Thursday, August 07, 2008

Effective Cycling

The text below was posted to the Chainguard Yahoo! Group. It is from Bicycle Transportation Engineer John Forester who wrote the book on Effective Cycling. If you're local, trustworthy and interested I'll loan my 15 year old copy.

If you don't know Mr Forester read this and meet him. If you do know him and have stong feelings against what he advocates - there are better forums than here to argue his points.

Enjoy.

--

- Inadvertent admission of cycling incompetence by John Forester -

In the Washington Post is a column discussing cyclocommuting in DC that was posted to two different transportation lists. The URL is just below this. I wrote a comment to both of those lists, and I send a copy to chainguard by this.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/25/AR2008072502929.html

The column by Moira E. McLaughlin in the Washington Post, 29 July 2008, amply illustrates all the defects in American bicycle transportation and in American bicycle transportation policy and practice that I have been describing for decades.

Excessive solicitude for cyclists: "I wonder when his "Be careful getting to work this morning" will turn into "Think you should find another way to get to work this morning?" It should not be a matter of being careful to avoid some undescribed dangers. Would anyone caution an adult motorist to be "careful when driving to work this morning"? Not unless, I suppose, that motorist was operating under the handicap of one of those prescription drugs marked with cautions against operating machinery. It is expected that any adult motorist in the habit of driving to work knows what he ought to do and is careful to operate properly. It is the same with cycling. I am sure that Moira is careful, but, on the basis of what she writes, I think that she operates without the skill that would make care beneficial.

One piece of evidence for this is the following: "In light of the apparent increase in ridership and the recent fatal accident, I have been thinking more about safe bike riding. The scariest things about the death of Alice Swanson are that she was on a street that is generally full of traffic -- that is, a place with a predictable flow of slow-moving cars -- and that the street has a marked bike lane. R Street is not what I would have thought of as a high-risk area."

This is strong evidence of Moira's ignorance because Alice Swanson got herself killed by trying to overtake on the right-hand side of a vehicle that was turning right. Avoiding such right-turning vehicles is almost the most elementary piece of proper cyclist behavior there is. And Moira furthers the indictment by then implying that this should not have occurred because "the street has a marked bike lane," when that is one of the predisposing causes of this dangerous cyclist behavior. Despite which, bike lanes are touted as enormously important cyclist safety measures.

Here's a bit more evidence: "So how does a biker navigate a busy, multiple-lane avenue like Independence, Connecticut or Wisconsin?" The supplied answer is: "Bike shops offer classes about D.C. bike laws (bikers are supposed to abide by the same traffic laws that apply to drivers), safety (wearing a helmet) and rider-to-rider etiquette." I suggest that it is highly likely that Moira has a motor-vehicle driving license; most adult American cyclists do, the prime exceptions being those whose license has been revoked and unlawful immigrants. Her suggestion that knowledge of the laws has much to do with the skill of driving a vehicle is rather as if handing a copy of the Uniform Vehicle Code to, say, a never-has-driven citizen of Manhattan Island (there are some) qualifies that person to drive a motor vehicle.

Here's some more evidence: "I also admit to riding on the sidewalk, which is illegal in some parts of the city. But I do that out of necessity. Even on a street with a bike lane, plenty of cars pull to the side of the road. Buses are especially hazardous, though the bus drivers on 14th Street NW seem to be aware of the cyclists in the bike lane. My options when a car pulls into a bike lane are few. (Drivers in the District are permitted in restricted lanes if they are loading or unloading people or turning right.) I can stop and risk getting run over by a biker coming up behind me. (I have done this and angered my fellow bikers.) I can swerve into traffic to go around the car. Or, I can jump onto the sidewalk for a few seconds to avoid the street all together. To me, this last option is the best." Out of necessity, Moira chooses the very dangerous method of cycling on the sidewalk? It is much safer to go around and overtake on the left-hand side of vehicles in the normal way, a way that is directed by the traffic laws on which Moira has just relied. Angering other cyclists by stopping behind a vehicle stopped in front of you, or was it moving right and hadn't yet stopped? Are they angered because they would overtake on the right-hand-side of that vehicle? All that I can say is that I have never been the target of this particular kind of anger. Or, "swerve into traffic to go around the car." Well, of course, swerving into a new line of traffic is damnably dangerous, one of the other very elementary instructions in safe cycling. Just look behind and negotiate a lane change, and things work swimmingly.

And here's some more evidence of unutterable incompetence: "I sometimes think that etiquette for urban bikers needs more emphasis. I am always surprised when another cyclist passes me without saying, "On your left." With parked cars on my right and traffic on my left, those three words can be crucial; I wouldn't want to swerve left to avoid a pothole, only to collide with a passing biker." Swerving to avoid a pothole? You deserve, as quite a few exasperated people frequently comment about such matters, you deserve to be smashed flat as a tribute to Darwin for improving the gene pool by eliminating the incompetent. Never swerve, unless it is to avoid an imminent great danger produced by someone else, in which case swerving may well be the lesser danger. An instance, when a motorist approaching a stop sign from your right continues into the intersection without yielding to you, you then make an immediate swerve to your left, because it is unlikely that there is a motor vehicle beside you, and running the risk that there is is better than running the certainty of the other collision. Always look ahead for such things as potholes, and if they are large enough to be avoided, then look behind and negotiate a lane change to avoid it. If you can't manage that, then do your best to reduce the impact with the far edge of the pothole (which is the part that damages you).

In short, the whole article is clear evidence of what is wrong with American bicycle transportation, and with the governmental policies that encourage incompetent cycling, and with the anti-motoring activists who praise and advocate it.

John Forester, MS, PE
Bicycle Transportation Engineer

8 comments:

chiggins said...

Angering other cyclists by stopping behind a vehicle stopped in front of you, or was it moving right and hadn't yet stopped? Are they angered because they would overtake on the right-hand-side of that vehicle? All that I can say is that I have never been the target of this particular kind of anger.

Heh. Mr. Forester should spend some time biking around downtown DC. The bikers are worse than the drivers most days, and the drivers aren't good.

Out of necessity, Moira chooses the very dangerous method of cycling on the sidewalk?

Her reason for doing so in the instance she describes is invalid, but it should be noted that DC actually has parts of town where they post a recommended Bike Route, and stretches of that route will direct you to use the sidewalk.

you deserve to be smashed flat as a tribute to Darwin for improving the gene pool by eliminating the incompetent.

Moira McLaughlin writes an article for the Post, exposing her deficiencies as a rider, and deserves to die for it. Thus demonstrating that anonymity is not always a necessary requirement in Gabriel's Internet Theory.

Tom said...

I read John Forester's comments and then Morira McLaughlin's article. The post article is good. Its too bad Forester feels the need to trash a biker because she uses the word 'swerve' instead of 'turn away from.' Is it really true that drivers don't tell one another to be safe. I do it all the time, es[pecially to my kids, and at times would rather they not drive. Forester wants to pick fight. He blames the death of a bicyclist completely on the bicyclist, he apparently never rode on a sidewalk (be honest here- have you never ridden on one before?), and does not advocate rider training. On top of this he says Moria deserves to die in a bike accident because it would benefit the gene pool (yes that is what is clearly implied). I think I'll pass on his book.

db said...

Yeah, wow. This post has been bothering me for days. I can't withhold comment any longer, even if it doesn't get approved.

I really believe in a lot of the ideas that Mr. Forester does. But he's such a jerk about it, that it's very easy to lose the message. We need cycling advocates who understand the value of diplomacy...

mytzpyk said...

After doing a more complete review of this article and the comments to my post - perhaps I don't need to do a separate post...

chiggins -

First:

My city has a recommended bicycle route that invites riders to ride on the sidewalk against traffic through an interstate interchange. I also know - if they're not the people who put it in place - the people who let it stay in place. I would no sooner rely on their advice for safe passage by bicycle through that interchange than I would The Boy 6.

Presumably DC has much more knowledge and expierence in the area of making bicycle transportation decisions than my city BUT it's also possible that the person who put those routes in place isn't a person you'd want to rely on for your health and well being.

Just because it's there doesn't make it correct - which is Forester's point. Municipal bicycle transportation decision makers are using “excessive solicitude” when making bicycle transportation decisions and because of that people are dying for passing on the right because they think a bike lane makes passing on the right ok.

Second: Forester does not say the Post author deserves to die for writing the article. He argues (rightly I think) she deserves to suffer the consequences of swerving to avoid a pothole. If you're going to injure yourself or someone else because you need to swerve to avoid a road hazard you deserve what you get.

First, you look ahead and position yourself on the road to ride around road obstacles. Failing that, you don’t swerve into the car or rider beside you – YOU RIDE THROUGH THE POTHOLE.

Sure - he uses "smashed flat" which yes is extreme.

Tom –

“Swerve”, “turn away from”, words matter. “Swerve” is what she wrote. "Swerve" is what it should stay.

You’re right – Forester’s wrong - drivers tell drivers to drive safe.

“He blames the death of a bicyclist completely on the bicyclist.” Forester: “Alice Swanson got herself killed by trying to overtake on the right-hand side of a vehicle that was turning right. Avoiding such right-turning vehicles is almost the most elementary piece of proper cyclist behavior there is.”

This is why there are societal constraints on speaking of the dead. It's never a good thing.

Change “got herself” to “was” and I’m comfortable with agreeing completely with Forester's statement. But like I said, words matter and he said “got herself.”

I’ve ridden on the sidewalk. There are a couple places on my common routes where I ride on the sidewalk. I do so with the knowledge and understanding that any contact I make with any vehicle on the roadway in intersections is completely my fault because I have failed my legal requirement to yield and any contact I make with any pedestrian on the sidewalk is completely my fault because I have failed my legal requirement to yield.

“[He] does not advocate rider training.” My knowledge of Forester is that he DOES advocate rider training. I have a 600 page 6th edition book on my shelf. I’m pretty sure that when he says this: “Her suggestion that knowledge of the laws has much to do with the skill of driving a vehicle is rather as if handing a copy of the Uniform Vehicle Code to, say, a never-has-driven citizen of Manhattan Island (there are some) qualifies that person to drive a motor vehicle.” He means read his book and take his class and get trained.

As far as Forester saying Moria deserves to die – I refer you to part 2 of my comment back to chiggins.

DB –

You’re right. Forester can be (is?) a jerk. “We need cycling advocates who understand the value of diplomacy...” It actually takes all kinds.

chiggins said...

Okay, fair enough. Let me be more precise in my criticism of this statement:

You deserve, as quite a few exasperated people frequently comment about such matters, you deserve to be smashed flat as a tribute to Darwin for improving the gene pool by eliminating the incompetent.

Alice Swanson was run over, beneath the wheels of the garbage truck. "Smashed flat," if you will. As much as I might agree with Mr. Forester's other sentiments, I hit this line, tuned out to the information in the article, and turned against him.

Whether or not Moira "deserves what she gets", she's someone's daughter, someone else's spouse, and may be someone's mother as well. The idea that she should be "eliminated" just doesn't sit well with me.

mytzpyk said...

Phew - your quotes around - deserves what she gets - had me thinking I had said that. I didn't mean to say that. I'm happy to see I didn't say that. So far both the situation and the consequences are hypothetical for Moria. She hasn't swerved into a cyclist or other vehicle. She's still healthy as far as I know.

Bike lanes are bad because proper use of them is ambiguous. There are hundreds of years of custom and practice behind making roads safe for vehicles.

Swanson may well have died because she assumed her presence in the bike lane somehow provided the permission for her to be on the right side of a right turning garbage truck. Who told her that? Maybe they're the ones that got her killed.

Hundreds of years of roadway custom and use (and Forester) say the proper position to be in for a right turning garbage truck is either directly in front of the truck or directly behind the truck. Yeah, it's smelly there. For the brave, the lane to the left adjacent to the garbage truck is ok.

Some people think that sounds crazy - and for a long time those people have been in charge and those people will be in charge for a long time to come, but it's right there in the drivers manual - it just happens to be a picture of an automobile-type vehicle not a bicycle-type vehicle.

mytzpyk said...

Correction - I see I said "you deserve what you get." I don't know if that's better or worse.

db said...

It actually takes all kinds.

I would have to agree with you there. Not saying Forester doesn't have a place. Kind of like, in the conservation world, there's Sierra Club, and there's Earth First!

My reaction was on a more personal level, where I know that as a visible cyclist (and informally, an activist), I'm going to get lumped in with this guy.

That said, yeah, I know he and people like him have to be part of the equation.