urban_assault

OMG...due to insomnia, I read this whole thread. Now I am more confused about how to ride my bike than ever before.

Obviously, agreeing to disagree would mean the end to this particular forum. I suppose I'll just get out and ride my bike like I always have. I'll obey traffic laws a vast majority of the time and the rest of the time I'll just try and keep myself out of danger any way I can.

Helmet Head

My apologies. It's a quote from the back cover of your book, presumably from the publisher. Let's just say there is no way in hell that Forester would allow cyclists to be likened to rats in sewers on the back of his book. That is a difference between you two.

• The Forester paradigm: cyclists should act like drivers of vehicles.
• The Hurst paradigm: cyclists should act like rats in sewers.

Whether you like it or not, it's no mistake that the rats in sewers paradigm for cyclists was used on the backcover of your book. It was chosen because it's consistent with the view that you convey throughout your book, however subtle and even unrecognized by you that it may be.

noisebeam

Every driver or every kind of vehicle makes a route choice and, with the exception of those drivers who consider themselves secondary users, every driver making that choice does so for the benefit of themselves.

Al

Helmet Head

If you have not read Effective Cycling and The Art of Urban Cycling, I suspect this thread would be hard to understand.

Helmet Head

Did I hit a nerve? Read your own book, Robert. You say cycling is a superior mode, just like a rat might say his way of life is superior to that of humans. And perhaps from the rat's POV his life is superior to ours, but from the human POV, it's obviously not.

But when it comes to motorists and cyclists - we're all humans. Neither mode is "superior" to the other. They both have advantages and disadvantages. If I need to be in L.A. in a couple of hours, I'm going to drive my car.

But on surface streets our rights are equal, and you don't convey that critical concept in your book very well, if you do at all. If anything, you downplay it. And whether you realize it or not, the implication of much of your writing is that our rights on surface streets are secondary to those of motorists. That is consistent with the view that cyclists are second-class users (in terms of rights). I understand you justify this downplaying with rationalizing that you don't think cyclists should depend on having equal rights, because if motorists don't recognize those rights, they are of little use to us. But what you miss is that if you don't act as if you have equal rights, then you won't be treated as if you do (and this is true in just about any human social interaction, not just traffic).

So, I think Forester's approach is much more sound: act like a vehicle driver, act in accordance with your equal rights and responsibilities, assert them in order to at least give them a chance to recognize them (but don't be rude about it either), but always be prepared for those rare exceptions who don't recognize your equal rights, or, more likely, those who simply don't notice you.

Anyone who regularly acts like a vehicle driver is accustomed to being treated like a vehicle driver, and what I'm saying will make perfect sense to them (you know who you are). But for any cyclist who regularly acts like a sewer rat - like someone who doesn't really belong on the roads with motorists - this idea that those who don't recognize cyclist rights are rare is going to seem preposterous, because in their experience, they see it all the time. What they don't realize is that this is because they don't act like drivers in the first place.

urban_assault

I was kidding about being confused. I have perused both books at B&N without purchasing them. ( My apologies to the authors.) I do understand the views that both books express and the points that each author makes. I do use tactics and philosophies stated in both books, which is the same way I was riding before reading the books.

IMO, the incessant debates over who is right or wrong and the attacks on each other's logic and reasoning is silly and confusing to many readers of the forums. Of course I do know it will not end any time soon. Since any ground travel other than with the automobile is marginalized in the United States, I commend both authors for trying to make things better for cyclists.

If I was asked, I would recommend that cyclists read both books, form their own opinion, and ride in the manner that suits them. Yes, this will result in inconsistent riding, ( I just heard HH sigh heavily and shake his head) but until laws are enforced consistently and drivers drive consistently many cyclists will do this in order to feel safe.

rando

if I EVER see a sewer rat on a bicycle, I will give up drinking. maybe.

genec

Not a rat, but certainly like some sort of road warrior or rebel and a bit like Casper the ghost. (the latter due primarily to being so often overlooked that it seems like I am invisible) So sort of a cross between Spike bike and Casper actually.

I certainly do not feel that motorists treat me as an equal... so there is a touch of that "second class citizenry..." and "unnoticed," heck, that is the last thing I want.

Now somewhere I remember reading about how the best cyclists are like ninjas... slipping between the cars and on and off the streets without notice, nearly a shadow in the traffic scene. (of course it was written better than that)

But as far as a rat... well sometimes it seems like some motorists might be shooing us away...

Helmet Head

When I first read Effective Cycling, my reaction was similar: I already (mostly) do that. Little did I realize how key the mostly was, because seemingly subtle differences in behavior can make significant differences in traffic, especially in how motorists react to you, treat you, and how soon they do it. I didn't realize it until I decided to try to do it "by the book", mostly on a lark, just to see what would happen if, for example, I actually used destination positioning at every intersection. Soon I picked up the habit to always look back at every intersection approach, and instantly motorists were reacting to me differently, treating my like a driver rather than like a rat.

Bekologist

hh ,except using 'destination positioning at every intersection' is fantastical armchair bicycling and doesn't reflect reality of actually bicycling, dude.

The Human Car

Diane, pass the popcorn please.

Wow, just totally unbelievable.

pj7

I dunno, rats just might be superior to us.
They eat when and what they want. No one tells them where to take a ****. They have nonremorseful sex. and could care less about what is going on in here on a nightly basis.
This is not good?

pj7

Robert, you're like that drunken sarcastic uncle I used to have. Which is a good thing, he made some great plum wine.
If you're even in the Detroit area I'll have to buy you a beer. That is if you don't get ***** and killed first.... or killed then *****.

RobertHurst

'Equal rights' with motorists would be a big step down for me. But I wish you good luck in your quest.

Robert

Helmet Head

The rat analogy has more steam than I thought it would.

Bekologist

idiotic. head, adding those 3 words to the Hurst dustjacket changes the meaning. you deliberately misrepresent; you should get a clue. slanderous, dude.

A clue to helmet head, anyone? or is he really that dense?

Helmet Head

Adding which 3 words? This is directly from the back cover:The likening of cyclists to rats in a sewer is an astute observation on the back of Robert's book, for it frames his whole approach quite nicely, and in stark contrast to that of Forester.

Vehicular cyclists have long observed that in order to be treated like drivers of vehicles, we need to act like drivers of vehicles; it's no guarantee of driver-like treatment, but it makes it much more common, and the opposite is also true: if you don't act as a vehicle driver, then you're very unlikely to be treated as one. But it must be very difficult to think and act like a driver of a vehicle when you feel the environment is so hostile to you, that you liken yourself to a rat in a sewer.

The lessons in Robert's book appear to be based on a paradigm that sees cyclists as rats in sewers, where with "the proper attitude and a bit of knowledge [described in Robert's book], urban cyclists can learn to thrive in this hostile environment" (quote from the back cover of The Art of Urban Cycling).

Robert's book really does impart only a bit of knowledge, and focuses mainly on attitude. Note that Robert's obsession with vigilance and self-responsibility totally fits the rat analogy (rats are very vigilant and, so far as we know, blame no one but themselves for anything that happens to them). I've praised that aspect of the book in the past, and continue to do so, but there's not much else of value in the book. Even the back cover essentially admits he imparts only a "bit" of knowledge to his readers.

Cyclists that act like rats in sewers, rather than like drivers of vehicles, should expect to be treated like rats in sewers, and certainly should not be surprised that they are rarely if ever treated like drivers of vehicles.

It is likely to be true that the majority of cyclists can identify with hostile environment/rat in sewer paradigm. But vehicular cycling is about smashing that paradigm and leaving it far behind (replacing it with the vc paradigm), while Robert's book is about exploiting it.

flipped4bikes

198 posts. Well 199 now. Can we all agree that this is stupid ranting? Wait, we can argue over that too!

genec

Could it be that Robert's comment is meant to convey that is how motorists treat cyclists... NOT how cyclists act?

Helmet Head

That's almost certain, Gene. But paradigms work in both directions, whether that's the explicit intent, or not. There is plenty of evidence that shows how one views the world affects how one behaves, and how one behaves affects how he or she is treated. This is why self-esteem is so important.

Viewing a given environment as hostile is, in many ways, a self-fulfilling prophecy. Look at our mideast foreign policy for an example of that. Look at Beck's riding experiences as another [1], [2].

Pick someone down the hall at random. Now imagine them to be hostile. Seriously. How good an actor are you? Convince yourself that that person is hostile to you. Now go into her or his office. What will your body language be? What will your tone be? What will you say? If this person is astute at all, he or she will detect your attitude, and that in and of itself is likely to make them feel and act hostile towards you. This is fundamental primal stuff of human nature, and, indeed, of animal nature.

Similarly, if a cyclist views the traffic environment as hostile, he is likely to act as if the environment is hostile, and those in traffic are that much more likely to treat him in a hostile manner.

That's what I mean by vehicular-cycling being about leaving that rats-in-a-hostile-environment paradigm far behind. Vehicular-cycling is based on the opposite assumption: that while there are rare JAM exceptions, the traffic environment overall is not hostile to cyclists. That's a huge difference between vehicular-cycling and how most cyclists view the traffic environment, and how Robert writes about it.

genec

Uh... the only problem is that many motorists feel the general driving environment itself is hostile.

Helmet Head

Speak for yourself, Gene. I, for one, recognize that the vehicular traffic system is, among other things, amazingly cooperative, and I try to leverage that aspect of it, whether I'm driving my car or riding my bike.

EDIT: Besides, I don't know how most motorists feel with respect to the traffic environment being hostile or not. I do know that the vast majority doesn't act hostile, and that's all that matters to me.

genec

I just did an informal poll in my office... I asked simply if folks felt that highway and surface street driving was friendly or hostile.

The response was about 50-50.

I don't know about the "vast majority" you mention... considering that many folks find rush hour frustrating.

Helmet Head

You're taking my words out of context. In the reply to Bek, I was writing in general, not about the specific street you were riding on, the name of which (and nearest cross-street to the blind alley in question) I'm still waiting to learn.

On a road with frequent junctions and intersections closer than 100-200' (a typical residential lot is 50-75' wide), so if 100-200' prior "would be somewhere on the previous block, that's block length of 2-4 houses, but whatever..., I would take the lane and only move aside when traffic was slowed behind me and where it was safe and reasonable to pull aside. Those conditions were not present at the time of your collision.

Helmet Head

Again, how they feel about it is irrelevant to me. What is important is how they act, and how they act, by and large, is not hostile. When I assume a cooperative environment, and act accordingly, I am almost universally treated in a cooperative manner. When I assume a hostile environment, and act accordingly, I am treated with hostility much more often.