Another article maligning Forester and "vehicular cycling advocates"

24 views
Skip to first unread message

Serge Issakov

unread,
May 7, 2012, 6:39:48 PM5/7/12
to BicycleDriving

beck michaels

unread,
May 7, 2012, 11:02:38 PM5/7/12
to Serge Issakov, Bicycle Driving, nea...@cox.net
That article doesn't malign vehicular cycling advocates or john forester at all. it suggests it doesn't work so well now (presumably for the majority) on high speed roads, then the article actually suggests that on shared space roads it's the type of riding that works.

 quite misleading to call these comments "maligning".

Effective Cycling author John Forester and vehicular cycling advocates believe bikes should share space with cars, everywhere and always. No need for separation. It might have worked at one time, but just as for walkers, with more and faster car traffic, it doesn't work so well now.

also in the article....

"So are the ideas behind vehicular cycling completely useless? I don't think so. Full separation is expensive, and can't be done instantly. Shared space is the key to moving forward from where we are, and as part of the shared space model, vehicular cycling still has something to teach us: that bicycles and feet should be respected as legitimate modes of travel and legitimate uses of the roadway, that they can share space with cars and expensive separation isn't always necessary."

and

Vehicular cycling is still the wisest choice in many of today's road riding environments, and one that will continue to be important in neighborhoods, rural areas, and suburbs around the country for the foreseeable future...

and this comment seems to make a lot of sense, doesn't it?

Separating modes allows safe and efficient travel for all through high-demand corridors such as commercial districts, major highways, and local pinch points like bridges and tunnels. It allows everyone to feel comfortable and enjoy using active modes to get around, whether they are old or young, male or female, fast or slow. Done right, it increases safety, increases cycling rates, and makes riding more fun. Now that's effective cycling.

it's always a contrived battle anytime an alternative to pure vehicularism amongst 60mph traffic is suggested.

ride safe,

 Beck

From: Serge Issakov <serge....@gmail.com>
To: BicycleDriving <bicycle...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Monday, May 7, 2012 6:39 PM
Subject: [BicycleDriving] Another article maligning Forester and "vehicular cycling advocates"



Wayne Pein

unread,
May 8, 2012, 5:35:30 PM5/8/12
to Bicycle Driving
On 5/7/12 11:02 PM, beck michaels wrote:
> That article doesn't malign vehicular cycling advocates or john forester
> at all. it suggests it doesn't work so well now (presumably for the
> majority) on high speed roads, then the article actually suggests that
> on shared space roads it's the type of riding that works.
>
> quite misleading to call these comments "maligning".
>
> /Effective Cycling/ author John Forester and vehicular cycling advocates
> believe bikes should share space with cars, everywhere and always. No
> need for separation. It might have worked at one time, but just as for
> walkers, with more and faster car traffic, it doesn't work so well now.

The author assumes sharing means side-by-side, and doesn't consider the
existence of sharing one-after-another and how that can be fostered.

Wayne

Wayne Pein

unread,
May 9, 2012, 12:48:56 PM5/9/12
to Bicycle Driving
I've fully used the right lane of various multi-lane arterials for more
than a decade, and the only side-by-side "sharing" I get is the rare
J.O. who purposefully comes into my lane. The overwhelming majority of
motorists change lanes to pass. And these roads don't even have the
latest R4-11 BICYCLES MAY USE FULL LANE SIGNS to educate the population.

So Beck is wrong.

Wayne


On 5/8/12 11:45 PM, beck michaels wrote:
> Unless you can keep up one heck of a pace, at lots of speeds, motorists
> are eventually going to engage in some 'side-to-side sharing', Wayne.
>
>
> The comments of the Bike Portland guest author certainly shows they're
> familiar with, and ride, slower speed roads where the expectation is
> more in the way of sharing one after the other. Portland has really
> developed its network of neighborhood greenways.
>
> But there's high speed roads where there's going to be some (a lot) of
> side by side sharing as the motorists pull around the cyclist. To try to
> argue there's not going to be side by side road sharing when a person
> rides a bicycle is disingenuous. Getting passed is the default condition.
>
> Beck
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* Wayne Pein <wp...@nc.rr.com>
> *To:* Bicycle Driving <bicycle...@googlegroups.com>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, May 8, 2012 5:35 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [BicycleDriving] Another article maligning Forester and
> "vehicular cycling advocates"
>
> On 5/7/12 11:02 PM, beck michaels wrote:
> > That article doesn't malign vehicular cycling advocates or john forester
> > at all. it suggests it doesn't work so well now (presumably for the
> > majority) on high speed roads, then the article actually suggests that
> > on shared space roads it's the type of riding that works.
> >
> > quite misleading to call these comments "maligning".
> >
> > /Effective Cycling/ author John Forester and vehicular cycling advocates
> > believe bikes should share space with cars, everywhere and always. No
> > need for separation. It might have worked at one time, but just as for
> > walkers, with more and faster car traffic, it doesn't work so well now.
>
> The author assumes sharing means side-by-side, and doesn't consider the
> existence of sharing one-after-another and how that can be fostered.
>
> Wayne
>
>
>
>


--
Wayne

www.bicyclingmatters.wordpress.com
www.humantransport.org
www.bicyclinglife.com
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages