Interview with John Forester (author of "Effective Cycling")

[fiamme red]

Long but well worth reading: https://medium.com/@peterflax/a-sund...r-f997e053d0db.

[AngryScientist]

thanks for this.

always looking for good train reading.

[fiamme red]

From a comment on the article by Frank Krygowski:

As I see it, bicyclists in 2019 have two choices:

A) They can learn the easy techniques that allow safe and pleasant cycling on the roads we have now. (As Forester first pointed out, that’s mostly just following normal rules of the road, including not riding in the gutter, plus some details like communicating with motorists.) I suggest starting with Cycling Savvy information online, then through one of their courses. https://cyclingsavvy.org/ Or perhaps by studying Street Smarts by John Allen.

B) They can wait for a fairyland to be built in which every street going to every destination has a special path for them, painted green, with their own traffic light at every intersection and no cars ever crossing their path unexpectedly.

Until that fairyland is built, the bicyclists lured onto sidepaths are going to need extra luck and skills to avoid the complication and hazards added by such paths. And to get anywhere practical, they’re still going to need to know how to ride on a normal street or road!

Personally, I’m VERY glad I made choice (A) long, long ago.

[benb]

That's a great comment I look forward to reading this.

Good context.. I just got a Tweet from one of the bicycle lane nazi organizations in Boston celebrating getting a change to one of their bike lanes in Boston.

The stupid bike lane they put up went about 100 yards up a highway onramp and then forced all the cyclists to cross across the highway onramp. The lane was dangerous as hell. So now they're celebrating their protests to get the highway onramp narrowed for the cars.

Well the Effective cyclist would have just signaled left and merged in with the cars on the surface street 1/4 mile prior and never really had to deal with crossing any car traffic at all.

It has gotten to the point it's facepalms all the way down with the bike lane crowd.

[XXtwindad]

I'm curious about your opinions, Fiamme. You generally post the articles but offer little insight into your own thinking...

[benb]

This is a fairly important article to read for cyclists.

There's a lot of history in there that seems mostly lost. It's been quite a long time since I read his book and I don't think all of this history is explained in the book.

Some of the history in the article explains where his book came from.

This part is kind of hilarious:

Forester was at first reluctant to participate in an interview because he’s felt burned in the past — by writers who ultimately wanted to take aim at his positions or character. In the end, he agreed to this interview after I offered to publish it as a long-form Q&A, without involving other sources or a creating narrative beyond our conversation.

The author pretty much does exactly this in the article.. really pressing him about how the author thinks bike paths are the safest thing going and confusing his comfort for safety the whole time.

[bikinchris]

I agree with Forester's teaching and teach his principals. People should be aware that side paths are often more dangerous than riding on the road. However, his attitude is all or nothing. That was the source of his falling out with the League of American Bicyclists. He wanted them to teach all 24 hours of Effective Cycling or nothing. When the League brought the class down to a simpler "just the basics" 9 hour course, he wanted nothing to do with them.

[fiamme red]

Originally Posted by XXtwindad

I'm curious about your opinions, Fiamme. You generally post the articles but offer little insight into your own thinking...

I just reread Effective Cycling, the edition from the early 1980's (certainly not the most attractive book visually). I don't agree with some of Forester's opinions, e.g., that rear reflectors are sufficient at night, or that cyclists should be allowed on all roads including high-speed freeways (if I understand Forester correctly). But I agree with his main thesis, that cyclists fare best when they behave like drivers of vehicles, not like pedestrians.

Forester is a man who is polarizing, to say the least. He can be uncompromising and abrasive. He is probably Public Enemy #1 for bicycle advocates today, who claim that he set back cycling in this country by 30 years. These advocates believe that bicycles and cars should be physically segregated wherever possible, and that cyclists should behave and be treated like pedestrians on two wheels.

In my opinion, the bicycle advocates base their arguments on emotion (e.g., appealing to new cyclists whose greatest fear in an urban setting is getting hit from behind), while Forester for the most part bases his arguments on logic.

[XXtwindad]

Originally Posted by fiamme red

I just reread Effective Cycling, the edition from the early 1980's (certainly not the most attractive book visually). I don't agree with some of Forester's opinions, e.g., that rear reflectors are sufficient at night, or that cyclists should be allowed on all roads including high-speed freeways (if I understand Forester correctly). But I agree with his main thesis, that cyclists fare best when they behave like drivers of vehicles, not like pedestrians.

Forester is a man who is polarizing, to say the least. He can be uncompromising and abrasive. He is probably Public Enemy #1 for bicycle advocates today, who claim that he set back cycling in this country by 30 years. These advocates believe that bicycles and cars should be physically segregated wherever possible, and that cyclists should behave and be treated like pedestrians on two wheels.

In my opinion, the bicycle advocates base their arguments on emotion (e.g., appealing to new cyclists whose greatest fear in an urban setting is getting hit from behind), while Forester for the most part bases his arguments on logic.

Thanks for that. Very edifying and well written. Looking forward to reading more of your posts.

[fiamme red]

Streetsblog especially demonizes Forester:

A dinosaur still roams the earth: John Forester discusses his discredited anti-bikeway credo

"Recent research has confirmed that streets with bikeways are safer, and that most people prefer cycling in dedicated lanes, so Forester’s ideology has pretty much been relegated to the dustbin of history. But think of all the American lives lost since the 1970s due to bike crashes and sedentary lifestyles, in no small part due to Forester’s wrongheaded insistence that bikeways are unsafe."

[mt2u77]

I agree with many of Forester’s principals, but I’ll say this about riding in traffic in 2019— there are too many drivers who are completely oblivious to anything around them. The number of rear end fender benders I drive/ bike past daily, well the consequences are higher if that’s a bike. If they’ll rear end a school bus or drive thru red lights without even knowing they’re in an intersection, surely a bicycle with a little blinky light isn’t going to slow them down. I wish I could blame it all on phones, but it’s more than that— opioids, alcohol, street racers, and the great lottery of the masses of generally careless distracted drivers. There are certain roads or areas where the combination of speed, volume, and opportunity make it simply unsafe to be present on a bicycle. There needs to be a balance. Off-road paths, bike lanes, and sensible street riding on appropriate roads all have their place.

[benb]

Yah he's definitely bad at getting his point across without seeming patronizing & offensive.

He's generally right though.

Sometimes the "comfort vs safety" stuff is mind boggling. I get it that a neophyte urban rider will feel more comfortable but it's really crazy how some of advocates who are heavily involved in cycling can't grasp that some of their crazy bike path/lane setups are super dangerous and that interactions at intersections are the real source of danger as opposed to getting hit from behind on a straight section of road with no intersections.

There's a stretch of the Cape Cod railway that blows my mind that always reminds me of this. Stay on the path and you have to cross about 10 blind driveways (due to hedges) in 1/4 mile where the driveways are explicitly given the right of way by signage. Get on the road 10 feet away and you have the right of way over the driveways and sail right through, and you can actually see who is coming out of the driveways well in advance.

Drivers might be playing with cell phones more but I don't think things are actually that worse. Accident #s are not going up in a way that matches our fears. All the stuff like alcohol & drugs while driving used to be worse. Guys like Forester are old enough to remember when drivers could drive down the road sloshed and not even worry about getting a DUI. Cars used to be a lot more dangerous... stuff like stopping distances. Cars stop incredibly well now compared to the past.

[fiamme red]

Originally Posted by benb

Drivers might be playing with cell phones more but I don't think things are actually that worse. Accident #s are not going up in a way that matches our fears. All the stuff like alcohol & drugs while driving used to be worse. Guys like Forester are old enough to remember when drivers could drive down the road sloshed and not even worry about getting a DUI. Cars used to be a lot more dangerous... stuff like stopping distances. Cars stop incredibly well now compared to the past.

I agree. I don't have the data in front of me but this is from the interview:

PF: I was surprised when looked up data that in the early 1970s more cyclists were killed by cars than anything happening now. Over 1,000 riders a year were killed in that era so obviously there were lots of crashes.

JF: Oh yes.

This influx of young adults plus well-to-do adults cyclists worried motorists so much that here in Southern California, the Highway Patrol and the Southern California Auto Club took action to restrict cyclists as much as they politically could — to keep them out of the way, off the road if they could, on sidepaths, but at the edge of the road if nothing else...

And there are many more cyclists now than there were back in the early '70's.

[XXtwindad]

Originally Posted by benb

Yah he's definitely bad at getting his point across without seeming patronizing & offensive.

He's generally right though.

Sometimes the "comfort vs safety" stuff is mind boggling. I get it that a neophyte urban rider will feel more comfortable but it's really crazy how some of advocates who are heavily involved in cycling can't grasp that some of their crazy bike path/lane setups are super dangerous and that interactions at intersections are the real source of danger as opposed to getting hit from behind on a straight section of road with no intersections.

There's a stretch of the Cape Cod railway that blows my mind that always reminds me of this. Stay on the path and you have to cross about 10 blind driveways (due to hedges) in 1/4 mile where the driveways are explicitly given the right of way by signage. Get on the road 10 feet away and you have the right of way over the driveways and sail right through, and you can actually see who is coming out of the driveways well in advance.

Drivers might be playing with cell phones more but I don't think things are actually that worse. Accident #s are not going up in a way that matches our fears. All the stuff like alcohol & drugs while driving used to be worse. Guys like Forester are old enough to remember when drivers could drive down the road sloshed and not even worry about getting a DUI. Cars used to be a lot more dangerous... stuff like stopping distances. Cars stop incredibly well now compared to the past.

This seems like an inherent contradiction.

[benb]

Originally Posted by XXtwindad

This seems like an inherent contradiction.

My point is we traded cell phones for less DUI and a lot of other things that were worse.

The actual accident #s are not dramatically worse than they were.

Cars that take 1/2 the distance to stop that they used to help a lot. Stuff like that.

Would it be better if we had less DUI, less drugs, better/safer cars, and no cellphones? Absolutely! Cellphone use in cars is very bad. But the overall picture is not the worst it's ever been.

There's so much more media coverage of cyclists getting hit now too.. easy to have the perception it's worse now. Back in the day you wouldn't even find out someone got hit, so you could have a false perception no one was getting hit.