skye

Excerpt:

Kim Harding improves on this manifesto with some interesting observations.

Wouldn't it be nice to have a newspaper as pro-cycling as The Times here in the states?

B. Carfree

I particularly liked Kim Harding's fifth point:
The only place/time I have ever heard of that achieved a majority modal share of cycling was Davis, CA in the late '70s and early '80s. Coincidentally, or not, both the U.C. Davis Police Department and the Davis Police Department had zero-tolerance traffic law enforcement policies at that time. They both subsequently dropped those policies and the bikes all but disappeared, although there has been a small resurgence over the past few years.

CommuteCommando

Lets not forget that cyclist are also part of the equation. Better infrastructure and motorist education, should also include more cyclist education. Where I live, I observe more than half of all cyclists being clueless about how to ride safely. On some days over half the other cycling commuters I encounter are either salmon, or sidewalk speeders.

John Forester

The whole agenda is nothing more than a mix of half-baked ideas. They admit that they don't know how car-bike collisions happen and what their causes are. Without such knowledge in quantitative form, safety proposals are useless. Consider the emphasis on HGVs. Fit them up to prevent "cyclists from being thrown under the wheels". Crazy, who or what is it that reaches out and throws cyclists under the wheels of HGVs? While I don't know the statistics from detailed studies, and apparently nobody knows, I suggest that the main problem is that cyclists throw themselves under the wheels of such vehicles during turning movements. Fix the cyclists' behavior so that they don't do that, and you'll fix much more besides.

Above all, learn detailed information about the processes and causes of car-bike collisions, and only then start to work out the best ways to reduce them. That is the standard procedure in all kinds of safety programs.

degnaw

Actually, it is pretty factual that in low-speed urban areas, a significant portion (if not the majority) of cyclist deaths result from cyclists going under the wheels of turning HGVs.

Yes, perhaps some deaths are caused by cyclists undertaking turning trucks/lorries, but they can also result from driver inattention.

sauerwald

John - I believe that the issue that they have in London is that the far left (slow) lane is reserved for busses and bicycles on many streets, trucks making left turns are turning across this lane, and they have a much larger incidence of what here would be right hooks, caused by the fact that the road infrastructure is designed to have left turns happening from other than the leftmost lane. The issue is with infrastructure where lane choice goes by vehicle type rather than destination. In many parts of Europe, there is a requirement that the space between the wheels of trucks have a gate across it, so that it is harder for a right hook to result in cyclists and pedestrians being swept in front of the rear wheels of the truck.

One interesting thing is the solution that the French applied to this - there is a ban on trucks in Paris during the day time, all large trucks making deliveries into the city must do so late night and early morning - which has resulted in a reduction in congestion as well as fewer collisions involving trucks.

John Forester

What's the problem? Cyclists so ignorant that they ride up alongside a vehicle that may turn across their path. Back in 1976 I was writing for American cyclists "Never ride up on the right-hand side of a vehicle that can, or may, turn right." The bus lanes that I have seen in America are labelled for buses and right-turning vehicles; if the European law is that bus lanes are exclusively for buses and bicycles and that right-turning vehicles in Europe or left-turning vehicles in Britain must make their turns entirely from without the bus lane, then those nations are violating basic principles of traffic, just as, in America, Oregon does with respect to bike lanes. Well, if society's policy is to violate basic principles of traffic, then some road users are going to suffer in collisions.

B. Carfree

That would be an unpleasant change. Right now, I can enjoy riding between 3:00 A.M. and 6:00 A.M. (Drunks have landed and aggressive sober folks haven't gotten up yet). If the trucks were to fill that nice, quiet space, then I would never have a peaceful ride.

citycyclists

I'm new to this forum. And I can't believe how offensive and downright wrong just about everything you say in this statement is, John.

Yup, don't cycle up the inside of HGVs or white vans. But frankly, the volumes of people on bikes in London and the massive increase in vans and light truck traffic means that the dynamic that you so blithely define as 'a basic principle of traffic' simply isn't the reality of what's happening on London's roads these days. Sorry but you are utterly wrong. And, frankly, your reference to 'ignorance' is deeply offensive.

I'd also add that the concept of 'principles of traffic' is being blurred and bicycle traffic is very definitely adopting different 'principles' to non-bicycle traffic. As the number of people cycling increases, the two streams of 'traffic' are bifurcating in terms of their behaviour and expectations of the road. A one-size-fits-all (motor) vehicular approach to cycle traffic simply isn't relevant any longer.

babybat

Think about what you've just written. It's not 'society's' policy to violate traffic safety principles. It's road designers, not road users, who have chosen to plan roads that are fundamentally unsafe. And it's not 'road users suffering in collisions' as you blithely put it.

It's people being crushed to death by lorries.

And you're ok with that because you think it proves your point?

I-Like-To-Bike

Translation: Buy John Forester's books to read the only approved/correct/standard version of detailed information about the processes and causes of car-bike collisions. The only approved bicycle safety program is one blessed by John Forester and teaches exclusively Forester derived "information."

Suitonbike

I am also new to this forum but felt I had to challenge John Forester's offensive remarks.

We have a similar character over here, whom I believe you know, John Franklin. It seems to be that your, and his, principle claim to fame is writing books about "vehicular" cycling. I am not sure I can see what other qualifications you have to hold such opinions.

Your attempt to place the blame on a victim for their misfortune is offensive in teh extreme, and utterly unjustified. In fact only a minority of cycle/HGV accidents arise due to errors on the cyclist's part - you should look at the reports on a number of infamous cases in London such as the death of Eilidh Cairns as the hands of Joao Lopes, who was driving without the spectacle he was required to wear as a condition of holding his licence. He was finally convicted of killing a pededstrian when again he drove without his glasses. Or Caitriona Patel, mown down by Dennis Putz, a serial dangerous driver who was still drunk from the night before and talking ona handheld mobile phone as he committed his act. Even where the cyclist contributes to their own misfortune, it is crass and cruel to pin the blame on them. Our roads were not built for such vehicles and cyclists and pedestrians have every bit as much right to be on the roads and should be given proper protection from large trucks.

As the son of an eminent novelist, I trust you know the work of another eminent author, Harriet Beecher Stowe, and her character "Uncle Tom". This has some resonance here - your theories are derived from a totally auto-industry view point - you have no right to be on the road on a bicycle unless you can mix with the big boys, adopt the lane like a car, ride at the speed of a car, accelerate like a car, accept the conditions as they are.

You are out of touch. All over the world, people are coming to realise that this is an insane way to behave. It is not that cars are evil or that they should be banned or abolished, but they certainly should be put back in their box. Changes to the way we design and use our roads are essential to achieve that.

christhebull

What they do in the UK is end the bus lane before junctions where any meaningful amount of traffic might turn left, and mark the lane as a left turn lane (while allowing bus lane users to continue in that lane onto any bus lane on the opposite side of the junction). Some bus lanes run between a left turn lane and other through lanes. Some junctions force all traffic to turn left so that only buses and other exempted traffic may continue.

Well, you would love riding in London at night because lorries are banned from many streets during the night, Saturday afternoons, and Sundays. I do however understand that most people would be in bed at that time, and that most office workers who cycle to work would be commuting between 7 and 9 am, which is when lorries are going to be making morning deliveries! I do not think having restrictions that mandate that the largest vehicles may only use the roads when they are already at their busiest is a road safety achievement. It encourages lorry drivers to ignore loading restrictions that apply during the daytime, and increases congestion by using the road space in an uneconomical manner (it would be like a "pumped storage" hydroelectric plant doing the pumping when everyone was using their toasters at breakfast time).

It is worth pointing out that The Times actually held a workshop (which I attended) at the Look Mum No Hands cafe in London, where anybody who attended could have provided feedback on their 8 manifesto points and suggested areas the Cyclesafe campaign may wish to focus on. If anybody wasn't able to attend they could have used the Twitter hashtag #streettalks . Because Mr Forester seems so concerned about cyclists throwing themselves under HGVs, maybe, if he was a bit more familiar with cycling in London, he could have suggested reversing the cuts to the CVEU (Commercial Vehicle Education Unit) so that lorry drivers are taught about how to take avoiding action against these "cads on casters", such as not driving into a cyclist straight in front of you whilst hungover, after already being jailed twice for driving offences. The unfortunate truth is that even the most experienced cyclists are being killed.

John Forester

This reply concerns not only the above post, but one a little earlier by another who claims to be deeply offended by my position. Both of these statements state that the cyclists they represent have chosen to disobey the principles of traffic that allow traffic to move in reasonable safety. These authors are offended when I point out that, in the particular types of collision discussed, British left hook car-bike collisions, those who choose to disobey the traffic principles are suffering the collisions so caused.

The second author introduces specific collisions, those of Lopes and Putz, with descriptions of some of the truckers' failings, but without any information as to whether these are the type of collision being discussed. If they happen to be of that type, then I point out that actions contrary to traffic principles make driving difficult for all and, of course, the increase in difficulty is particularly relevant in cases that also involve other failings.

I also argued that it is society that permits these situations, to which one author claimed that it is not society but road designers who produce bad designs. I doubt that road designers would be permitted by society, which employs them and pays the bills, if they disobeyed what society wants. Furthermore, it appears to be clear, from the arguments presented herein, that some British cyclists have chosen to disobey the traffic principles because they like the design that violates those traffic principles.

Furthermore, the description of vehicular cycling as presenting the auto-industry view point, and able to be done only by persons with the speed and acceleration characteristics of motor vehicles is entirely inaccurate. Vehicular cycling was formally presented (I did not invent it, just presented it in formal manner) in order to prevent the American highway establishment (the auto industry never had anything to do with this) from restricting cyclists to only the edge of the roadway or, wherever possible, off the roadway altogether. In short, it has always opposed the motoring society's view of cycling as something to be repressed.

rekmeyata

I always thought that 35mph in a residential is too high, I would be a huge advocate of 20mph limits in residential and school zones.

I disagree with the government appointing a cycling commissioner due to the added tax expense. We have enough commissioner and czar type of crap going on as it is.

degnaw

Huh, was there a thread on cyclechat or something pointing here?

I think their point was that left-hook (or right-hook in RHD countries) is not necessarily the fault of the cyclist - I for one have been right hooked by an 18-wheeler that only partially passed me and immediately started turning. Had it been in a crowded urban area without easy escape opportunities, I could have been in considerable danger. EVEN IF an unaware cyclist purposefully pulled up on the inside of a truck, you can't reasonably say that he/she deserved to get run over for "disobey[ing] the traffic principles" that cars and trucks adhere to.

Also, UK cycling is probably WAY more VC-based than the US, considering most lanes are much narrower and roads are filled with pinch points.

I-Like-To-Bike

Especially when these so-called "traffic principles" are only John Forester constructs. Believe it or don't, Mr. Forester, but no one is required to "obey" your Commandments.

John Forester

The traffic principles to which I refer are those used by traffic engineers in their normal work. It is not my concern that ILTB fails to recognize standard traffic-engineering principles.

sudo bike

3 new posters in one thread? Either there is something making this really hot aside from the usual banter, or I smell a few dirty sockpuppets.

chasm54

I commuted by bike in London for many years starting in 1980, when cycle commuters were a much rarer species than they are now. I no longer live in London but do still ride there occasionally as a visitor.

What John Forrester says in this thread may be lacking in nuance, but has a lot of merit. I do frequently see cyclists (in London and elsewhere) riding up on the inside of queues of traffic at junctions, often squeezing their way through very narrow gaps between trucks, buses etc. and the kerb. The drivers of these vehicles cannot possibly see them. Nor is it unusual for me to see riders stationing themselves on the inside of such vehicles at red lights, with the clear risk that when the lights change, the bus/truck will turn left into them.

Obviously I'd like to see the infrastructure redesigned to be more cyclist-friendly, and I certainly do not blame cyclists for the majority of collisions. I was hit myself recently by a car whose driver drove across me when I was established on a roundabout and clearly had right of way. But until the happy day when our grandchildren are not sharing the road with vehicles 200 times their weight, educating cyclists, as well as drivers, about how to keep cyclists safe, is going to be an important and currently neglected part of the picture.

Downfader

Hi there, another UK cyclist here, too.

I think I should point out that a number of us have seen this forum post, and Forester's replies (which I will get to in a moment), through twitter. The UK is going through a sea-change in attitudes towards cycling and slowly it is being adopted as a means of transport, fitness and even sport. We have struggled over the years to get people like the Government and local authorities to listen to us. Some basics on UK cycling are that:

- cyclists account for just 2% of all traffic
- yet there are 13 million cyclists
- "vehicular cycling" has been actively taught in schools on a number of different levels over the years, now through the Bikeability scheme (which is Franklin based). Before Bikeability it was taught under the "Cycling proficiency" scheme - however standards and coverage were incohesive and sporadic - during the late 1990s many local authorties started to cut back on such schemes and cycling began to suffer (in many of our experiences)

Whilst I accept that much of what Forester says is indeed valid to cycling around the world there are caveats in the vehicular approach
1. you need to know and understand the causality of collisions in any given area
2. you need to understand the way different roads are engineered and used
3. you need to understand that vehicular cycling will not always protect you when someone else does something so vastly dangerous and unpredictable
4. much risk CAN be engineered out of the equation, and it is better to avoid risk than to have to utilise defensive mechanisms and proceedures...

...an analogy being that a bullet proof vest will not stop every bullet or under relenting fire - the UK situation is that HGVs and other large truck like vehicles represent just around 5% of all traffic - yet they dominate the death statistics with nearly 15-20% of all cyclist deaths a year having involved these larger vehicles.

As per point 1. the data released from the courts and the police seems to suggest that (despite lenient sentences, even some drivers getting off scot-free) in the main the cyclists were not at fault. In Dan Cox's case the HGV illegally entered the ASL box (a point at traffic lights designed to make cyclists visible to traffic behind, sometimes to give them a small head start when the green lights up), had no mirrors and had his indicators/signals flashing to show he intended to turn right - when in fact he ended up turning left and over Mr Cox. Patel, driven over from behind by a drunk. Cairns, driven over from behind by a man who was legally obligated to wear his spectacles/glasses and didnt. Andrews, a Scottish vehicular cyclist who was sideswiped by a large vehicle into the back of a parked car, seemingly because the driver tried to beat him past it and didnt account for the lack of space on the road.... point 3.

As per point 2. the majority of UK roads - residential, urban, are 30mph limit. Many school roads have a 20mph limit. The vast majority of UK roads are mixed - cyclists share with drivers, the exception being motorways which are motor traffic only.

Point 4. If we look at countries where there are very low casualty and death rates (the Netherlands being the prime example) we see that they utilise different methods of road engineering to that used in the UK (and many parts of the USA). Cyclists have their own lanes in cities, segregated light sequences that let cyclists set off before motor traffic in tricky areas. Cycle lanes and paths have priority over motor traffic at side roads allowing momentum. In many narrower roads the speed limit is reduced to 30kph (about 18mph) or less - cyclists can then keep up with the flow of traffic and should anything untoward happen there is less likelyhood of physical damage.

Point 4 also leads to more cycling. The vehicular approach deters an older generation from cycling - as I myself grow older my average speed on my work commute by bicycle is slowly dropping. Another example is shopping by bicycle - it is harder to maintain acceleration with loaded panniers. In those safer countries people feel safer because of the road layout. People actively ride with their children to school, to work and the shops. The benefit of this is not only more cycling but a fitter population, less traffic congestion, less air pollution, less noise, lower motor insurance, less tax money that has to be paid to fix the damage to bodies and road surface alike.

...a little about myself. I am a vehicular cyclist myself, I was trained around my 12th year whilst at school by another vehicular cyclist on the school cycling proficiency scheme. Much of what he, just a teacher at the school, taught me has stood me well. However it didnt stop myself being hit in 2008 (despite my training and experience at that point, despite the high visibility clothing; the bright lights still switched on my bike; the fact it was technically daytime; the fact I had right of way and no chance to avoid his car..) A friend of mine has also trained to school kids on bikes. I am a blogger and youtuber sometimes covering cycling issues. I have over 20 years cycling experience

When you start to look at the research, the statistics, you start to build up a picture of where true risks lay. Some of the others who have commented here are also looking at this information indepth (Citycyclists for one is a very well respect blogger and campaigner here in the UK and knows a heck of a lot more on this subject than I, Christhebull and Suitonbike are active on twitter and just as involved and respected in cycling advocacy). So for Forester to suggest that people have thrown themselves under the wheels is alarming, as well as technically wrong.

The last, and most valid point to make is this: for all the vehicular training and encouragement - has it increased cyclist numbers of cycling as a percentage of traffic. For the UK its made little difference. We've been held at around 2% for over 20 years....

I-Like-To-Bike

Bicyclists ride on streets and in traffic conditions as they exist. Bicyclists are not required to "obey" so-called "traffic principles" that may or may not be found in traffic engineers' guidebooks and may have little or no relevance to the existing riding environment that the cyclist finds himself.

John Forester

You are claiming that traffic engineers must be wrong because traffic does not operate in accordance with their principles. If this were so, then the highway system would not operate as well as it does, and, also, there would be great forces generated to change the design principles so that the conformed to reality. That's how engineering technology operates; it has to be grounded in reality.

If you desire to put some credibility into your carping criticism, then you have to show either that the principles expressed in vehicular cycling are not standard traffic-engineering principles, or else that traffic operations do not largely conform to those standard traffic-engineering principles. In short, provide reasons for your carping criticism or shut up.

I-Like-To-Bike

I claim what I claim, not what you re-interpret to fit the Forester Brand One-Truth Reality Distortion Machine.

Highway engineers and their unspecified "design principles" are used to build/design roads.

Bicyclists ride on widely different roads in an often constantly changing traffic environment , they are not building roads nor designing them. Alleged Traffic Design Principles are irrelevant.

Forester's disparagement of dead cyclists who didn't "obey" Forester Brand One Right Way of Bicycling has reached a new height (or is that a new low) of despicable hysteria in this thread.

John Forester

The following is a quotation from the Arizona Dept. of Transportation, published at:
https://www.azdot.gov/highways/traffic/Trafeg.asp

"Traffic engineering is that phase of engineering which deals with the planning, geometric design and traffic operations of roads, streets, and highways, their networks, terminals, abutting lands and relationships with other modes of transportation for the achievement of safe, efficient, and convenient movement of persons and goods."

ILTB claims that this technology is irrelevant to the "safe, efficient, and convenient movement of persons". I think it reasonable to conclude that ILTB's claim is rather outside of the realm of reason.