John Forester

I know that Franklin delivers about the same message in vastly fewer pages. That is because his book is written for English cyclists (the version written for nations that drive on the right is no more than an adaptation to that situation) operating under English law and history. English cyclists, therefore, don't have to compete against the seventy or more years of American anti-cycling policy, both governmental and social. This needs to be explained to American cyclists, who would otherwise not recognize it to oppose it.

You find Hurst's book more informative. The principal part of Hurst's book appears to be justification for disobeying the traffic laws whenever the cyclist can take advantage of doing so. I disagree with this approach to cycling.

You recommend that I write only after doing research in several groups of places, four in Europe, three in the USA, to see "what is available and works". My purpose in writing is instructing American cyclists cycling in America. The very different systems in the European locations you mention, Holland, Copenhagen, Finland, London, are irrelevant to American cyclists cycling in America. Their only relevance to my purpose is the extent to which they, or more accurately some of their bits and pieces, get imported to America, and then they become evaluated by their results in American traffic conditions. As for the American locations, Davis, Portland, NYC, I have been to them all, have cycled a lot in the first, some in the second, though not lately, and I have read and viewed descriptions of their bikeways. Both Davis and Portland have typical AASHTO bikeway systems, but Portland has added cyclists turning left through motor traffic without looking and cyclist-killing bike boxes, both of which I think it is reasonable to criticize severely. As for what you call NYC, which presumably is only Manhattan and its eastern approaches, whose population, I have repeatedly written, is the most transportationally deprived of any in the USA; they are desperate for anything that can be used under their conditions. The videos that I have seen of their cycle-tracks tell me a lot about how they work, supporting, in large part, the views that I had previously reached through the written descriptions. I see no reason to change my views about such items.

wsbob

The phrase, 'vehicular cycling' once thought about for awhile, in itself seems kind of intuitive and even empowering for people inclined to bike for transportation. I've read in someone's comment to this thread, that Mr. Forester came up with the phrase. Maybe so, and if so...that's fine...great, but if everyone understanding what that phrase means requires their reading reading his book, just forget it...it's not going to happen.

The only way people's ability to safely ride a bike in traffic amongst motor vehicles is going to happen, is in their being provided with relatively easy to understand procedures that help to make themselves and their intentions as visible to other road users as possible. That and a fair bit of 'on the road in traffic' riding, responded to with constructive critique. Cyclists being provided with in-traffic procedures and advice that are conflicting, contradictory and self defeating, compounds the learning curve that any new road user deals with.

It is true that the ability to safely ride a bike in traffic requires of people riding, the development of various bike-specific abilities that aren't required for driving motor vehicles. Personally, I think the learning of these abilities shouldn't be left entirely to trial and error. Getting any kind of a consensus on what form relevant instruction should take, and how to administer it, seems elusive. Some of the bad, word of mouth instruction about biking in traffic that seems to have gotten passed around, isn't helping anyone.


"...but Portland has added cyclists turning left through motor traffic without looking and cyclist-killing bike boxes, ..." john forester, #276

Sorry, to have to say this, but that's just inflammatory and incorrect. I'm fairly certain Portland has had not one injury or death of a cyclist due to its relatively few bike boxes. I don't believe the city has in any way "...added cyclists turning left through motor traffic without looking ...". Here, John might be referring to experimentation with bike lane switch-overs to try address the right hook problem, as was mentioned earlier in this thread, but that infrastructure hasn't that I'm aware of, been accompanied by instructions to cyclists that they need not look over their shoulder for oncoming traffic as they approach and enter the switch-over. Unfortunately however, Portland does seem to have too many people biking in traffic that seem to somehow have come to the conclusion that signaling for turns, switching lanes, and stopping, isn't necessary.

John Forester

Bek is lying again. He claims that the words he quotes from Effective Cycling 6th are part of the discussion "right on page 309, describing making turns in SLOW SPEED TRAFFIC." That's a lie, because the paragraph heading is "Low-Speed Lane Changes", which has nothing to do with making turns. That paragraph describes how a cyclist can ask a driver to slow down to make a gap for the cyclist. The recommended procedure is to obviously turn your head to look at the driver, so that he can see your desire and, if he responds favorable, the cyclist can see that he has made the gap. As at the foot of page 309: "There are two reasons why this way is better than using the arm signal. First, looking behind puts you in the position to receive an answer, whereas the arm signal makes looking harder. Getting the answer is what will save your life, not making the signal. Second, the traffic situation might suddenly require both hands on the handlebars and brakes, which makes you discontinue a hand signal even though you still want to move left. Even though you may resume the signal, you have conveyed the undesired message of irresolution and incompetence, when you want to convince the driver that you know what you want to do and how to do it, and that you will do it in an expert manner."

It is evident that Bek is cooking up objections by twisting words to make claims that falsely declare concepts that are not in the original text.

genec

There are reasons to update your writings that go well beyond the specifics of "cycling in Holland." For instance, the introduction of the cell phone as a driver distraction. Also to address "Effective Cycling" effectively, you need to address the specifics of new bicycle infrastructure, such as these new traffic lights...

https://www.usatoday.com/videos/news/...12/02/1738129/

Further there have been later studies done on cycling infrastructure in other countries, and you would be quite remiss to not discuss those studies and their results on cycling... unless you chose to ignore such changes and continue to blindly preach to your small band of dedicated followers.

genec

LOL, I have to laugh at this last line... so in essence, cyclists are acting just like motorists. Thus the triumph of true "vehicular cycling," eh?

John Forester

In theory, I agree with Wsbob. It is not good to have contradictory advice about how to operate in traffic. However, since vehicular cycling is based on operating in accordance with the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles, there is little of a contradictory nature about it. However, contradictory instruction has long existed, both from government and from society. For seventy years government has tried to prohibit cyclists from obeying the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles, first by mandatory side-of-the-road laws and mandatory bike path laws, more recently by mandatory bike lane laws. These laws are not part of the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles, because they apply to cyclists alone, which results in adverse discrimination. Oregon has the first and the last; I don't know about the second there. Society cooperates with government by emphasizing that cyclists don't belong on the roadway and should not obey the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles. That's what Bek is trying to defend by criticizing its strongest opponent, the idea that cyclists should obey the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles. What do you think is most contradictory, obeying the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles, or disobeying those rules?

Wsbob expresses ignorance of cyclist deaths at Portland's bike boxes. On the contrary, I have read of such deaths, with, not surprisingly, the reply by Portland's spokesperson that the deaths are due to a multitude of possible causes. That seems to confirm the death(s), although I don't believe in the excuse provided. As for what Wsbob calls "switchover lanes", the only investigation that I have read of such devices showed that the cyclists failed to look for traffic with greater frequency after their installation. Consider the situation. If the cyclists have the right of way, then they need not look carefully, just as drivers on a road protected by stop signs have the right of way and have little need to look carefully at traffic on cross roads. If, on the other hand, motorists have the right of way in this situation, then cyclists have the duty to look and to yield. And, the same situation could be in reverse, with cyclists given the right of way. But Portland has done nothing to sort out this contradictory situation. Very bad, that.

hagen2456

It's unclear what you're actually trying to say HERE about looking and signaling - in this thread and elsewhere on BF.

adamhenry

It looks like a plug for his book.

John Forester

This thread is not a book of instruction, but a discussion about parts of cycling. Bek has presented his deliberate misrepresentations of vehicular cycling and of Effective Cycling with the purpose, I suppose among others, of persuading you and others like you that my instructions about cycling by obeying the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles are confusing, misleading, and dangerous. That's his ideological purpose. One can respond to honest criticism, such as that recently provided by Genec, by providing reasonable answers. However, when the criticism starts with dishonest misrepresentation for the purpose of ideological warfare, as does Bek's, it is very difficult to provide, to an audience that has not read the original, full answers to all the aspects that can be brought up, not without republishing major parts of the book being criticized. That's been long known about the theory of propaganda. Lies jump over all fences, while truth has to wait for the gate to be opened.

In a sense I am sorry for you, for having been so misled by Bek's propaganda, but, on the other hand, you have chosen to comment repeatedly about cycling in America, about which it seems that much of what you think you know is that provided by Bek.

delcrossv

FIFY.

To tell the truth,John that is what turned me off most from "Effective Cycling" :too much diatribe, not enough meat. As a rider in the States, I found no need, nor desire, to read about anti this or anti that.I also couldn't care less about your, (often derisive)opinion of various types of bikes. I wanted tips about safer riding in traffic. period.

Franklin delivers.

genec

Exactly. Thank you.

hagen2456

Heh. It's not so much Bek as some of your staunchest disciples (some of whom, I've learned, take the "Vehicular" part a bit further than you do yourself) who have at times led me astray. The discussion between you and Bek first of all leaves me rather confused as to what you think about not least signaling. Though he does kinda twist what you'resaying here, I basically read what you write in much the same sense as does he. Thus my observation that you might have expressed yourself a bit more clearly. After all, it isn't rocket science, eh?

John Forester

Well, if that is all that you want, then just read that portion of Effective Cycling, or buy a different book, or even one of John Allen's pamphlets, which I believe to be free in many states, courtesy of their governments. But by concentrating on only one aspect of cycling, or shall we say by deliberately ignoring the political aspect of cycling, you are depriving yourself of some greater understanding of the situation in which you operate. It is my view that a great many more American cyclists need to become aware of the difficulties that American government and society are inflicting upon them and what ought to be done about that problem. If you don't understand the problem, you cannot take appropriate action.

John Forester

Well, just consider the general principle. If driver one's desired change in course (or even speed) will affect any other driver, then driver one must either yield to driver two, which requires no signal because no change will occur, or signal to driver two to persuade him to modify his course or speed to accommodate the desired change. If no other driver will be affected, if there is no driver two, then signalling is pointless because there is either no driver to see it, or any driver who does see it is in such a position or course that he need pay no attention to it. This could be in the case of a driver approaching an intersection at which he sees a driver from the opposite direction waiting to make a left turn. Since the turning driver must yield, then the straight-going driver need pay no attention to whether or not the turning driver exhibits a turn signal. However, there are times when it is a courtesy to other drivers to make a signal; this is particularly valuable when the signal tells driver two that driver one will be getting out of driver two's way, so that driver one can avoid doing something that he would have to do if driver one continued on his present course. It could also apply to the earlier example of the left-turning driver. If both drivers intend to turn left, which are movements that can be done simultaneously, then signalling will allow them to make their movements more smoothly and rapidly. However, this courtesy does not "manufacture safety"; it just enables traffic movement to be made a bit more smoothly.

Bekologist

Huh? 'Society' emphasizes cyclists follow the rules of the road and legally signal their turns. I am a supporter of riders following the rules of the road, especially the rules about clear hand signals in traffic.

I support the rules of the road and the requirement cyclists operate legally and signal their turns. And WSBob has been doing a great job detailing the safety merits of signaling.

John's long published cycling advice has been to not signal - (in traffic, mind you) for various not-so-sound reasons like the laws are anachronistic, it doesn't do any good, and fear of losing control in traffic while braking.

What is most contradictory - obeying the legal requirement to use hand signals in every state and Holland or changing lanes, making turns while


what a morass of contradiction and absurdity.

wsbob

I'd hate to think that certain advice offered in Mr. Forester's book may somehow have encouraged some people biking to feel it isn't necessary to use hand signals to indicate intention while riding in traffic, but for whatever reason, there does seem to be too many people on bikes that aren't signaling. Yes...many people driving motor vehicles, are notoriously bad about not signaling turns, but they are not the vulnerable road users people on bikes are.

At the local weblog, bikeportland.org, of which I'm a regular reader and to which I contribute comments to, safe procedures for people riding bikes in traffic, is a frequent topic that both directly and coincidentally, often comes up in response to stories ranging in subject from collision reports to infrastructure improvements. When the topic comes up, cyclists not signaling turns, stops and slowing are frequently complained about as presenting a danger. Cyclists that don't signal, use the opportunity to explain their justification for not signaling. Somewhat mysteriously, their justification for not signaling has sounded similar to rationale for not signaling that John Forester has posted in comments to this thread. As I mentioned in a comment earlier to this thread, people have actually written, responding in comments to bikeportland stories, their view that they don't feel it's safe to take a hand off the handlebars to signal. To the extent this may be a common feeling amongst people that bike, it's definitely area of in-traffic riding technique that people should be provided assistance and encouragement in learning, because it definitely is something that can be done safely while still maintaining reasonable control of the bike they're riding.


"(snip)...Wsbob expresses ignorance of cyclist deaths at Portland's bike boxes. On the contrary, I have read of such deaths, with, not surprisingly, the reply by Portland's spokesperson that the deaths are due to a multitude of possible causes. ...(snip)" John Forester #280


First of all, for those of you reading that may not be familiar with what bike boxes are:To sum up, cyclist deaths at bike boxes, and in bike boxes are two different things. As I said before, that I know of, cyclists have not been injured or killed in a bike box, due to the bike box. The article I've provided a link to reports on an incidence of collisions at bike boxes, which the city's dept/transportation is attempting to determine the causes of, but that I'm able to learn from the article, there is no indication that the bike boxes themselves have contributed to collisions at the intersections where the boxes have been installed.


The underlining in the excerpt below, is my addition:

"(snip)...For seventy years government has tried to prohibit cyclists from obeying the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles, first by mandatory side-of-the-road laws and mandatory bike path laws, more recently by mandatory bike lane laws. These laws are not part of the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles, because they apply to cyclists alone, which results in adverse discrimination. Oregon has the first and the last; I don't know about the second there. (snip)..." John Forester #281, first paragraph response


My understanding of the status of cyclists with respect to road use in Oregon, is that with the exception of certain freeways, people biking are effectively acknowledged by law, the right to ride the main lanes of virtually every street, road, and highway in the state, regardless of whether a bike lane, MUP, cycle track or other bike infrastructure exists adjacent to the road being ridden. Earlier in this thread, I've posted the following link to a site providing text to Oregon's laws, but it possibly bears re-posting for anyone wanting to check out the only two laws Oregon has that define unusual circumstances when someone riding a bike would be guilty of 'Failure to use bicycle lane or path': https://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/814.420. I won't dig it up and provide the link for it, but Oregon also has a bike lane related law, defining use of motor vehicles in bike lanes. For general purposes, that use is prohibited.

Possibly one of the oddest things about the so called 'sidepath laws', is the very, very rare occasion in which people riding bikes seem to be cited or found guilty of not riding in a bike lane when a bike lane is somewhere adjacent to the roadway. Oregon's 814.420 law has a glitch that's partially responsible for cyclists not being cited, but that I've been able to find from simple web searches and reading articles, it doesn't seem that in the history of the law...I think it's at least 25 years old...more than three people have even been cited. Two of the people cited had their citations thrown out in court. Even worldwide, where bike lane use laws may exist, it doesn't seem that cyclists get cited. Maybe they do. I welcome anyone to post links to accounts of incidents in the U.S. particularly, but elsewhere as well, where cyclists have been found guilty of not riding in bike lanes, cycle tracks or other non-main lane parts of the road.

delcrossv

Oh please. I don't you need to tell me that I'm some sort of putative victim of an anti cycling cabal of motorists and the government. I don't think that belief is particularly productive. Truth be told, I really don't feel all that victimized.

Bekologist

Comments made solely in this thread by John about 'all but the most gentle braking...' make it clear there no persuading needed his instructions about cycling are confusing, misleading, and dangerous.


the section of traffic cycling takes up slim pages of Johns' book. If John feels i am somehow misinterpreting his writings (I'm not) it should be easy for the author to directly quote as much of their own work as they want if they feign misrepresentation.

Make no mistake,

Failure to use legal hand signals is a recurrent theme of the forester cycling method.
There's several passages of 'don't use hand signals' aggrandizement that allude to not signaling as an ostensible source of pride for the foreseter method cyclists so 'skilled' they no longer use hand signals.

It's appalling. It's appalling that someone who's engineered decades of instructing cyclists in failing to use hand signals and riding the lane lines to let traffic pass around them on both sides, etc, has maintained a semblance of credibility in the bicycle planning community and can generate controversy about Dutch cycle planning.

The bull running loose in cycling advocacy - and watch out, the bull is riding the lane lines while not signalling! It's amazing the attendant dreck wasn't discarded wholesale years ago.

yama

I can only tell you about the situation in Germany. Well, the situation is not homogenous throughout the country. It really depends on local law enforcement. In Frankfurt I often ignore mandatory cycling facilities and have never been bothered by the police about it. In Munich, police is very strict. There are many stories of incidents, especially in smaller towns, where police told bicyclist to ride on not mandatory cycling facilites or even sidewalks reserved for pedestrians.

Another problem is the question of liability in case of an accident. If a cyclist chooses to not use a mandatory cycling facility, and an accident happens, he or she is usually confronted by the accusation of contributory negligence which results in split liability (normally 50%:50%), even if the cyclist committed no fault other than not using the mandatory cycle facility.

hagen2456

At present (that is, during the last three months), the Copenhagen police is very alert about cyclists breaking any imaginable law. Fines are dealt out liberally everywhere. Last month, my son was fined for leaving a cycle path that was blocked by a taxi. He IS going to take it to court, as they were probably a bit too officious there, hehe.

genec

In some 45 years of cycling I have never once lost control of my bike while signaling, nor while sipping water out of a waterbottle, nor while making any other adjustments to my bike using one hand while riding with only the other hand in control... or for that matter while riding hands free.

Now this is NOT to say I have never lost control of my bike. This has indeed happened, and in every case it was due to some flaw in the road surface and my lack of understanding about what that flaw entailed.... such flaws are longitudinal cracks in pavement, deep sand, and wet metal plates and small bearing like objects. Oddly, every time I lost control of my bike, I had both hands on the bars.
The interesting thing about the about attributing deaths to bike boxes is that like those that attribute deaths to bike lanes, there is a high likelihood that the cyclist would have been in the same place whether bicycle infrastructure existed there or not. If one rides a bike in fast traffic, one is likely to be on the side of the road, exactly where a bike lane would be... and if there is an errant driver that would have killed someone in a BL, that same cyclist would have died even if a line of paint did not exist. I suspect the same situation also occurs in what ever supposed bike box deaths that Forester is trying to attribute blame to. In fact with regard to cyclist deaths in BL or Bike Boxes, I have to fall back on the favorite saying of those that believe bicycle infrastructure has no effect on cycling modal share: "correlation does not mean causation."

John Forester

Wsbob is wrong about the principle embodied in Oregonian traffic law. Yes, he correctly quotes the law with his conclusion that cyclists are allowed to use the roads provided that they use bike lanes or side-paths wherever these exist. That is not the same as having the right to use the roadway, which is the usual subject of discussion. Oregon has both the mandatory-bike-lane law and the mandatory-bike-path law as is commonly described and with rather typical wording. In short, cyclists in Oregon don't have the normal right to use the roadway; they have the right to use the roadway only where government has not built the facilities required to prohibit that use.

John Forester

Then you either do not recognize that traffic law gives cyclists fewer rights than it gives motorists, or you accept that situation as normal.

John Forester

Wsbob is now providing what has become the standard excuse for cyclist deaths caused by right-hook collisions in the area near bike boxes. Anything to find a desperate excuse for such a superstitiously popular device as a bike box.

Consider what happens. The bike box provides an additional temptation for cyclists to overtake on the right-hand side of right-turning traffic, just so that they can get into the bike box. The obvious then happens: there are more right-hook car-bike collisions near those bike boxes. Anytime that government attempts to rewrite traffic law in ways that contradict traffic principles, as in encouraging overtaking on the right-hand side of traffic that may turn right, the traffic principles supersede the law and people get killed or injured. That principle has been demonstrated repeatedly over the past forty years.

wsbob

ORS 814.400 helps to indicate what the principle embodied in Oregon law with respect to use of bikes on the road, probably could be said to be.
In Oregon, people riding bikes are acknowledged by law to have the right to use the roadway. (In the below excerpt of the law, the bold face and underlining is my addition.):


"(1) Every person riding a bicycle upon a public way is subject to the provisions applicable to and has the same rights and duties as the driver of any other vehicle concerning operating on highways, vehicle equipment and abandoned vehicles, except: ..." ORS 814.400 Application of vehicle laws to bicycles https://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/814.400


"...Yes, he correctly quotes the law with his conclusion that cyclists are allowed to use the roads provided that they use bike lanes or side-paths wherever these exist. ..." John Forester

Not 'allowed', but "...effectively acknowledged by law, the right to ride the main lanes of virtually every street, road, and highway in the state, regardless of whether a bike lane, MUP, cycle track or other bike infrastructure exists adjacent to the road being ridden. ..."


Interested readers may study the entirety of the text ORS 814.420 (it's brief, easily readable...takes some careful thinking to fully understand.) to notice for themselves, the conditions detailed in the law, not included in John's remark above. People riding bikes in Oregon are not in violation of the 'Failure to use a bike lane or path' law, unless the bike lane or path meets all of those conditions. The law doesn't rescind the right to use the road people biking in Oregon are acknowledged by law to have, in exchange for a state of permission to use the road. In ORS 814.400, ORS 814.420, or ORS 814.430, all of which are bike specific road use laws, there is no mention of 'normal'. https://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/814.420