mconlonx

For thoughtful consideration and measured debate...

Here’s what happened when one city rejected vehicular cycling
BY TOM BABIN ON JUNE 15, 2016 IN CITIES

In the 1970s, an American named John Forester came up with an idea for keeping cyclists safe while riding on busy roads. The idea was that bicycles should be piloted, and be treated, like motor vehicles — riding alongside moving cars, using hand signals and crossing traffic for left-hand turns. The idea, which he called vehicular cycling, caught on, and it soon became the dominant theory of bicycle transportation in North America.

Today, that idea has been almost universally rejected. Cities everywhere are scrambling to do something Forester argued against for generations: building bike lanes separated from cars.

But here’s a thought experiment: What if Forester’s ideas had never caught on? What if, 40 years ago, the idea that all people on bikes should be strong and confident enough to mingle with cars was rejected, and today’s ideas of building safe, bike-specific infrastructure had been embraced back then? What would North American cities look like?

Here’s one idea: They’d look like Montreal.

enigmaT120

I think this article must have come right after the above one:


Vehicular cycling is dead, just don?t bury the body yet ? Shifter


VC is the only way for me to get around in my rural county on a bike. We have one separated bike path going from Monmouth to Salem. I don't use it because I'm already on a bus by that point; my riding is beyond Monmouth. The VC movement may be dead according to these articles, but like the one I linked to pointed out, you still have to do it in lots of places if you want to ride a bike at all.

mconlonx

This, and it echoes my rural/urban commute. However I have ridden in cities with dedicated cycling infrastructure and appreciated it. One of the points of the article is that VC set back efforts for dedicated cycling infrastructure, however, so it could very well be that one of the reasons we both still have to CV even in rural areas is because of that set back. Complete Streets legislation could very well have mitigated this...

genec

Amazing... you clearly missed the premise offered in the OP...

If 40 years ago, it was determined that dedicated cycling infrastructure should be build and be as complete as possible... likely there would be a lot more places where you don't have to ride VC... maybe even your example.

For all we know, the US may have been made to look more like Copenhagen... which around 40 years ago, rejected the notion that VC was the answer.

jon c. 

I think the entire article is based on flimsy evidence and sketchy history. Gives John Forester way too much credit and grossly inflates the impact of his theories. The idea that no one was building bike lanes in the 70s because everyone agreed that VC was the way to go is just not true.

I-Like-To-Bike

Takes a huge leap of faith to think that many (if any) communities anywhere ever even considered the notion of Vehicular Cycling as promoted by John Forester and his acolytes, as an answer to anything, let alone "rejected" it.

genec

Well Dallas had a cycling coordinator that for years squelched any bike infrastructure due to his belief that VC was "good enough."

And I suspect that any politician that caught wind of Forester and his followers simply took it as a notion to avoid funding bicycle projects that simply were "not needed..."

It doesn't take a huge leap of faith to simply nod and then do nothing...

genec

No doubt other reasons not to spend public monies also came into play... new stadiums, new developments and more roads were probably much higher on the list of things to do for a public that generally drives...

mconlonx

I don't think it helped that non-cycling-advocacy-anti-bike-infrastructure-forces found a political ally within the cycling advocate community, where bike infrastructure is concerned...

andr0id

I just want a painted bike lane with a double stripe on major roads and thoroughfares.

Sorry, but dedicated infrastructure has too many problems to be a good solution.

1) Increases the belief among drivers that bicycles DON'T belong on the road with them. Why aren't you cycling on that bike path where you belong???

2) Dedicate paths only go where the politicians want them to go, not where I want to go today.

3) Dedicated paths force the cyclists to stop at every damn cross street when alongside a major thoroughfare.

4) Dedicated paths eventually become saturated with dogs, cats, baby strollers, walkers, joggers and clueless cyclists swerving all over the path with **** stuffed in their ears, oblivious to the world and preventing anyone that is riding at a reasonable pace with a destination in mind from getting there in any reasonable amount of time.

I-Like-To-Bike

You are correct, there was that one joker in Dallas who swallowed the entire jug of Forester VC Kool -Aid and mucked over Dallas bicyclists for years under its influence.

BTW, does anyone have any insight on whether the Cycling Savvy folks in Orlando (a politer version of Foresterism) have any actual influence on bicycling conditions in that city or anywhere else?

genec

The interesting contrast is Fort Worth, which has a mayor that is a cyclist... The city has been laying down a fair amount of bike lane, and has also installed some nice bike paths, the latter resulting in a destination restaurant/bike shop at the terminus of one of the bike paths. There are also some nice connections to other restaurants near downtown. Now granted, Fort Worth is no Davis CA, but for "cowtown" they have actually done a nice job on recreational bike paths.

Transportation is another matter... so, in the land of big trucks and old brick streets... transportation cycling has a long way to go.

Stadjer

Did they really? I'm not too familiar with Copenhagen, but as I understand it all streets are accessible for bikes and a lot of them have no bike lanes because they are too narrow. Often those are also too narrow to pass a bike in a car without beeing at least invited to by the cyclist. So in the majority of the streets (not the majority of miles probably because these are mostly little streets), it is VC there.

With cycling in numbers like there, the perspective changes. Imo the general rule is in fact VC, and the exception is the main roads with (physically) seperated cycling lanes. These roads with cycle lanes are actually not cycling infrastructure but car infrastructure, because this infrastructure allows cars to speed up beyond the reach of their fellow road users. Without it they would have to adapt their speed to the slower road users, because those can't go faster.

Don't get me wrong, I'm in favour of cycle lanes in America. But when those cause a significant increase in cycling cities will change to a VC environment where the roads with bikelanes will be appreciated by the motorists for beeing faster.

B. Carfree

The only real influences of John Forester that I recall were in influencing the writing of the vehicle code for California (copied extensively) that outlined that cyclists need not cringe in the gutter on roadways where that would invite dangerous passing by motorists (Okay, it was worded a bit differently.) and in articulating to new cyclists how to ride like the "club riders" from which he was spawned. These contributions likely forestalled the end of the second bike boom in America, but probably not by much (1974 is still the biggest year in American history for bike unit sales).

The segregationist folks have now held sway for nearly twenty years. We're still looking at national bike commuter numbers of 0.6%. New York City, which spent boatloads to implement segregation under Bloomberg, has about 1.5 times the national average, not exactly a glowing success, especially when compared with Davis of the 1970's/early 1980's where bike trips outnumbered car trips without much of any infrastructure (a handful of bike lanes and one bike path).

These fights over the supposedly powerful VC bogeyman are lame. Few enough people ever heard of VC until the rise of the segregationists, who needed a bad guy. Sure, Forester's personality makes him a great bad guy, but he really didn't affect history much. Had he never existed, all we would have seen is a slightly, probably unnoticeable, quicker decline of cycling in the 1980's and vehicle codes that make it near-impossible to bike tour or ride any real distances.

I-Like-To-Bike

Are there any sources or references about John Forester's alleged influence on the writing of the vehicle code for California, other than history as written by John Forester, or by his acolytes who quote/paraphrase Forester's version of "history"?

mr_bill

SCR-47 STATEWIDE BICYCLE COMMITTEE FINAL REPORT FEBRUARY 10, 1975

An interesting thought experiment is to wonder what might have happened to the US without the spread of Far Right as Practical or FRAP with exceptions, and Mandatory Bike Lane laws.

Oh wait, we don't have to do that as a thought experiment, since there are states that either never adopted or repealed such traffic laws.

Wonder what we can learn from them?

(BTW, some "discussion" from a dozen years ago at Chainguard.)

-mr. bill

I-Like-To-Bike

Thanks for the references. The first notes that John Forester was one of the nine Advisors on the SCR-47 Statewide
Bicycle Committee, in addition to at least a hundred representatives from cycling groups, safety organizations, Legal, Legislative and Law Enforcement Groups, planners and engineers. It can be assumed he presented his views to the committee when they were formulating recommendations to the California Legislature pertaining to bicycle operation issues of Statewide significance.
I did not notice reference to any recommendations that are attributable specifically to John Forester's influence or arguments, or that Forester influenced the recommendations and subsequent Vehicle Code any more or less than anybody else on the Committee.

John Forester acolytes are welcome to believe whatever they read in the self serving versions of bicycling "history" written by John Forester on his Web Sites or in his books.

The reference to Dr. John Scott's participation in the process is interesting and relevant and it is not hard to believe that he personally could have had far more influence in the formulation of the Committee's recommendations than Forester ever could. I had a friendly email correspondence with him for several years before his untimely murder by a person whom he had assisted. Dr. Scott was a very intelligent and articulate advocate for bicycling activities and could be charming even when he was taking/making provocative positions on various issues. This method of friendly persuasion was something totally foreign then and now to John Forester.

hotbike

An Article appeared today:
Lessons from 1890s bike advocates - Houston Chronicle

genec

"to continue reading this story, you must be a subscriber of the Houston Chronicle."

mr_bill

From Houston Chronicle, to Houston Chronical, sans paywall....

-mr. bill

hotbike

Thanks, mr.bill, you saved my butt... It went straight to the article when I read it. IDK about this "paywall"...

jgadamski

The basic tenets of VC I find valid today: Be visible, be legal and be predictable. I found Effective Cycling an invaluable resource learning to ride my bike for transportation. That said, Forresters beliefs that ( as I understand) only riding on roads and highways are valued.. that trails, or any 'special treatment' like green boxes, dedicated or separated roadway,etc are somehow an impediment to the integrity of transportation cycling, I have big problems with. I see little out there, and little willingness to risk name or finances teaching road safety 101.

Whynot1999

I really don't get it when people get all gushy over the "vc movement". It's not a movement- it's a necessity! It's my last resort. Who would actually want to ride on the side (law in texas) of a busy 35mph road rather than a bike path with traffic going the same speed as you? Or even in the center? The road just gets congested and the cyclist get stressed out, frantically peddling to try and match the speed of the vehicles near them.
"Vehicular cycling" is the ultimate "el camino" of bike infrastructure- it functions well for neither cars or bikes. The cities with the most commuting cyclists and fewest fatalities (by percentage) are ones that separate traffic.
For example- Ever known anyone who rides car-free using a bike in Dallas, Texas? Yeah me neither, and we can all thank "vehicular cycling" for justifying Dallas' bike coordinator from doing anything but ripping out a few sharrows in his 10+ years with the gig (https://www.dallasobserver.com/news/dallas-former-bike-czar-tells-newbie-riders-to-go-play-in-traffic-6405871).
Maybe Dallas isn't really the dream of "vehicular cycling", but I think the oil industry down here really loved the idea of a bike coordinator who didn't really want to change a whole lot, which is why he kept his job for so long.

hotbike

Okay, here's some video from yesterday's ride. Are these cars going too fast? Am I supposed to take the Lane?

grayEZrider

Within a few more years (maybe after your 2nd speeding ticket- or failure to leave the required three foot clearance when passing a bike?) you'll get a ticket in the mail because the (existing Garmin function) speed limit tracker relayed the 40 mph zip through the 15 mph school zone the car did- or flagged the fact the three foot clearance law was violated (again, existing a/v functions at work, with full human control still). Cell phone use could be blocked or even car functions reduced or shutdown for reckless or erratic driving. Fully (automatic/auto control??) will end up only on taxis and places where payroll for a human driver can be eliminated. People in this country will not willingly buy cars they can't operate. They will be willing to accept (maybe not eagerly!) technology which can be adapted to seriously improve road safety for everyone. The current tech to do those things and a lot more is already in use (cheaply) and only needs to be put in the right direction. Much cheaper and far quicker than infrastructure changes.