive their bikes out into the country, or down into the central part of San Antonio, where they can ride on traditional "checkerboard" layout streets with traffic moving at only 20 mph or 25 mph.

John Forester fought a long and lonely fight on behalf of the bicycle as transportation. In many or most American cities, that battle has been lost. But that defeat is not the fault of John Forester. It is the fault of the hundreds of thousands of daily cyclists who have remained silent while city planners have made our cities "motor vehicle only" types of communities.

Paul L.

My personal experience shows that my two 4 year old sons, tend to not weave out into traffic when there is a line there. When there is no line their cycling becomes erratic. I know that not everyone is a 4 year old but that is one case I have observed where a facility has been helpful. The road was a 35 mph 4 lane and was included on a route for a 10 mile family charity ride. Around the corner we were on a 40 mph 2 lane road with a wide lane with no line, I found that the boys needed a lot more reminding to ride in a logical fashion here. So my observations differ from yours at least in this case.


Personally I like wide outside lanes (and even narrow lanes too) as well as the next VCer but I do find uses for bike lanes as well.

Tom Stormcrowe

For what it's worth, I don't have any issues with JF's ideas, just the tactics used in attacking his naysayers. I think he's doing both himself and cycling a disservice in descending to that level. It's not the message, it's how the message is presented that turns me off.

dewaday

Shall I post videos of me leaping tall buildings?

randya

Counting cyclists is not the same as evaluating the level of service.

In the case of motor vehicles, a level of service analysis usually relates to an evaluation of the flow of traffic - e.g more delays=lower level of service - in which case the presence of vehicular cyclists that impede traffic on high speed arterials with narrow lanes might actually cause a drop in the level of service for motorists. This would seemingly contradict the ADC's goals.

IMO, a level of service analysis for cyclists would more properly rate a variety of factors related to safety and stress, due to the slower speeds and higher vulnerability of cyclists, in which case both a high speed arterial with narrow lanes and a bike lane to the right of a RTOL would rate low in level of service, regardless of the number of cyclists using the facility.

randya

This shouldn't have to be an either / or situation. In fact, I don't think anyone here is arguing for compulsory sidepath laws.

N_C

The geographical layout is as follows: Missouri River, Sioux City River Front which includes the casino, parks, a dance pavillion, resteraunt, marina, public boat launch, the trail & road way. Then is I-29. After that is the south edge of down town Sioux City. There is a trail access at Riverside Park, off of Gordon Dr. & Floyd Blvd. Gordon & Floyd are both near down town, especially Gordon. If a cyclist lives in Riverside or North Sioux City can ride through Riverside to the park, to the trail, ride to the access off of Gordon Dr. & head north into down town & destinations they need from there.

Once the connection is complete between the ball complex & the casino residents from Sgt. Bluff will be able to ride from there into down town Sioux City, etc. Once the Perry Creek trail is finished anyone on the north & west sides of town will be able to use the trail to access down town, etc. The same goes for Dakota Dunes residents, once the bridge is complete across the Big Sioux River.

The intersection cyclists have to cross at on Gordon Dr. is light controlled & is safe to use & cross. At the Floyd intersection cyclists on the trail have the right of way, cross traffic has to stop. IF a cyclist is on the roadway that parallels the trail they have to go around a traffic circle, stop to yield to traffic turning onto the I-29 on ramp.

As you can see the trails are & can be used for more then just recreation. Of course residents here also have the option to ride on the roadways as well. They have a choice, as it should be. They should not be relegated to only one or the other.

This is just on the Sioux City side. On the South Sioux side it is similar, they have a river front trail too.

What is your problem with recreational trails anyway? Why does a trail have to be used for transportational purposes, why can't it just be for fun?

BTW, I commute to and from work. It is all on city streets. I work by the air port, off of I-29. When I commute by bike it is all on city streets. This is 2 miles form the ball complex. When the river front trail is complete with the I-29 project, on days I do not want to ride hills I will take the trail, on days I do I will stick with my regular route I already have planned out.

skanking biker

Again, why are these 2 views necessarily in conflict

In the Is there a right to bike? article by Robert Mionske, JD, he states at the beginning:[/QUOTE]


Yeh, well, if I had 2 cents everytime some attorney wrote an article claiming something was unconsitutional, I'd be a rich man. These days you have to wonder if ANY law is "constitutional" as there is always some lawyer writing it isnt and always some court willing to strike it down.

Paul L.

I guess I misunderstand Mr. Forester as that city in my perception, would be a perfectly acceptable city to him. If cars can ride point A to point B then bikes can too according to the precepts of Vehicular cycling (as I percieve it having been promoted). But perhaps he can address this himself?

sggoodri

I would like to see more use of the 2000 edition of the Highway Capacity Manual's metrics for LOS for cyclists (the bike-specific ones), as well as improvements to these metrics. These metrics are based on percieved delay and ability to maneuver.

Other LOS metrics specific to bikes have been based on perceived comfort. I think these risk giving more weight to popular taboos than to efficiency. I think both comfort and convenience are important, but should be tracked separately.

I think a WOL gives excellent LOS in light traffic; in heavy traffic people have pointed out that you cannot filter forward in a WOL. A door zone bike lane might provide less delay than a WOL in stopped/congested traffic, but greater danger and reduced comfort than staying in line. I suggest we measure these effects independently, and talk about them that way.

chipcom 

So what am I Galen? I ride the roads but I am also a proponent of other facilities for those who want them. Am I a victim, a predator, confused, or maybe just a normal human being who respects the fact that everyone does not have the same needs and desires as I?

Bruce Rosar

Comparison videos should, like the ones at the Cyclist View site, not be manipulated.

John Forester

When discussing a technical subject, one is most unlikely to contribute usefully to the discussion unless one has a pretty good knowledge of that subject.

Furthermore, your own next sentences demonstrate precisely that fact.

Bike lanes are not evaluated on the basis being a "good thing". They are transportation facilities that should be evaluated on the basis of safety, convenience, and effect on road users.

As you say, some bike paths are useful, a statement with which I agree and have stated for years; there was no need to bring this up as if I did not agree with it.

The fact that I describe one side of the issue as that of cyclist-inferiority and bikeways does not demonstrate a lack of objectivity. It demonstrates real objectivity because it is accurate. You do not know this, I suppose. The cyclist-inferiority and bikeways side of the issue is based on the arguments that cyclists are incapable of obeying the rules of the road and have lower rights to use the roads than do motorists. Those are the justifications given for pushing cyclists to the side of, or off, the roadway.

randya

You seem to be missing the point entirely. The American Dream Coalition opposes zoning, planning and urban design changes that would make the auto-centric environment you descibe above more bicycle-friendly. John Forester supports the American Dream Coalition and argues that cyclists just need to be trained to ride on the road system you describe; he is not interested in changing auto-centric urban designs to more bicycle-friendly designs.

I-Like-To-Bike

Skanking, The solution is clearly stated for you. Buy da book, agree with it, and then you too will be objective and will be able to usefully contribute. Until then, you should be quiet and let the the guy who claims all-knowledge-worth-knowing do the "discussing."

skanking biker

Does that mean my rights are being infringed because I can't drive in the bus lane or carpool lane or that I am being oppressed because I can't drive below the minimum speed limit on the freeway? Those would certainly qualify as "segregated facilities."

Bruce Rosar

Bob does arrive at his own conclusion (that individuals have a legal right to use the public's roads even while cycling), but he also quotes from the most common deskbook for municipal lawyers, which says that while:

chipcom 

The beauty of politics, nasty a business as it is, is that you can get people who don't like you and/or don't agree with you to support you because either they are also getting something they want or you are both fighting a common enemy.

This ongoing horsepucky among cycling advocates only serves to split and weaken us, at a time when cycling is enjoying a resurgence for various reasons. We can't consolidate our gains into a base for further growth from a position of division and weakness. It's in all cyclists interest to come to a compromise that fullfills the needs of all sides and to speak with a unified voice to policy makers and those who hold the purse strings. Compromise requires give and take, which is why moderates like us have to work to bang some sense into the extremists at each end of the spectrum.

So tell me Steve...do you want to be a leader and a unifier, or 'let someone else do it' because it's too hard or because someone calls you names? (I'm being rhetorical here, not saying that you are the latter)

sbhikes

I'd like to nominate chipcom for prezident of A&S.

And to Mr. Forester: Thank you in advance for remove that stuff about the anti-me on your web site. Are you going to contact the American Dream Coalition and ask them to remove your biography from their web site, since you say you have never heard of them? They are selling your services, don'tcha know? I thought that's how SB Safe Streets found both you AND O'Toole.

skanking biker

Well, I don't agree with any of the above. Isn't it possible to be a supporter of bikeways while still supporting the right to ride properly on the roadways and without justifying support for bikeways on the grounds of "cyclist-inferiority." I believe many here have presented ample justifications for bikeways that do not include "arguments that cyclists are incapable of obeying the rules of the road and have lower rights to use the roads than do motorists."

galen_52657

You tell me chip? (my guess is confused). Do you possess the victim mentality?

I-Like-To-Bike

Just curious, did Bruce R. make a presentation of some of his legal views at this same meeting prior to you presenting your opinion?

galen_52657

Maybe you don't agree with the 'cyclist-inferiority' complex. But plenty of motorists - and surprizingly cyclists - do.

bmike

Would a VC cyclist actively pursue the dismantling of the interstate system? It's sort of like a bike lane, or bike path, but for cars... after all - those that drive cars on the interstate must be inferior drivers - not being able to handle cyclists, walkers, delivery trucks, and all.



I live in Burlington, VT and we have several areas that can be accessed by MUPs. For me to get into town I can negotiate North Ave - which has a hodge podge of some bike lane markings, an area that goes from 1 -2 lanes in each direction (essentially on the same sized road) a freeway style interchange, and 1 large retail area - or I can travel a few blocks further west and get on the lakefront MUP where I avoid traffic but must be wary of rollerbladers, dog walkers, joggers, and folks out in groups that take up the entire path.

Depending on time of day (and day, time of year, etc.) both options are attractive to me. On some days and times the MUP is like an interstate for bikes. The only people on it are commuters or runners... other days and times the MUP is choked with strollers and dogs and rollerbladers.

There are other areas of town where the MUPs are accidents waiting to happen. Crossings that are not well marked, jogging onto the road and off, and ending abruptly without really getting me anywhere. In these areas I'm on the road, following the spirit of the law.

I see no reason why planning for tranportation can't include all sorts of "facilities" - we do it with cars, trains, busses, and airplanes... we should be able to work bikes into the mix. If a sidepath or lane makes sense and is safe - saving folks time and aggravation - good. If not, widening the road and getting a good shoulder will probably do more for all road users.


The beauty of a bike is how easy it is to move around, how little infrastructure is really needed, and its flexibility. It is not a 5000 pound vehicle that needs a truly dedicated surface to operate on - it can operate on a dirt path and a superhighway equally as well. We should celebrate this and not try to force it to behave like something it is not - a vehicle - in the autocentrist definition of the word. It is part man and machine... and should be treated and legislated as such.



When and if our unprecedented ability to use cheap energy to move around starts to wane, we may find some solutions to our problems simply because less people will be driving - and more may be walking, cycling, and using public transportation. If we took 25% of the cars off the roads I know my cycling life (both for fun and for utility) would get much easier, and safer.

Bruce Rosar

The key issue isn't government regulation of an individual's travel that's based on their own personal merit, but rather when a compelling government interest exists does the statute:
Note that motorists are a class of individuals as the result of a classification.