Originally Posted by
brianinc-ville
here's what I think:
Hurst wants to teach you to ride like a bike messenger. He's ultimately a lot like Forester: he thinks the way the roads are now is the way they ought to be, and he's not really interested in people who don't identify themselves as cyclists. Status quo.
Your review is really perplexing to me because I got almost the opposite out of it.
I found he went into great detail about two main types of urban riding, the vehicular style, where you act like a car, and invisible style, where you ride like no one can see you, and ultimately he advocates for a blending of these two styles. There was a lot of information about the hows and whys behind each style and how to use them to your advantage on the road, as well as when each style will work to your disadvantage.
The book went into great detail about how to start riding a bike, and the kinds of basic skills that are required to do so safely. It even has some suggestions about how one can start to develop those skills.
The biggest point he drives home again and again is that vigilance and conservative riding are the only things that will keep you alive on a bike when riding through any part of the USA; and that can't be overstated.
One of the conclusions one could come to after reading this book, is that to stay safe requires a lot of work, and to do so smoothly requires skills. So if you want to ride your bike in the United States, you have to WANT to ride your bike, and I think that really makes a statement about how our vehicular culture and bike culture clash here.
and as far as what genec says
Originally Posted by
genec
If we have any expectation of "mom" feeling comfortable riding a bike "out there," we're going to have to change "out there." The only places I have seen older folks comfortably riding were in places like Davis and Oulu Finland... which both have low speed limits and lots and lots of separated bike paths. A change like that in America will be a long time coming.
One of the places all people are comfortable on bikes is Japan. I've done quite a bit of riding in Tokyo, Kyoto, Aomori, and Sapporo, and one of the interesting things is that there is hardly any dedicated bicycle infrastructure anywhere. Bicycles are virtually lawless, other than you can't ride with an open umbrella, or headphones in your ears. I would see grandmothers with two small to medium sized children clinging to the bicycle as they pedaled along, in the street with traffic, and on sidewalks, and through alleyways. Bicycles are unanimously accepted by the vehicular population, and there is no fuss. One of the fun things about their traffic laws is that if a car and a bicycle collide the car is always responsible for the accident. Of course that wouldn't work here, because people in the US are short sighted and would just be riding their bikes into cars all the time to collect money for damages. But in Japan the culture understands the immense implications of a bicycle friendly society, and everyone respects that.
So I say all that just to point out that there are other ways to cultivate bike-able cities without having to invest in massive amounts of infrastructure.
I think the point that Hurst is trying to make in his book is that in the United States, as long as you're respecting pedestrians, and the fact that cars can kill you, the patient and vigilant bike rider is free to go wherever they please; and that if bicycle infrastructure reached a point where it became so prolific it was legally deemed the primary and/or mandatory route for bike riders, we would be losing a lot of the freedom that can currently be enjoyed by the vigilant rider.
Some of what we think is wrong with the world is merely the pain we feel by being attached to the different ideas we have in our heads about how things SHOULD be. If you bike like you expect nothing from anyone or anything, and can be ready to work around that, you find yourself on much more enjoyable rides.