Thank you for a balanced review of Forrester’s contribution. Writing from Nederland, most streets do not have separated infrastructure and there we need skilled, observant, confident cyclists. As a cycling instructor, we teach Forrester’s ideas as they apply whether we’re sharing our route with divers and cyclists,or just other cyclists. Forrester became obsessed with the wrong thing later in life, but that doesn’t remove his vital contribution to cycling.
When John Forester started effective cycling it was the peak of car imperialism and there was a movement to kick bikes off the roads and onto side walks and for a long time after his demand for space on the road, cities would paint a line and force cyclists into the gutter, complete with wheel catching drain covers and all the debris that cars forced there. I am old enough that I experienced many of these problems and was grateful to John for educating me on proper cycling techniques. There are still vast swaths of North America where cities put in a mile of bike lane here and there but no connections between them. If you don't ride on the road, you don't get anywhere. I have lived in The Netherlands and agree that if you want vast numbers of people to cycle, you have to put in the infrastructure. But how do we get real bicycle infrastructure and not intermittent bike gutters? Even cities like Portland OR still do not have real bike infrastructure: Nobody wants to pay for it! And so we pay in other ways: Worse health; More pollution; And more dangerous roads.
In US terms, would like to see the federal government include in a bill a big pool of federal grant money for cities to pull from to build protected bike lanes. Even a measly $1 billion, which is a lot of money but is a drop in the bucket in the kind of infrastructure bill that's getting discussed, would build many thousands of miles of protected bike lanes across the country. Protected bike lanes are expensive for a city government that's already deep in debt (which is most of them, due to sprawl), but they're downright cheap compared to highway projects or major public transit projects.
@@aerob1033 The irony is that investing in (a network of) cycling infrastructure gives a return of $7-$20 for every $1 spent. It makes sense: cycling infrastructure is relatively cheap, it relieves the more expensive car and metro infrastructure, it reduces congestion. It has clear health benefits, reducing healthcare costs. It has a positive effect on air quality.
Tell the Republicans that it will improve the economy and save them money after they're installed (properly) and tell the Democrats that it will reduce pollution. Then watch as a bipartisan government pushes through a bill to fund separated bike lanes along with a lot of completely unrelated shit that wouldn't pass without being shoved into a good cause.
1) Strong and Fearless: People willing to bicycle with limited or no bicycle-specific infrastructure 2) Enthused and Confident: People willing to bicycle if some bicycle-specific infrastructure is in place 3) Interested but Concerned: People willing to bicycle if high-quality bicycle infrastructure is in place 4) No Way, No How: People unwilling to bicycle even if high-quality bicycle infrastructure is in place The people most likely to practice vehicular cycling are the Strong and Fearless. They are less than 1 percent of adults. You can instantly see the problem. Bike lanes are for the Enthused and Confident. Bike paths and sidewalks are for the interested but concerned. The no way no hows will never cycle. The strong and fearless group are the smallest and craziest group, those that most other cyclist and drivers think are either an asshole or a lunatic. Designing for them is as easy as designing it exclusively for a car but since they are less than 1 percent doing so will not encourage cycling. The Enthused and Confident group are about 7 percent. Nobody thinks they are a lunatic but considering that they will use bike lanes on the road which will intimidate less experienced riders. The interested but concerned group will ride where they feel safest, off the road. To design for them separated bike paths are preferred. You can spot one based on their sticking to the bike path or sidewalk if available, and they will look at the strong and fearless cyclist as if he were a lunatic. They make up the largest group of cyclists with about 60 percent of the population. The last group of “cyclists” are the no way no how. They will not ride, and will likely think that bikes are death traps designed by satan himself and will get into their cars and just drive. They are about 33 percent of the population. To increase cycling, the group to focus on are the interested but concerned, because they are the largest group and will bike more if the infrastructure is in place. Most of americas roads are designed for the lunatics... i mean strong and fearless cyclists, as in there is nothing separating cyclists from the cars that drive 40 mph down it. And most people will not be willing to bike in such harsh conditions.
@@sebastianr1204 Forcing cyclists to use completely inappropriate infrastructure lets designers "off the hook" as far as making roads for all. EG The city council closed a quiet road used by many cyclists. It replaced it with a shared walkway with pedestrians and cyclists. The pedestrians obey no laws at all. Recently the council has been issuing $1600 fines to cyclists for exceeding TEN KILOMETRES PER HOUR. The only other road that could be used would be suicidal. But if we could get a few thousand cyclists to ride along that road occupying all lanes at that same 10 kph can you imagine the traffic jams?
In some places in the Netherlands (such as low-traffic roads just outside the urbanized area and housing areas with very limited car traffic) I feel we do follow some of these ideas. With one difference, though: the law does not consider the one risking a scratch on the paint in a collision as equal to the one risking their life in the same collision...
is 'taking the lane' in a regular road also legal there, outside of say taking a left turn etc? I was just reading traffic laws here in croatia and it says that if no bike lane or path exists, one should cycle on the road, but close to the right curb, so not in the middle of it. Goes for mopeds when on one-way roads too. And I think that law is heavily copy-pasted from some EU source rather than being a local thing as it also defines the possibility of creating woonerfs, which don't exist here and would be a rather exotic thing to forsee in the current conditions here.
@@ciragoettig1229 I don't know the exact laws, but most of these places have low enough traffic volumes that you wouldn't need to and that it would be absolutely fine. I've even played ball games on a street like that when I was around ten years old. On the flip side, we do also have streets where letting a car pass as a cyclist can be a bit hard, so I personally prefer to go over the sidewalk whenever I see a car coming from the other side...
In Lisbon since they started implementing segregated bike lanes (there is about 150 kms at the moment with 15 in construction) the number of cyclists has risen by 800 % since 2010 and 600% since 2016
Thank you for this explanation. I'm part of a Prague magazine about city cycling and we will be soon releasing an article about this guy in Czech language. I'm glad that we have same information and view on his ideas as you!
I am in Europe and I have to say I really value John Forester's contribution to cycling. I think there is a lot of validity in many of his criticisms of cycle lanes. I think bad cycle lanes are worse than no cycle lanes and here in the UK we have many bad cycle lanes unfortunately. Even with really good cycle lanes cyclists will be sharing the roads with cars at some stage and so developing good skills for that is very important and Forester's approach to this is excellent. In looking at places in Europe where we have seen success in increasing bicycle usage I think there tends to be an overemphasis on cycle lanes. Another very important thing has been simply limiting the number of journeys by private car. The thing which prevents many people from cycling is fear of being hit by a car on the road and if you simply reduce the number of cars on the roads then the roads become more attractive for cycling. We saw a massive increase in cycling in the UK during the lockdowns for the coronavirus pandemic due to the reduction in car journeys. In the Netherlands they have taken measures to reduce the number of car journeys in some cities. In Groningen, the city with the most journeys by bicycle, they divided the city into sectors and cars cannot travel from one sector to another (that's a simplification but you get the idea). It means that for short journeys in the city walking or cycling is more attractive than using a car. In London a congestion charge has reduced the number of cars in the central areas and this has helped bring a big increase in cycling in the city over the last decade or so.
Yes, this is a valid point. I think in North America, proposing any sort of limit on the use of cars is still seen as anathema, as if driving your private automobile anywhere you want, wherever you want and parking it wherever you want for free is some God-given right, and not a series of decisions that we collectively make.
@@Shifter_Cycling haha! True! I would love for a city in Canada to do that just to watch people's hilarious reactions! Haha! 😂 Some people can be short-sighted. However, I wouldn't expect much an reaction from Vancouver. They got some pretty good transit and bike infrastructure.
I taught Effective Cycling concepts from Forrester's book back in the 1980s and early 90s until it dawned on my that very few of my students or their parents would actually risk cycling on city streets. My own wife thought I was crazy. Forrester's one good idea was to teach cyclists to behave according to the law for vehicles: make sure you signal, change lanes appropriately, look all around continually, don't travel the wrong way on one way streets, etc. Everything else he advocated has been disproven empirically. I pitched his book and all my materials in the trash and now I am a strong proponent of separate bicycle lanes, physically protected if possible but at the very least marked appropriately. As these later ideas from Europe have advanced in the US, cyclists in turn have started turning out in huge numbers to use them. My wife is one of them. Accidents are still a problem, many of them from vehicles making abrupt right or left turns, and Forrester's admonitions to pay attention to other vehicles are still valuable.
Holding the lane and signalling are useful *if* you have to share a lane (especially going into complex junctions) with a car, but yeah, obviously not a replacement for actual dedicated cycling lanes and systems. Still a useful concept, especially for rural cycling and other areas where you may be jumping between cycling/mixed use paths and roads and which would likely be the last places to be afforded any budget, and a skill that should be taught as we live in an imperfect society, but always with the emphasis that this is not a replacement for separated bicycle lanes. Just me perspective from cycling in the Scottish Highlands and Edinburgh, probably due to growing up where my ride always meant taking a single track road where it was quiet enough to be pretty safe, but you still wanted to be on a predictable part of the road and act in a predictable manner to reduce risk.
He was right that removing cyclists from the roads would make it more dangerous to cycle. While Forester's ideas are improved on, nothing has been "disproven empirically." What we had was decades of propaganda that ended up being support for massive over0-urbanization by land owners and building developers. The bike community was used. The roads more dangerous, the trees cut down, the community regulations gotten around, and a ton of infrastructure laid down that will have to ripped up. The cities have just killed themselves... They had the chance to do it right and they absolutely blew it.
I commute in Virginia Beach, a city that seems to have been specifically designed to hinder cyclists and pedestrians. The city is bisected N/S by an interstate. At all but one of the roads passing under that interstate, there is literally zero safe walking or cycling path. You are literally forced to either: 1) take the lane on a large divided boulevard with a 45 mph speed limit, or 2) shoulder the bike and walk along the 45-degree concrete slope of the underpass. It's beyond crazy. I have learned how to ride in traffic, but I don't like it much at all. Even a skinny, barrierless bike line would be a major improvement here.
A major reason why "vehicular" cycling was enthousiatically endorsed in the USA was because it costs exactly zero dollars and zero effort to build a vehicular infrastructure. Anothor major reason why is because of the draconian zoning rules that rules the US. Cities, towns, villages are all alike. Build around a car centric infrastructure enforced by these draconian zoning rules. And after all that the excuses started. Such as, but not limited to: 1)We are different. 2) Europe has old cities. We, the USA, have young cities. Building a cycle network is therefore not feasible in the USA. Except where complete new residentials are build in Europe. Then the excuse is: When cannot do that because our cities are older. 3) The USA is a big country. So what? Nobody suggest or proposes that you should build a cycle path from NYC to LA. The size of a country is totally irrelevant. Relevant is where do you work, move and live 99% of the time? Build your infrastructure , not for cars but, for humans for that 99% of the time. If you have to travel any further than that, let's say the ISS, then take a rocket. 4) But even within the cities everything is too far apart to cycle ... which is kind of true. Exactly because of the draconian zoning rules. But instead of using this as an argument why don't you change the zoning rules. Which is kind of starting just recently under the title and term "mixed zoning planning". 5) It is too hot, too cold, too windy, too humid, too dry, too rainy, too snowy, too hilly, too ... whatever to cycle. If that is a valid excuse then why are there per capita less cyclists in the USA than, for instance, Finland (having severe long cold winters) and Switserland (a mountenous country) and Spain (having dry hot summers). 6) Intersections with cycle paths or cycle lanes are more dangerous than intersections without cycle paths or lanes (as claimed by John Forrester). Which is true ... kind of. It is true in the USA because you have to design for cyclists at the intersections too. But the cycle infrastructure in the USA often stops exactly just before intersections. And in case of the occasional cycle infrastructure at intersections it often is badly designed. That has nothing to do with the safety of cycle lanes or cycle paths but has everything to do with the substandard intersection design. In many western Europe countries the cycle infrastructure at intersections is fundamentally a part of the intersection design itself. Specifically in The Netherlands, Denmark and Finland. And probably more European countries. But these are the countries I am familiar with. By the way, it is not only that cyclists are more vulnerable than cars. Cyclists are also much slower than cars. Which explains the tendency why the average US cyclist tries to out run the car traffic. Instead of considering a bicycle a vehicle one should consider a cyclist a mechanised pedestrian. That is a shift in focus and thinking. With this thought concept in mind, would you propose to widen the road by removing the sidewalks so the pedestrian can become a vehicular pedestrian? The vehicular pedestrian rules are simple. These rules are exactly the same as the current vehicular cycling rules. Be brave and just take the lane. It is absolutely 100% guaranteed to be safe, as long as everybody obeys the rules all the time perfectly and nobody at any time makes any mistake ever.
A society that puts the car on a pedestal quite obviously favors the motorist. The problem isn't how and where the cyclist rides their bike, the problem is the cars-first transportation system that has been imposed on all of us in the US. So this isn't about the decisions that we make it's about the decisions that are made for us.
haha, no. there are certain things bike riders need to be aware of just because they're riding a bike. 1. share the road does not mean you own it, 2. never ride the middle of a road or too narrow of a road if you are incapable of the speed limit, 3. pedalcycles are not equal to a multi-thousand pound chunk of metal that can do 0-60 in a few seconds and require a much greater amount of awareness and skill to operate, thus... BASIC SAFETY IS TO YEALD TO WHAT IS MORE DANGERIOUS. "sycholists" do not have the right nor privilege to be allowed to do 15 in a 45 when even motorists cant go that slow without getting a ticket because its just as dangerous as going to fast. bicycles are not equal and never will be, if they where, there wouldn't be a problem and Forester would have been just another average joe. mixed traffic actually "worked" when motorists where limited to 15-20mph to accommodate bikes yet size and weight still led to conditions favoring motorists. bikes are not equal they are a special case... the problem? well, as i said before share the road does not mean you own the road nor can you ignore the capabilities and limitations of your bike and yourself on said road. in terms of safety, speed, comfort, and cargo capacity cars and trucks are by far the superior means of transportation and it would be ludicrous for society and infrastructure not to reflect that. so the problem? is exactly how and where the cyclist rides. the relationship between us cyclists and motorists leaves a lot to be desired and improved upon and both cyclists and motorists need to understand that these vehicles are of a different class, are capable of very different things, and act accordingly.
@@carls.6746 I think you make some interesting points . . . but please, please learn to spell. At first, I thought your spelling of "cyclists" was an attempt at "psychologists."
@@carls.6746 I agree completely with your plea for a completely separated biking infrastructure away from car traffic, or when unable to do that, to lower the speed limit to that of a cyclist, like 15mph or so. This way it's safe for everyone, nobody drives unsafely slow and no need for unsafe passing. I'm not sure about the skill thing though: sitting in a chair and pressing your foot down seems to require less skill and awareness than balancing on a bike and trying to avoid getting run over. Also, with "GIVE WAY TO DANGEROUS" seems to promote using big trucks and automatic rifles over regulations. Why install traffic lights if you can achieve stuff THE AMERICAN WAY *YEEHAW*
IMHO, rather than saying that vehicular cycling is "a dead idea", it would be more accurate to say that it's no longer thought of as a valid approach for designing infrastructure by any serious transportation engineer. As you say later, the idea itself is not only not "dead", it still has great value in many cities in North America. I'm not aware of _any_ North American city that has fully embraced European ideas about cycling infrastructure to the extent that cyclists no longer need to know how to ride on streets that lack cycling infrastructure. And many cities are still stuck in the vehicular cycling mindset, having no master plan to implement cycling infrastructure, no plan to provide proper, separated bike lanes and paths, and frankly only even bothering to paint unprotected lanes in order to meet federal requirements to qualify for federal funding assistance for road projects. Indeed, in North America, any cyclist expecting to use their bike for transportation owes it to themselves to be _very_ familiar with the vehicular cycling techniques, so that they can minimize the ever-present hazards they will be subjected to getting from point A to point B. Hardly a dead idea, by any stretch of the imagination.
Yeah the only time I've seen the mixed traffic system work is in slow moving car areas with clear labeling. I really enjoyed riding in Downtown Corvallis as car lanes were clearly labeled as "shared bike lanes" and the speed limits were set to 15-20mph, so it seemed to flow ok in a mixed-use format. But that was about it. Pretty much the only way I've ever seen it work is basically limiting the automobile to travel at bicycle speeds, and even then I'm sure there have been some NASTY problems with aggressive drivers over the years.
As a child I was taught that I was a vehicle and to obey road laws and to expect to take my rights when needed. The trouble was that motorists tended to not give cyclists or pedestrians their rights and gradually discrimination crept into law a bit at a time. This same problem existed elsewhere until we have the "might is right" doctrine. Trains bully heavy trucks which bully lighter trucks that bully heavy cars that bully lighter cars that bully motorcyclists that bully cyclists that bully pedestrians. I don't know who pedestrians bully.
over the last 25 years all mayor road here in Belgium have been upgraded with separated bike lanes. in the provence where i lie there is even a large network of bike roads, separated for motor traffic (bikes only). its made of of numbered intersections, so you can easily plan your route by just noting the numbers in sequence. i usually put it on a postit and tape it on my handlebar
It's not one or the other, in Europe you have both. If there is no dedicated lane for bikes, bikes have to use same lane than the cars and then "taking the lane" and the left turn shown in that video are the legal form how you have to do a left turn on a bike. At leasts ist like that here in Germany.
Totally agree. In Holland 30 km/h zones generally don't have bike paths/lanes. It's normal to take the lane and to travel side by side if you're cycling together, even if it means a car behind can't overtake, since cyclist have the same right to the road as motorist do.
@@caoimhinocsigen I think that's where other countries really can learmn from the Netherlands. Far too many people, videos and politicians only focus on the great and wide bike lanes when talking about bike friendly roads and using the Netherlads as example. But in many parts of cities and towns its impossible to build such wide bike lanes without blocking smaller roads completly for cars. So the polticians either use this as excuse to do nothing at all, or they just draw a line to separate a 50 cm wide part of the road as bike lane. For cyclists those lanes are usually more dangerous than having no own lane at all. By reducing the speed to 30 km/h and giving bikes the same rights than cars neither needs additional space nor expensive rebuilding of the roads. Even here in germany I feel comfortable on my by bicycle when sharing the road with cars in 30 km/h zones. I think drivers of cars also get much more tolerant to bikes in 30 km/h reduced zones. Maybe that because the speed limit somehow keeps them aware that they down own the road and have to share it with others.
Your videos always show perfect roads. In Québec, you often have to avoid the shoulder because it is in bad shape with potholes etc or has lots of gravel on it. Road surface conditions seem to be ignored by all the youtubers who are urbanists and want to restrict cyclists to only the arrow space allocated to them on the right of the road, you know that space with all the cracks, potholes and manholes. I'd rather drive straight on road than constantly zigzagging in and out of the bike lane which makes me far less predictable to car drivers.
Mixing traffic is safe on roads with max speeds of 30 km/h. Which is what we do a lot in residiential streets in the Netherlands. In cities some of those are even turned to primary bicycle streets: a "fietsstraat" (also 30 km/h), in which cars are 'guests': the people who live there and the occasional visitor / delivery. It's mostly used to connect bicyclelanes.
Interesting video 👍 As sort of noted at the end of this video, adding infrastructure isn't a replacement for learning proper riding skills in traffic. Making people safe is great, encourages more cycling and it's good to see more and more of it happening but when the infrastructure runs out because traffic becomes light or whatever reason we're back to riding with vehicles. Cycling infrastructure for most will unlikely go door to door.
Just noticed this. He is (was I guess) my near namesake. Taking London as the example I know we actually have layers (best described that way) of cycling infrastructure, with various and separate initiatives not always properly joining up even if the crisscross each other. Variously we have some places (less than some would like) of separated bike lanes, and others where signs go down backstreets but cars and lorries are not allowed through. Personally my worst favourite is a separated bike lane down a very busy road next to a load of exhausts. In the centre of town, that is less likely, but there are some places in the outer suburbs where the bike lanes have been added to main roads. My preference is going down a backstreet with no through (thus fast) traffic - preferably little traffic. I guess that makes me of a generation to believe some of Forester's material. "Own the lane", yes. "Behave as a slow car", yes. Would I do that down a road with 40/50/60mph traffic. In town, not willingly. In a country lane, of course - you want to own the lane to make it slow down. Recently, due to covid, we had some pop-up cycle lanes that were not well used. There was a perfectly good existing cycle route a block or so south (actually two of them) which is actually just bikes in mixed traffic but nothing more than some bikes painted on the road and advance stop areas on the traffic lights. That is the route people use. The separated lane on the main road was dropped. Nobody lamented.
No one lamented because it was a probably a poor location or not given enough time. There is a still a culture shift that needs to happen to decrease car travel before bike lanes become widely used by many. COVID-19 is an okay time to test out bike lanes but far from the best time and way.
In lack of a proper cycling infrastructure "taking the lane" is still safer than "riding the curb". Also: vehicular cycling would be easier to put in place as it doesn't require much changes to the roads. But it would only work if allowed speed in cities would be reduced to 30kph or 15mph. To compensate crossings could be converted into roundabouts. They are especially efficient with mixed traffic at lower speeds. The time from a to b in a city would be comparable for automotive vehicles and a lot faster for cyclists. There wouldn't be crossings between both infrastructures and it would cost a lot less. Additionally emissions and nitrox pollution would decrease in relation to driven distances. Furthermore such infrastructure would allow for hybrid vehicle development that lay between bikes and light cars. Again allowing for less emissions with modern solutions. In those areas where space isn't an issue it'd be still better to construct separated infrastructures. But as always one solution isn't always the best. And I wouldn't be sad if we even got rid of cars in city centers altogether. Cars could be parked outside and free tickets added on top of the parking fee. Also cities could easily subvention such developments by giving out financial support to its residents to buy better bikes.
In Germany we have Bernd Sluka with a similar position, citing bike lanes as dangerous based on 30+ year old studies and totally missing the vastly different number of cyclists in both cases.
Not a committed bicyclist, but as a moped rider I can say that where I live, the rules certainly treat us sub-50CCs as second class drivers. We may not use bus lanes (even though cyclists may) and we are allowed to execute proper left turns if the road has only one lane in the direction we are going. Naturally, most riders disregard the left turn rule because hand-pushing your moped/scooter across a zebra feels as stupid as it sounds, wastes time and attracts weird looks from both peds & drivers, and I have seen some people perform hook turns (they are not forbidden explicitly) if road markings allow it, but the left turn rule is mind-bogglingly stupid. Some say the limit is due to mopeds top speed being limited by rules to 50 km/h and therefore too slow for the left lane, but it is enough not to hold back cars slowing down before a traffic light when changing lanes - nationwide speed limit for cities is 60 km/h.
I wonder if John Forester ever did "vehicular cycling" in one of the many stroads, that take up 90% of the US and Canadian roads, where cars are ripping through at 80 km/h. Did he happily bike on a lane at 20 km/h while cars were blaring their horns at him telling him to get the hell off the road?
Honestly, the two biggest reasons I've gotten so confident cycling was a mix of being late while commuting and having no regard for my own safety. When I'm late while commuting I will push the envelope to make it on time going wayyy out of my comfort zone.
i'm living in mexico, here i think the solution is the road education for make possible share the road with bikers, drivers and buses. Some people is very unconscious with his cars against cyclist. I'd love see more people sharing the streets with no problems
I still use hand signals for left and right turns and use left turning lanes. Luckily for me it's early morning with minimal traffic. My route home is more scenic and relaxed. I ride a commuter bike with cruiser handlebars and biking to me is a fun part of my day.
I learned from Forester how to cycle in traffic and it's a valuable skill. He's also right that we shouldn't give up our rights to ride on the road. What got him started was when he received a ticket for cycling in the street. The problem is, as the video makes clear, that most people will never feel comfortable cycling around cars. We need a bicycle infrastructure to make the transition to mass ridership. Forester was pretty dogmatic. I argued with him at a talk he gave. Still, Forester is a hero who helped keep bicycling alive during difficult times.
While most of my commute outside of work such as to the store or to a friends are still stroad ridden, I'm proud of the progress my area has made. My commute to work if in no rush is a 3 mile commute that is nearly all trails through beautiful woods, around the back of suburbia and through some parks. In the next few years once the newer portions are finished, I can bike almost entirely to work with only crossing 3-4 roads with minimal fuss. I am currently working on biking home from work every day in order to build my endurance so once spring comes, I know the way around my city better. Super thrilled lol
I live in Georgia, United States. Our traffic and marine law states that a bike is a vehicle and therefor is prohibited from sidewalks and forced onto main pathways. It also states that self propelled vehicles (row boats, sailboats, kayaks, bicycles, and such) have the right of way priority. All motorized vehicles are required to yield to self propelled vehicles in all waterways and roadways. It's pretty consistent as far as common sense is concerned. The issue is that no one cares and offenders are rarely ticketed. As a result, it's very dangerous for cyclists at times. Even motorcyclists are weary of urban traffic. So I'm a fan of both ideas. At least urban areas ought to have bike lanes because of non attentive drivers. Open roads, I'm fine with sharing the lanes with motorized vehicles.
For about a year in the early 1980s I commuted on Seattle arterials much like Forester advocated. Looking back, I think I was crazy and could have been killed. The size and power ratio is simply too great to be workable. In my case, I actually tried to find safer side streets to use, but none were available for the route I needed to take. That's also why I considered absolutely insane what Seattle was doing when I moved away in 2012. That was drawing little white lines alongside busy arterials and calling the result a "bike lane." If that painted line can't stop SUVs and the city's 10-foot-wide stretch buses, I told myself, then its no bike lane. My neighborhood was too well established to add a dedicated path for bikes like the city's Burke Gilman Trail, built along a former rail route. But the city could have found residential streets and configured them for bike traffic, with only local automobile traffic permitted.
No one has never tauch me about "taking the lane" and yet I do it all the time and most importantly, I find it very effective, specially in a city with virtually no cycle lanes as mine.
He was mentioning about the numbers of cyclists staying minuscule under the system of "vehicular cycling" (not a common a term here), but isn't it true that in the 1970s you had a massive bike boom especially for road bikes generally, and specifically "ten-speeds", regardless of no European low country type of changes being implemented? That would of had an effect over time also for the popularity of bikes. So that happened in spite of Forester's dominate thinking.
Actually this is still being pushed today by cycling advocates and forums who naively think they are being super safe and try to encourage other people to as well. It’s very common in the USA and UK and is really annoying and idiotic and made me avoid a lot of cycling forums. 50 years.
As a child of the 50's, I was taught to pedal my bicycle as a vehicular cyclist. I never heard of Mr. Foster back then. No one knew of complete street design which segregates the road for user use. But, I could pedal my bicycle anywhere in town. The majority of motorists used common sense when approaching a cyclist. Today, one can not assume the motorist has common sense - it is so bad, that companies are actually trying to manufacture automobiles that rely on computers to perform the task of driving. I wonder how dangerous these driver-less cars will become?
I get what your saying about computers in cars. To some degree it helps, like maybe older folks who still need to drive but aren't as keen anymore, but for people learning, it creates a false sense of security, which can be a bad thing if automated systems fail, or if they get into a car they're not used to or is older than the technologies themselves and end up putting themselves and others in danger due to their lack of driving experience and technique. Probably a small ish problem right now, but this might become more prevalent in the coming future
The vehicular cycling idea was also quite prominent among cycle activists in Budapest in the 00's AFAIK. The reason may have been the large number of intersections in a given distance on a city street there, and a seperate bike lane makes designing safe intersections more challenging. The pace of car traffic is also quite slow due to the frequent traffic jams. I've also seen intermingled car-biycle traffic in Danemark in busy urban areas. The reason there too may have been the slower speed of motor vehicles.
It took me awhile to realize that the vehicular cyclists expect to be able to keep up with traffic; I'll stick with riding my #partypace as far right as practicable.
This is not accurate, and usually physically impossible. Vehicular cycling is not about speed, but positioning. For superior safety, position yourself to be visible and unpassable at all times, just like a motorcyclist would. Do not "hide" or "get lost" in the gutter or between parked cars. Of course, children and slow riders should stay on the sidewalk. Note that riding fast on the sidewalk is exceptionally dangerous.
@@tails8333 On the streets around here, I'm either in the door zone or in the lane. At 10-12 mph, in the lane is not feasible, as I'm the slowest thing on the pavement, so door zone it is. And no, riding on the sidewalk is not an option; it's illegal for anyone but little kids and, like you said, dangerous.
@@Korina42 when you’re visibly in the lane, approaching cars will see you early on and go into the other lane to pass you. Alternatively, you can pull over periodically to let groups of cars past you. Cars naturally travel in clusters because of traffic lights, so there are gaps in traffic you can ride through. Of course, very fast and busy two lane roads with no center lane would still be very difficult to ride along, but multi lane roads become a piece of cake once you become comfortable with taking the lane. In areas with giant block sizes and multi lane roads, taking the lane is the safest option.
This is awesome, man. Know why? Anyone who's super into this stuff probably already knows it, but having it laid out so clearly in such an accessible format, is super useful, eg to be able to send to friends when arguing about these issues. Also John Forester obviously wasn't prescient of the rise of the SUV, on any road now cyclists are definitely second class citizens. Also also, is that a Beeline on your handlebars?
I have a very simple benchmark to determine if a place has safe and proper cycling infrastructure. I just ask myself: "Would I let my 5 and 7 year old children go to school on their bikes in this place?". If the answer is yes, the bike infrastructure is safe. My children are used to going to school by bike (accompanied by parents). They do know to stop for traffic lights, use hand signals and to cross the road, however their attention span is limited and do regularly swerve somewhat. If I imagine my kids to ride their bikes with this "vehicular driving" type of infrastructure it is pretty clear that this is not safe cycling infrastructure.
I started using a bicycle for transportation in the '70's, and I feel Forester was just recognizing the reality in the US. Now there are bike lanes all over Seattle, where I live, but most of them create new problems. The typical bike lane I use is a door zone bike lane. I need to hug the line next to traffic to stay mostly out of the door zone. Or, I encounter an even worse situation where the bike lane is between a row of parked cars and the curb, so I have nowhere to go when a passenger opens their door in front of me. For drivers about to turn right, I'm hidden by the row of parked cars, so I'm guaranteed to get right hooked. I won't ride in those, so the drivers get angry 'Why don't you ride in the bike lane?!'. Or, we get two way bike lanes on one side of a street. Drivers entering the street will look upstream of the normal traffic direction, and be oblivious of any cyclist riding on the side of the bike lane going opposite the vehicle traffic on that side. A separated one way bike lane outside of any door zones is a rare treat. All because, in the US, providing free parking for cars on the street is more important than providing space for bikes. This is the reality Forester recognized.
Bike lanes as they are done in North America are often so difficult to navigate as well and bike trails fail to connect into roads properly. His ideas might’ve enabled the sprawling car-sized developments you see in Bellevue and Renton though. But whatever the case, the skills to bike like a car are really important and maybe education would be more effective than putting up bike lanes parallel to roads.
vehicular cycling makes perfect sense, and i do it all the time in berlin. if you have actually good bike infrastructure, that's better, no question. but i'm not going to stay on a painted-on bike lane that will have me crash into an open door or a car turning right. with these techniques i may be closer to the cars, but i have much less risk of them crossing my path, where unintuitively the gravest danger lies.
Exactly! Much safer to go with the flow. Other vehicles see you sooner and have more time to decide how to avoid hitting you. All my bike crashes over 30 years have been on the MUTs, none on the roads. I take the lane to avoid invisible debris that gives me flats, but when I hear a car coming up behind, I graciously slide over to the right and let him pass. If there's oncoming traffic? Stay in the lane.
I live in a city in USA with a decent amount of bike lanes, but 70% of my riding is just on busy streets full of cars. Can only think of 2 separated bike lanes in my whole city. As you can imagine, I have to rely on these techniques a lot.
Well, I understand his reasoning, because if I look at the old bike infrastructure in Berlin, it’s really just a narrow strip or a mix with pedestrians. In these times, bike infrastructure was built ironically for the car, so that they didn’t had to bother with bikes; bike paths were mandatory to use. But of course the idea of sharing the road on an equal level is an idealization, that never was going to happen. Of course a car wins, because no one (except the fearless) want to gamble with their life in order to get an equal treatment. Taking the lane just doesn’t work if someone honks at you and trying to squeeze in between. Also it’s so stressful navigating in heavy traffic as a cyclists. I‘m glad that they finally built proper cycling infrastructure on main roads, but although there is a cycling network, there’s still a lot todo.
Vehicular cycling completely ignores the needs of the disabled, women and children. Segregated infrastructure with networks of low speed/traffic is the only safe option if you sit lower in traffic, or are slightly wobbly!
As a bike advocate, it is clearly much better to have accessible bike lanes with higher ridership rates. However, there is something so enjoyable about vehicular cycling. It’s hard to explain but it’s very fun to assert yourself and flow alongside or with traffic
This video is a great example of the fact that people can disagree, but still they have respect for different opinions. Thanks for this video showing that. BTW I am just back from my daily 20-30 kilometres bicycle ride. As the infrastructure for bicycles is extremely poor here I use unpaved agricultural roads in my area.
In Bournemouth, we only have a few bike lanes, which most of the time have cars parked on them. I usually cycle on the road, as do 70% of the people here. Had no problems with any motorists luckily. Motorists tend to be nicer to cyclists here than the average town/city as most of the drivers also cycle! Seen plenty of families cycle on the roads with no issues, it's just really down to mutual respect and being considerate. Can't say the same for city cycling though!
I agree. Most places in GB the cyclist is an inconvenience to the motorist. Taking the lane is impossible on busy roads with poor visibility of cyclists by car drivers. Not so busy roads tend to have 40 to 60 mph limits and are difficult to cross for that reason. I've found too that many car drivers are just inconsiderate. On urban roads they object to having tthe lane blocked due to lower speed. On a very quiet country road, twisty and rising 800 feet over 8 miles with rocky overhangs in places (Borrowdale in the Lake District), I was regularly tailgated by a car for half a mile and then overtaken on a blind corner with rocky overhang. Bad enough during the day but appalling on a moonless night.
Well, in a certain way his idea of vehicular cycling came true in the Netherlands and more and more in Germany, but kind of the opposite way. There are cycling-streets where cars are allowed to drive but only as guests. They must not overtake cyclists and there are speed-limits for cars.
and most importantly, car density has to be below certain levels or these cycle streets do not work. So they can only be implemented when all through traffic is diverted elsewhere.
I'm late to this one but it pertains to the left hand turn. In your video you went from the right side of the road, the shoulder, straight across lines of traffic to execute your left turn. Hardly practical and actually dangerous if there are vehicles around. So in this scenario taking the lane and preparing a left hand turn in the left lane is more practical and safer. That being said quite recently I had an argument with a senior citizen because he said I was going to slow in his Lane and I should be in the bike lane on the right. Little did he know I was executing a left-hand turn immediately so I pulled him aside cuz I didn't like his attitude and I explained to him how dangerous it would be for me to go from the right hand shoulder straight across the lane to execute a left hand turn. Forever will the danger be coming from uninformed motorist. Let's just say at the end of my conversation with him he removed himself from my presence as fast as he could.
I mean didn't "vehicular cycling" exist as the default long before John Forester. Like when cars really first came on the scene in the 20s and 30s didn't cars and bikes mix freely like the "shared space" concept today?
I didn't know vehicular cycling was dead. Now I know why so many people yell at me and honk the horn when I take the lane. I should be able to legally do anything on my bike that you can on a motorcycle provided I am not severely blocking traffic. And even that should be OK if I don't have any other choice.
North America has space enough, even within city limits. All you'd have to do is make the width of lanes smaller. Use that space to plonk in decent bike lanes. It would mean something else, switch to max widths of cars to say, 7ft 2inch. Including mirrors.
In the college town where I live, biking on the sidewalks is permitted except in the downtown, where there is a lot of pedestrian traffic. That said, the sidewalks are narrow and typically only on one side of the street, making them almost worthless for biking. The town has an abundance of quiet residential streets that would be great for biking except for the reason why they get so little auto traffic. Most run for only a few blocks before being interrupted. The city wants to force cars onto the arterials, but that means that bikers must do the same. The result is very little biking, even among college students.
Sidewalks are fine if riding at slow speeds. I never ride on the sidewalk, at any speed. All issues I've had cycling have been on the sidewalk, so I just don't it anymore and dismount immediately. Imagine the obstacles: slower pedestrians, dogs on leashes, baby cribs, runners, uneven concrete slabs with slits, bushes sticking out, commercial signs displayed in the middle of the sidewalk, uncleared branches and debris, up and down curbs, often unnaturally bending pathways, uncleared snow, ice, and lack of salt, general invisibility to cars when entering intersection from sidewalks with any high speed, etc.
I didn't know about John Forester, but I agree with him. I've been riding in the streets while commuting for 30 years, and I think it's important to assert your rights as a road user. I think the reason people don't like doing that is due to the weight of responsibility of the cyclist. I have to be hyper aware about who is doing what and where, and to anticipate what they will do. Also, it's important to give way to the faster vehicles whenever possible. The give and take of both motor powered and human powered can coexist just fine among reasonable, enlightened people. I don't mind bike lanes in certain areas where traffic is moving much faster than I am, specifically the suburbs. I don't need bike lanes in the city.
You talk for the 1% of cyclists. Which is understandable, because that is what you are used to. But what about the other 99% of cyclists? Consider the following. Cyclists like: ruclips.net/video/swqaAIkGtpA/видео.html ruclips.net/video/8NUgB_xkIvU/видео.html Would you send your child to school on a bicycle in your own town? Normal in The Netherlands. ruclips.net/video/Ojb7OKz6wKk/видео.html primary school ruclips.net/video/FLRrA-rKY-Q/видео.html Can you cycle like this in your town? (3 kids and the groceries) ruclips.net/video/ynwMN3Z9Og8/видео.html Some more of the other 99%. Mainly daily commuters. Consider the following. This: ruclips.net/video/gqqVTNg6tC4/видео.html Versus this: ruclips.net/video/ioSZOt37PBo/видео.html What feels more esthetical human to you? honestly! Or this: ruclips.net/video/2VYE2i5Sw8M/видео.html Ambulance in rush hour taking the cyclepath. A common practice (also for police and fire trucks) Versus this: ruclips.net/video/bkJ-Js7fuoI/видео.html What is more efficient? Honestly!
Good for you. But we don't want just athletic fearless types to be the only ones who feel safe to ride. If Granny is still able to pedal, however slowly, she should be able to bike to bingo if she wants to. And that's where separate bicycle infrastructure comes in. I cycle vehicularly, but only because I had the misfortune of not being born in the Netherlands. I don't know where you find these reasonable, enlightened people but it sure is hell ain't the United States.
Actually, here in the Netherlands, the education for cyclists and car drivers includes "taking the lane" and similar manouevers, if you need to change lanes in a spot where there is no bicycle infrastructure. And our road laws support it, bicyclists are considered "drivers", like those riding a horse or motorbike or horse and carriage. They have an equal right to the road by law.
here in SE Texas there is a hodge-podge of sporadic acknowledgement that wheeled vehicles even exist other than cars, trucks and motorcycles. I swear they Hate wheelchairs, disability scooters, and especially Bicycles. Bicycle lanes are almost non-existant. Sidewalks end 3/4 of the time with a huge drop-off curb instead of a ramp and are interspersed with stretches of no sidewalk at all. Most streets have no shoulder, some a shoulder on one side only, and I don't know how they do it but they manage to make a lot of intersections blind corners. There is a law that vehicles Must share the right hand lane with bicycles, HOWEVER, Even public busses slam on their brakes at the last second, honking frantically, to avoid hitting you. The anger shown is indicative of the total lack of knowledge that they are required to "share The Road". Some days are good though. I remain alive ... so far.
In my city we have bike lanes but they are shit. It's just painted on and people use it as parking space. It's filled with hazardous stuff because noone cleans up the sides and people never let you get in the lane to use the roundabouts.
It always fascinates me how people that are for motorised vehicles often are strongly against cycling, whilst more cycling actually improves the motor vehicle driver's experience vastly by congestion relief. It is much the same how people that love eating meat are often quite vocal against vegetarians and vegans, where the environmental implications suggest eating the amounts of meat we do today is not sustainable. As in not possible to keep on doing so forever, so in fact when others would turn vegetarian the chance of you being able to keep eating meat actually increases. I guess a lot comes down to the feeling of belonging, the feeling of being accepted, even in unsustainable behaviour people will want to keep getting this confirmation that what they're doing is OK, by having similar minded people around them.
Have to agree with you on your assessment in this video, Tom. I have arguments with a fellow cyclist about riding the lane where cars inhabit... Or riding the line. He was bumped once. I say keep away from cars as much as possible. Most drivers are annoyed at cyclists anyway... just for being there!
The problem is that cars won't keep away from you if you hide near the gutter or between parked cars. So you must risk the smaller chance of getting hit from behind with the much riskier chance of getting sideswiped.
Vehicular cycling is tied directly to road racing bikes, especially the expensive type. We don't see the Giro, il Vuelta or TdF raced on bicycle paths, and that sums it up. Road racing bicycles I think are now a dying breed, especially after the covid lockdowns, and certainly since MTBs and all terrain bikes. Wide tyres and sturdy construction with well made componentry are for the commuting cyclist. And then there are e-bikes or electric mopeds that enable older or regular unfit people to ride to the shops and visit friends. As we know, there's the future on 2 wheels.
I live in the UK. We have a relatively small country with a lot of people and buildings. Our town layouts date back to the Romans so, many of our roads are narrow. This means where cycle lanes have been introduced they are either, just letting bikes on the pavements, usually going in both directions and sharing with pedestrian or, an extra line at the edge of the existing narrow road, resulting in insufficient room for either cars or bikes. To add to this, UK cycle lanes seem to start and stop at narrow spots in the road or, just where the planner decided you would no longer want to ride so, you can cycle in a bike lane all the way to a school but if you want to go further you just have to join the cars on the road. Then when a cycle lane does appear, there's only one dropped kerb stone and you've just gone past it. Conclusion, bike lanes are not great in all of Europe 😉
I always hold the lane. I live in #Winnipeg with virtually no bike lanes anywhere around ..well, most places, and if I don't hold the lane, people will lane-split at high speed and hit me/force me into an accident. If you give them room to pass, they will with no regard to your life. On the other hand, they won't run you over from behind directly. Your safest spot is to be visible and in the middle of the lane. In my city, it also helps make sure you have room to avoid the potholes, which are also big enough to destroy your bike and you. It's also the only way to stay safe. Mostly. Trucks still like to force me off the road purposefully by hitting me just because I exist. EDIT: fixed dyslexia errors #sorry
He actually said, that there won't ever be a bike infrastructure that reaches everywhere, it is simply impossible and would require to duplicate the street network, basically. Therefore you would still have to teach the rules of the road for those sections, anyway. He also stated that there's actually no data that shows vehicular cycling was worse on terms of getting people onto the streets on cycles, than the segregated facilities EQUALLY ADVERTISED. I think this is the key idea, that people actually advertise the idea of being unsafe on the road which resonates with existing fear and creates the demand for segregation even though if you look at data you get more serious crashes that way at intersections. He believed education was the key for bridging the gap between the not too complex skills that are required to get by safely on roads and the skills that people possess without education or experience. (And demonstrated this by teaching 6-8 year old kids riding vehicularly
As local residential streets can be narrowed and traffic calmed so that the few cars will travel slow enough for traffic mixing to be viable. This eliminates the need to add bike lanes there. Ergo bike lanes only are meant for roads with high traffic density or high speeds. To which protected intersections and bike signals will solve the issue of intersection crashes. That aside, vehicular cycling would result in few people cycling precisely because it is stressful even if you know how to do everything by the book. It is a comparable experience to riding a moped or a motorcycle at a similar speed. And you know how common either of those modes of transport are.
@@nianbozhang9070 Forester also created his own observational studies. He looked at 2 similar cities in the us, both campus cities with comparable population. One added bike infrastructure (lanes), the other did not, and the population % riding was also comparable in the two locations. The only difference was that he observed the unsafe (left turn from right side of the road etc) behaviors much more often in the bike lane city. Another thing to add to your reply: in the book “target risk” (pdf avail able online)there’s a study that was about comparing signalized and non-signalized intersections (even the same ones after applying the signals) over time. The result was that on the signalized intersections there were fewer but more serious crashes on non-signalized it was more but less serious. In the end the crashes (weighting in both number and severity) did not correlate with the intersection being signalized or not, but rather the volume of traffic. Therefore I’d be vary of saying that traffic signals would solve anything.
Wow, thank you so much for sharing this I had no idea it’s sad that he’s no longer with us may God receive him into his loving arms. But like you said I will be thanking him every time I take a lane because we still have a long way before we get segregated bike lanes they say the US is the richest country, so why are we acting so poorly? if we have everything to thrive.
Shifter I would like to understand why that is, we have thousands upon thousands of cyclist bicyclist with the knowledge of knowing that we as humans are dangerous when driving and yet no one seems to care it comes down to the fact that we have been brainwashed to think everything is so far away and we need to drive to get there but if we normalized bicycle commuting if we advertised bicycles instead of cars I can guarantee that no one would be driving as much is the advertisement and convenience that people fall for. So bottom line we need to come together and take action just like they did in NETHERLANDS 🇳🇱 Back in the 70’s
@@bikelanez7376 Agree to all of this. We have an ingrained car culture backed by decades of marketing and lobbying that is only starting to be questioned. It will take some time, but I can see the changes coming.
That's probably because in a car oriented country like yours, drivers hate cyclists, and hate it even more when money is spend and car space is sacrificed to bicycles. Planning cycle paths may be more successful if it would be sold to drivers as a way to get those pesky cyclists off their streets. But they'll still be angry when stuck in traffic every day in their $30.000 SUV's seeing people on $500 bikes scooting past them. Difference being that here in the Netherlands, almost every driver is also a cyclist from time to time.
Peter Tuijtjens I started cycling because there was a video recommendation here on you tube of the Netherlands what fascinated me was that everyone was on a bike I loved the idea after watching it I was obsessed and started searching for cyclists that inspired me each and every day I fell in love with the NETHERLANDS 🇳🇱 never been there but I would love to visit I do admire the history of what’s been done in the NETHERLANDS 🇳🇱
I disagree, he was ahead of his time. Fundamentally the streets shouldn't belong solely to cars, and that’s what he was against. I foresee the majority of cities in the future putting in speed limits of 30 km an hour for the majority of the city, and bikes having their own lane on the street but also being free to use other lanes.
I mean I think it is pretty evident from Europe that the way we get there is by a mix of separation and traffic calmed streets. Not implementing bike lanes following his guidance left us with hostile streets to anyone not in a car and we never saw the steps to getting streets safe enough for shared mobility. Protected bike lanes are not only a great way to build demand for more car lite or car free spaces, but they will be required on many roads for a long time if not indefinitely as they still will be major multimodal corridors where shared space between cars/buses/trucks and bikes is unsafe.
@@street_ruffian I totally agree that this area is up for debate, and I have not been myself formed a strict opinion on this. I just often see the practical negative effects that sometimes arise when cities create separated bike lanes either on sidewalks, or their own lane, but separated from cars. And what happens is it re-enforces a belief in drivers that the street belongs to cars, and only cars, and bikes have no place on the road. What ends up happening is that cars drive more recklessly, because they don't expect cyclists on the road, and if they do see one, they will often honk at them because they say 'why aren't you using the bike lane'. But the bike lanes are often more dangerous than riding on the road, they are often built next to parked cars, so that at any time a door can swing out and hit you when someone tries to get out of the car, and pedestrians often walk on them, and they are often blocked my delivery trucks that stop at them temporarily to deliver goods. We end up with a situation where the city spends a bunch of money on bike lanes, that most experienced bike commuters don't use, because they prefer the roads. A much cheaper, and more effective option for cities would be to reduce the speed limit within cities to 30 kilometers an hour, and to then have shared roads with cars and bikes. When drivers see that bikes often go the same speed or faster than them, while also not having to wait as long on stop signs and red lights (I support the idaho stop), then you will get people switching to using bikes. I do admit, however, that countries like the netherlsands and copenhagen who have separated bike lanes have the most cyclists, and that in practice, it is evidence that this may be the best approach to get more people cycling. But I also see the practical problem where when separated bike lanes are built in countries that don't have a cycling culture, they are often not used, built wrong, and built haphazardly so that you don't have a unified network. I don't know, it's a tough debate, but I as a cyclist who cycles year round, and have done so in some harsh climates like Moscow in the winter time with a bunch of snow on the ground, I almost never use bike lanes and prefer to share the road with cars. I feel that eventually all cyclists who cycle for a longer period of time end up doing the same, except for a few countries where this isn't the case, like the Netherlands and Denmark. But they have their own problems too, like bike rush hour, because they've confined all cyclists to the sidewalk. It's not all rainbows and sunshine over there.
@@nikolasirovica3250 I agree many bike lanes are bad and dangerous. Any actual proponent understands these flaws and criticise these poor excuses of bike lanes. Painted gutter or worse a buffer between parked cars and travel lanes are not actual infrastructure. And I agree with forester fighting to allow people to still bike in roads. I wouldn't be surprised if bike lanes can make drivers believe even more that the roads are just for them and not for bikes. However, in the US people think this regardless so I really don't see this a great point. If there are no bike lanes most people on bikes hug the curb or go close to parked cars because people are going to be trying to pass no matter what so they want to avoid all the cars passing them. So few people will ever be comfortable with this kind of environment. Politically it's probably even harder to reduce the speed limits with traffic calming to the point that most people would be comfortable in mixed traffic then add bike lanes. Plus good separated bike lanes are a part of traffic calming measures, especially when there is so much space for car lanes like much of the US. Being against bike lanes is actually in support of leaving our streets dominated by cars and against taking that space back. I don't think fixing our streets is a one size fits all solution, some streets will need bike lanes, some will only need drastic traffic calming, and others will need to have cars removed entirely. Plus in general issues that can be dealt with to improve bikability are not just road infrastructure based as we need better enforcement and training for drivers, a crackdown on vehicle sizes, better public transit, and rezoning of areas for higher density while reducing parking.
@@ghz24 I agree, at least for now removing cars from most streets is not possible. Sometimes this means bike lanes should be used, other times what Nikola is talking about is best, especially the case for residential streets. The point is we should be making efforts to slow down cars on all streets while improving other transit options. That isn’t removing cars per se, but it is reducing the need and dominance of them.
Brave or crazy ride the vehicular cycling method, I do, but then I have been hit by 21 cars, as well as being run over ankle to rib cage by an eight ton truck. In other words, please make Alabama USA start respecting bicyclists and not forcing them to the edge of the road!
I not that mad on him. He tought what it's best. But only head experienced riders in mind. Still i do not like protected bike lanes because they run cyclelane on one side of the road this least to tricky conditions with incomming traffic when they aren't 4 meter wide. A pain are the CS routes in London
Nope. Every road altercation I ever got into was due to this stupid thinking. Ride like a car, take the lane, go out into traffic to turn left, obey all the traffic laws and sit out there in danger for no reason. So dumb and so dangerous. 1700 lbs is the minimum weight of an F1 car, an average car or truck on the road is much heavier than 2000 lbs.
2 ton metal boxes on wheels don't mix well with the vulnerable; pedestrians, bicycle users, children, older folks, the infirm, oh and other 2 ton metal boxes on wheels.
The thing is, while in an ideal world, everywhere would look like Amsterdam, in the imperfect world that we have, most of of our time cycling is spent on roads. Also given that existing bike lanes are often totally impractical for getting where you're going, 'vehicular cycling' is still an important idea. Set against quality, direct, well maintained segregated bike paths, it's not ideal. But set against the also common notion of banning bikes from roads and forcing cyclist onto poor quality, unusable bike lanes, it's indispensable.
It's actually not just the city of Amsterdam that has decent bicycle infrastructure. It is the entire country of the Netherlands. Not just within the cities and towns themselves, but it is usually also possible to cycle from city to city without ever having to share a road with cars that go over 50km/h (30 mph). So it is possible, if your government is willing to invest.
@@zoransteinmann2503 That may be. But I have to live in a world where they're not so willing. Therefore skills and awareness to ride on the road are very necessary.
Driving recently in our new 20mph urban area, (no cycle lane) I only just saw a cyclist in my semi blind spot behind the mirror, guess going so slow that my attention wondered. Not that I am against the 20mph, just that it has issues.
imagine John Forester had never excisted..... maybe, just maybe America would have a system more like Amsterdam or Copenhagen, less cars, more bikes.....that would have been awesome......
Bicycles have equal rights on the road here in NL. And we don't need to anxiously scurry along the edge of the road when we share it with cars. But still, separate bicycle lanes are a good thing when cars move past you with 3 times your speed or more.
No cyclists don't have equal rights on many roads in the Netherlands. If there is a bike lane on a certain route, cyclists must use it & can be fined for cycling in the car lane, while UK cyclists have the (dubious) "right" to use all roads except for motorways.. That's not a criticism of the Netherlands. Separation of modes is a good thing, & Dutch cyclists would be crazy to want to mix with cars on fast roads when the bike lanes are so good. While many UK main roads are unusable for most casual cyclists.
@@zivkovicable when cars and bicycles have to share a road, they do have equal rigths. A bicycle coming from the right has priority over a car from the left. And a seperate cyclepath alongside a priority road has priority too.
@@arthurhagen3826 What I mean is that cyclists do not have the right to use the car lane if there is a bike lane running along side. In the UK that isn’t the case.
@@zivkovicable aha, but that's not 'equal'.The car can't go on the bicycle path. But anyway, I prefer cycling here, where cyclists are not considered inferior road users by people encased in a ton of steel :)
Your conclusion is wrong. Vehicular cycling has dominated the design of our streets for years and mostly eliminated our ability to build what the Dutch and Danish have. Comparing the recent growth in cycling compared to the ridership in Europe makes this easily clear. Forester validated the "do nothing" approach in engineering for years. Forester’s statements reflected more a personal philosophy about the appropriate relationship of bicycling to driving than they did a reasoned understanding of safety research and emerging trends. In arguments he would state that “[bicyclists] acting subservient to motorists” is an “indignity”, phrasing such as “cyclist-inferiority cycling”. In discussions about how people riding bicycles are “disenfranchised” from riding on the public roadways by cycle tracks, are about as relevant to this discussion as the flimsy research study Forester cited as the basis for his critique. He was also opposed to building rail-trails in the 1980s and 1990s for these same reasons, which have proven to be groundless. The fact is that transportation policies are advancing to support increased bicycle transportation; but the damage of the past 40 years has been done. Relying on vehicular cycling-and thus relegating bicycling to only those few willing to ride in such environments- represented a massive failure both of policy and engineering.
I feel like our conclusions are the same. The Dutch and Danish approach to cycling has influenced the recent, and very limited, advances in bike lanes in North America, but it's been hobbled by the legacy of vehicular cycling. My point is that Forester's ideas on how we personally navigate traffic are still relevant, because we're still forced into traffic and need to stay safe.
An important difference as i understand it, is that in designing streets, in the USA "Level of Service", i.e. the amount of traffic a road can process, is the most important aspect, where as in the Netherlands safety for all road users is paramount. That does not mean every street has a cycle path, or even a cycle lane. most have none. City planners over here do exactly what their names suggest: they plan cities, not just a stretch of road. That means slowing down traffic in residential streets, no cycle lanes, designing street plans for different sections where cars can go in an out, but not through, so those streets will have less car traffic. These sections are connected by bicycle paths though and arterial roads often have bicycle lanes. Only the wider roads with large numbers of cars are likely to have separated bicycle lanes.
Peter Koonce read Jeff Speck’s books on Walkable Cities. You will get more history & background on city planning thru ages in North America. He had run in with this fellow years ago too. The Dutch cycling channel has lots on the gradual movement in the NL after the 1978 ‘Stop Killing Our Children’ movement, which lead to political changes for them to adapt cycling. It has taken decades of work there. Look at pictures from 70’s and early 80’s still was a work in progress. I was in Amsterdam in early 90’s in winter and faced lots of car traffic and very,title cycling. Paradigm shifts like this need consistent work and effort.
You have a very convoluted way of describing Effective Cycling. Those European bicycle lanes are setup with the humans in mind. They are safe by design and supported by the powers that be. If a bicyclist or pedestrian is struck by a motor vehicle the driver usually looses their right to operate a motor vehicle. Our so called bicycle paths are poorly designed. One difference is the way things are handled at intersections. Some bicycle motor vehicle collision studies show up to 89% of car bike collisions happen at intersections. Another problem is the codling of the motorists when they say they didn't see them. Say that line to a judge in Norway and see how fast you loose your license. If you want the license back there is a huge fine and months of remedial driver training. That is only if you haven't severely injured someone. Like myself Forester didn't like poorly built dangerous facility's. Davis California built safer infrastructure for there bicycling children to travel to school at one time. If you want safer bike lanes you need the cooperation of everybody. As things currently sit this is not happening. There are never going to be bicycle lanes everywhere. So read Effective Cycling and when your ride in those bicycle lanes remember to avoid getting doored and do not ride to the right of large vehicles when they go to make a right turn.
As a Dutchman having cycled somewhat in the UK, I agree that the cycling infrastructure in cities and towns in the UK in general is crap. However the rural roads are a joy to ride on.
I would not enjoy cycling on most rural roads in England...far to much traffic, that drives far too fast. Rural roads in Scotland, most are quiet and beautiful, some challenging steep...just avoid the main routes
I am sorry to say that you are wrong in almost everything to stated in this video. The Netherlands and Denmark is not Europe. Having prima facia laws in Europe is the main difference. Even is southern Netherlands the bike lanes are crap and it would be better to be able to use the road in many places. Separate but equal is a real problem; it is just that in Amsterdam and a few other cities it is the cars that are getting the short end of that stick. Even in Amsterdam there is a bike lane that is closed in one place, but the road is open, cars can get through and I have to detour 5 km.
Bikes ARE vehicles -- not pedestrians! Bikes do need to obey the same laws as motor vehicles -- with the exception and understanding that a bike is a slow-moving vehlcle and therefore needs to either stay clear of motor traffic or, have separate lanes for bike-only use. In Tennessee, for instance (if not changed), bikes can either turn left by "taking the (turn) lane" as would a motor vehicle OR, approach the far side of the road being crossed and stop (or slowing to walking speed) to face left and (when signalled or when clear) proceed across the road being left, thus turning onto the new road being travelled (much like a pedestrian crossing in the crosswalks -- or, like a truck making a square turn to avoid running over the left-hand corner or other vehicles stopped on the left).
Thank you for a balanced review of Forrester’s contribution. Writing from Nederland, most streets do not have separated infrastructure and there we need skilled, observant, confident cyclists. As a cycling instructor, we teach Forrester’s ideas as they apply whether we’re sharing our route with divers and cyclists,or just other cyclists. Forrester became obsessed with the wrong thing later in life, but that doesn’t remove his vital contribution to cycling.
When John Forester started effective cycling it was the peak of car imperialism and there was a movement to kick bikes off the roads and onto side walks and for a long time after his demand for space on the road, cities would paint a line and force cyclists into the gutter, complete with wheel catching drain covers and all the debris that cars forced there. I am old enough that I experienced many of these problems and was grateful to John for educating me on proper cycling techniques. There are still vast swaths of North America where cities put in a mile of bike lane here and there but no connections between them. If you don't ride on the road, you don't get anywhere.
I have lived in The Netherlands and agree that if you want vast numbers of people to cycle, you have to put in the infrastructure. But how do we get real bicycle infrastructure and not intermittent bike gutters? Even cities like Portland OR still do not have real bike infrastructure: Nobody wants to pay for it! And so we pay in other ways: Worse health; More pollution; And more dangerous roads.
In US terms, would like to see the federal government include in a bill a big pool of federal grant money for cities to pull from to build protected bike lanes. Even a measly $1 billion, which is a lot of money but is a drop in the bucket in the kind of infrastructure bill that's getting discussed, would build many thousands of miles of protected bike lanes across the country. Protected bike lanes are expensive for a city government that's already deep in debt (which is most of them, due to sprawl), but they're downright cheap compared to highway projects or major public transit projects.
@@aerob1033 The irony is that investing in (a network of) cycling infrastructure gives a return of $7-$20 for every $1 spent. It makes sense: cycling infrastructure is relatively cheap, it relieves the more expensive car and metro infrastructure, it reduces congestion. It has clear health benefits, reducing healthcare costs. It has a positive effect on air quality.
And a lot more traffic.
@@sirquasi But the return doesn't go to the lobbies that control the government, so it's not done.
Tell the Republicans that it will improve the economy and save them money after they're installed (properly) and tell the Democrats that it will reduce pollution. Then watch as a bipartisan government pushes through a bill to fund separated bike lanes along with a lot of completely unrelated shit that wouldn't pass without being shoved into a good cause.
1) Strong and Fearless: People willing to bicycle with limited or no bicycle-specific infrastructure
2) Enthused and Confident: People willing to bicycle if some bicycle-specific infrastructure is in place
3) Interested but Concerned: People willing to bicycle if high-quality bicycle infrastructure is in place
4) No Way, No How: People unwilling to bicycle even if high-quality bicycle infrastructure is in place
The people most likely to practice vehicular cycling are the Strong and Fearless. They are less than 1 percent of adults. You can instantly see the problem. Bike lanes are for the Enthused and Confident. Bike paths and sidewalks are for the interested but concerned. The no way no hows will never cycle. The strong and fearless group are the smallest and craziest group, those that most other cyclist and drivers think are either an asshole or a lunatic. Designing for them is as easy as designing it exclusively for a car but since they are less than 1 percent doing so will not encourage cycling. The Enthused and Confident group are about 7 percent. Nobody thinks they are a lunatic but considering that they will use bike lanes on the road which will intimidate less experienced riders. The interested but concerned group will ride where they feel safest, off the road. To design for them separated bike paths are preferred. You can spot one based on their sticking to the bike path or sidewalk if available, and they will look at the strong and fearless cyclist as if he were a lunatic. They make up the largest group of cyclists with about 60 percent of the population. The last group of “cyclists” are the no way no how. They will not ride, and will likely think that bikes are death traps designed by satan himself and will get into their cars and just drive. They are about 33 percent of the population. To increase cycling, the group to focus on are the interested but concerned, because they are the largest group and will bike more if the infrastructure is in place. Most of americas roads are designed for the lunatics... i mean strong and fearless cyclists, as in there is nothing separating cyclists from the cars that drive 40 mph down it. And most people will not be willing to bike in such harsh conditions.
Thanks for the great comment. These numbers you cite have been found in multiple cities in the same proportion, so you’re absolutely correct.
Vehicular cycling is better than bad cycling infrastructure. But great separated bicycling paths are way better.
Cycle in the third worlds you will know 😂😂😂😂
@@sebastianr1204 I agree. It’s better to go vehicular versus useless painted lines
@@sebastianr1204 Forcing cyclists to use completely inappropriate infrastructure lets designers "off the hook" as far as making roads for all. EG The city council closed a quiet road used by many cyclists. It replaced it with a shared walkway with pedestrians and cyclists. The pedestrians obey no laws at all. Recently the council has been issuing $1600 fines to cyclists for exceeding TEN KILOMETRES PER HOUR. The only other road that could be used would be suicidal. But if we could get a few thousand cyclists to ride along that road occupying all lanes at that same 10 kph can you imagine the traffic jams?
In some places in the Netherlands (such as low-traffic roads just outside the urbanized area and housing areas with very limited car traffic) I feel we do follow some of these ideas. With one difference, though: the law does not consider the one risking a scratch on the paint in a collision as equal to the one risking their life in the same collision...
is 'taking the lane' in a regular road also legal there, outside of say taking a left turn etc? I was just reading traffic laws here in croatia and it says that if no bike lane or path exists, one should cycle on the road, but close to the right curb, so not in the middle of it. Goes for mopeds when on one-way roads too. And I think that law is heavily copy-pasted from some EU source rather than being a local thing as it also defines the possibility of creating woonerfs, which don't exist here and would be a rather exotic thing to forsee in the current conditions here.
@@ciragoettig1229 I don't know the exact laws, but most of these places have low enough traffic volumes that you wouldn't need to and that it would be absolutely fine. I've even played ball games on a street like that when I was around ten years old. On the flip side, we do also have streets where letting a car pass as a cyclist can be a bit hard, so I personally prefer to go over the sidewalk whenever I see a car coming from the other side...
In Lisbon since they started implementing segregated bike lanes (there is about 150 kms at the moment with 15 in construction) the number of cyclists has risen by 800 % since 2010 and 600% since 2016
Thank you for this explanation. I'm part of a Prague magazine about city cycling and we will be soon releasing an article about this guy in Czech language. I'm glad that we have same information and view on his ideas as you!
Glad it was helpful!
I am in Europe and I have to say I really value John Forester's contribution to cycling. I think there is a lot of validity in many of his criticisms of cycle lanes. I think bad cycle lanes are worse than no cycle lanes and here in the UK we have many bad cycle lanes unfortunately. Even with really good cycle lanes cyclists will be sharing the roads with cars at some stage and so developing good skills for that is very important and Forester's approach to this is excellent.
In looking at places in Europe where we have seen success in increasing bicycle usage I think there tends to be an overemphasis on cycle lanes. Another very important thing has been simply limiting the number of journeys by private car. The thing which prevents many people from cycling is fear of being hit by a car on the road and if you simply reduce the number of cars on the roads then the roads become more attractive for cycling. We saw a massive increase in cycling in the UK during the lockdowns for the coronavirus pandemic due to the reduction in car journeys.
In the Netherlands they have taken measures to reduce the number of car journeys in some cities. In Groningen, the city with the most journeys by bicycle, they divided the city into sectors and cars cannot travel from one sector to another (that's a simplification but you get the idea). It means that for short journeys in the city walking or cycling is more attractive than using a car.
In London a congestion charge has reduced the number of cars in the central areas and this has helped bring a big increase in cycling in the city over the last decade or so.
Yes, this is a valid point. I think in North America, proposing any sort of limit on the use of cars is still seen as anathema, as if driving your private automobile anywhere you want, wherever you want and parking it wherever you want for free is some God-given right, and not a series of decisions that we collectively make.
@@Shifter_Cycling haha! True! I would love for a city in Canada to do that just to watch people's hilarious reactions! Haha! 😂 Some people can be short-sighted.
However, I wouldn't expect much an reaction from Vancouver. They got some pretty good transit and bike infrastructure.
How are bad cycle lanes worse than none?
I taught Effective Cycling concepts from Forrester's book back in the 1980s and early 90s until it dawned on my that very few of my students or their parents would actually risk cycling on city streets. My own wife thought I was crazy. Forrester's one good idea was to teach cyclists to behave according to the law for vehicles: make sure you signal, change lanes appropriately, look all around continually, don't travel the wrong way on one way streets, etc. Everything else he advocated has been disproven empirically. I pitched his book and all my materials in the trash and now I am a strong proponent of separate bicycle lanes, physically protected if possible but at the very least marked appropriately. As these later ideas from Europe have advanced in the US, cyclists in turn have started turning out in huge numbers to use them. My wife is one of them. Accidents are still a problem, many of them from vehicles making abrupt right or left turns, and Forrester's admonitions to pay attention to other vehicles are still valuable.
Holding the lane and signalling are useful *if* you have to share a lane (especially going into complex junctions) with a car, but yeah, obviously not a replacement for actual dedicated cycling lanes and systems. Still a useful concept, especially for rural cycling and other areas where you may be jumping between cycling/mixed use paths and roads and which would likely be the last places to be afforded any budget, and a skill that should be taught as we live in an imperfect society, but always with the emphasis that this is not a replacement for separated bicycle lanes. Just me perspective from cycling in the Scottish Highlands and Edinburgh, probably due to growing up where my ride always meant taking a single track road where it was quiet enough to be pretty safe, but you still wanted to be on a predictable part of the road and act in a predictable manner to reduce risk.
He was right that removing cyclists from the roads would make it more dangerous to cycle. While Forester's ideas are improved on, nothing has been "disproven empirically." What we had was decades of propaganda that ended up being support for massive over0-urbanization by land owners and building developers. The bike community was used. The roads more dangerous, the trees cut down, the community regulations gotten around, and a ton of infrastructure laid down that will have to ripped up. The cities have just killed themselves... They had the chance to do it right and they absolutely blew it.
I commute in Virginia Beach, a city that seems to have been specifically designed to hinder cyclists and pedestrians. The city is bisected N/S by an interstate. At all but one of the roads passing under that interstate, there is literally zero safe walking or cycling path. You are literally forced to either: 1) take the lane on a large divided boulevard with a 45 mph speed limit, or 2) shoulder the bike and walk along the 45-degree concrete slope of the underpass. It's beyond crazy. I have learned how to ride in traffic, but I don't like it much at all. Even a skinny, barrierless bike line would be a major improvement here.
That is hellish yeesh. I'm a commuter in Richmond and am grateful for the lower speed limits.
A major reason why "vehicular" cycling was enthousiatically endorsed in the USA was because it costs exactly zero dollars and zero effort to build a vehicular infrastructure.
Anothor major reason why is because of the draconian zoning rules that rules the US. Cities, towns, villages are all alike. Build around a car centric infrastructure enforced by these draconian zoning rules.
And after all that the excuses started. Such as, but not limited to:
1)We are different.
2) Europe has old cities. We, the USA, have young cities. Building a cycle network is therefore not feasible in the USA.
Except where complete new residentials are build in Europe. Then the excuse is: When cannot do that because our cities are older.
3) The USA is a big country.
So what? Nobody suggest or proposes that you should build a cycle path from NYC to LA.
The size of a country is totally irrelevant. Relevant is where do you work, move and live 99% of the time?
Build your infrastructure , not for cars but, for humans for that 99% of the time.
If you have to travel any further than that, let's say the ISS, then take a rocket.
4) But even within the cities everything is too far apart to cycle ... which is kind of true.
Exactly because of the draconian zoning rules.
But instead of using this as an argument why don't you change the zoning rules.
Which is kind of starting just recently under the title and term "mixed zoning planning".
5) It is too hot, too cold, too windy, too humid, too dry, too rainy, too snowy, too hilly, too ... whatever to cycle.
If that is a valid excuse then why are there per capita less cyclists in the USA than, for instance, Finland (having severe long cold winters) and Switserland (a mountenous country) and Spain (having dry hot summers).
6) Intersections with cycle paths or cycle lanes are more dangerous than intersections without cycle paths or lanes (as claimed by John Forrester).
Which is true ... kind of.
It is true in the USA because you have to design for cyclists at the intersections too.
But the cycle infrastructure in the USA often stops exactly just before intersections.
And in case of the occasional cycle infrastructure at intersections it often is badly designed.
That has nothing to do with the safety of cycle lanes or cycle paths but has everything to do with the substandard intersection design.
In many western Europe countries the cycle infrastructure at intersections is fundamentally a part of the intersection design itself.
Specifically in The Netherlands, Denmark and Finland.
And probably more European countries. But these are the countries I am familiar with.
By the way, it is not only that cyclists are more vulnerable than cars. Cyclists are also much slower than cars. Which explains the tendency why the average US cyclist tries to out run the car traffic. Instead of considering a bicycle a vehicle one should consider a cyclist a mechanised pedestrian. That is a shift in focus and thinking.
With this thought concept in mind, would you propose to widen the road by removing the sidewalks so the pedestrian can become a vehicular pedestrian?
The vehicular pedestrian rules are simple. These rules are exactly the same as the current vehicular cycling rules.
Be brave and just take the lane. It is absolutely 100% guaranteed to be safe, as long as everybody obeys the rules all the time perfectly and nobody at any time makes any mistake ever.
Good analysis. I'm glad that some Canadian cities are now building a bunch of cycling infrastructure.
I do vehicular cycling when 1) there are no bike lanes; and 2) when there's a car in the bike lane.
A society that puts the car on a pedestal quite obviously favors the motorist. The problem isn't how and where the cyclist rides their bike, the problem is the cars-first transportation system that has been imposed on all of us in the US. So this isn't about the decisions that we make it's about the decisions that are made for us.
I have a mantra: "Plan for people, not for cars." (and as for people I mean the pedestrian and as wel as the 18 wheeler....)
haha, no. there are certain things bike riders need to be aware of just because they're riding a bike. 1. share the road does not mean you own it, 2. never ride the middle of a road or too narrow of a road if you are incapable of the speed limit, 3. pedalcycles are not equal to a multi-thousand pound chunk of metal that can do 0-60 in a few seconds and require a much greater amount of awareness and skill to operate, thus... BASIC SAFETY IS TO YEALD TO WHAT IS MORE DANGERIOUS. "sycholists" do not have the right nor privilege to be allowed to do 15 in a 45 when even motorists cant go that slow without getting a ticket because its just as dangerous as going to fast. bicycles are not equal and never will be, if they where, there wouldn't be a problem and Forester would have been just another average joe. mixed traffic actually "worked" when motorists where limited to 15-20mph to accommodate bikes yet size and weight still led to conditions favoring motorists. bikes are not equal they are a special case... the problem? well, as i said before share the road does not mean you own the road nor can you ignore the capabilities and limitations of your bike and yourself on said road. in terms of safety, speed, comfort, and cargo capacity cars and trucks are by far the superior means of transportation and it would be ludicrous for society and infrastructure not to reflect that. so the problem? is exactly how and where the cyclist rides. the relationship between us cyclists and motorists leaves a lot to be desired and improved upon and both cyclists and motorists need to understand that these vehicles are of a different class, are capable of very different things, and act accordingly.
@@carls.6746
I think you make some interesting points . . . but please, please learn to spell. At first, I thought your spelling of "cyclists" was an attempt at "psychologists."
@@carls.6746 I agree completely with your plea for a completely separated biking infrastructure away from car traffic, or when unable to do that, to lower the speed limit to that of a cyclist, like 15mph or so. This way it's safe for everyone, nobody drives unsafely slow and no need for unsafe passing.
I'm not sure about the skill thing though: sitting in a chair and pressing your foot down seems to require less skill and awareness than balancing on a bike and trying to avoid getting run over.
Also, with "GIVE WAY TO DANGEROUS" seems to promote using big trucks and automatic rifles over regulations. Why install traffic lights if you can achieve stuff THE AMERICAN WAY *YEEHAW*
@@eyesofthecervino3366 that is ablist
They are building a bicycle lane in my town :)
Painted gutters.
@@KandiKlover sadly true lol
Gotta start somewhere! Hopefully they'll build a second and third one too :)
IMHO, rather than saying that vehicular cycling is "a dead idea", it would be more accurate to say that it's no longer thought of as a valid approach for designing infrastructure by any serious transportation engineer.
As you say later, the idea itself is not only not "dead", it still has great value in many cities in North America. I'm not aware of _any_ North American city that has fully embraced European ideas about cycling infrastructure to the extent that cyclists no longer need to know how to ride on streets that lack cycling infrastructure. And many cities are still stuck in the vehicular cycling mindset, having no master plan to implement cycling infrastructure, no plan to provide proper, separated bike lanes and paths, and frankly only even bothering to paint unprotected lanes in order to meet federal requirements to qualify for federal funding assistance for road projects.
Indeed, in North America, any cyclist expecting to use their bike for transportation owes it to themselves to be _very_ familiar with the vehicular cycling techniques, so that they can minimize the ever-present hazards they will be subjected to getting from point A to point B.
Hardly a dead idea, by any stretch of the imagination.
Yeah the only time I've seen the mixed traffic system work is in slow moving car areas with clear labeling. I really enjoyed riding in Downtown Corvallis as car lanes were clearly labeled as "shared bike lanes" and the speed limits were set to 15-20mph, so it seemed to flow ok in a mixed-use format. But that was about it. Pretty much the only way I've ever seen it work is basically limiting the automobile to travel at bicycle speeds, and even then I'm sure there have been some NASTY problems with aggressive drivers over the years.
As a child I was taught that I was a vehicle and to obey road laws and to expect to take my rights when needed. The trouble was that motorists tended to not give cyclists or pedestrians their rights and gradually discrimination crept into law a bit at a time. This same problem existed elsewhere until we have the "might is right" doctrine. Trains bully heavy trucks which bully lighter trucks that bully heavy cars that bully lighter cars that bully motorcyclists that bully cyclists that bully pedestrians. I don't know who pedestrians bully.
Insects
Disabled people?
I agree, his ideas are required till you have a fully integrated bike lane network, it’s essential.
Thanks for watching
over the last 25 years all mayor road here in Belgium have been upgraded with separated bike lanes. in the provence where i lie there is even a large network of bike roads, separated for motor traffic (bikes only). its made of of numbered intersections, so you can easily plan your route by just noting the numbers in sequence. i usually put it on a postit and tape it on my handlebar
It's not one or the other, in Europe you have both. If there is no dedicated lane for bikes, bikes have to use same lane than the cars and then "taking the lane" and the left turn shown in that video are the legal form how you have to do a left turn on a bike. At leasts ist like that here in Germany.
Totally agree. In Holland 30 km/h zones generally don't have bike paths/lanes. It's normal to take the lane and to travel side by side if you're cycling together, even if it means a car behind can't overtake, since cyclist have the same right to the road as motorist do.
@@caoimhinocsigen I think that's where other countries really can learmn from the Netherlands. Far too many people, videos and politicians only focus on the great and wide bike lanes when talking about bike friendly roads and using the Netherlads as example.
But in many parts of cities and towns its impossible to build such wide bike lanes without blocking smaller roads completly for cars. So the polticians either use this as excuse to do nothing at all, or they just draw a line to separate a 50 cm wide part of the road as bike lane. For cyclists those lanes are usually more dangerous than having no own lane at all.
By reducing the speed to 30 km/h and giving bikes the same rights than cars neither needs additional space nor expensive rebuilding of the roads.
Even here in germany I feel comfortable on my by bicycle when sharing the road with cars in 30 km/h zones.
I think drivers of cars also get much more tolerant to bikes in 30 km/h reduced zones. Maybe that because the speed limit somehow keeps them aware that they down own the road and have to share it with others.
Your videos always show perfect roads. In Québec, you often have to avoid the shoulder because it is in bad shape with potholes etc or has lots of gravel on it. Road surface conditions seem to be ignored by all the youtubers who are urbanists and want to restrict cyclists to only the arrow space allocated to them on the right of the road, you know that space with all the cracks, potholes and manholes. I'd rather drive straight on road than constantly zigzagging in and out of the bike lane which makes me far less predictable to car drivers.
Mixing traffic is safe on roads with max speeds of 30 km/h. Which is what we do a lot in residiential streets in the Netherlands. In cities some of those are even turned to primary bicycle streets: a "fietsstraat" (also 30 km/h), in which cars are 'guests': the people who live there and the occasional visitor / delivery. It's mostly used to connect bicyclelanes.
Interesting video 👍 As sort of noted at the end of this video, adding infrastructure isn't a replacement for learning proper riding skills in traffic. Making people safe is great, encourages more cycling and it's good to see more and more of it happening but when the infrastructure runs out because traffic becomes light or whatever reason we're back to riding with vehicles. Cycling infrastructure for most will unlikely go door to door.
Just noticed this. He is (was I guess) my near namesake. Taking London as the example I know we actually have layers (best described that way) of cycling infrastructure, with various and separate initiatives not always properly joining up even if the crisscross each other. Variously we have some places (less than some would like) of separated bike lanes, and others where signs go down backstreets but cars and lorries are not allowed through. Personally my worst favourite is a separated bike lane down a very busy road next to a load of exhausts. In the centre of town, that is less likely, but there are some places in the outer suburbs where the bike lanes have been added to main roads.
My preference is going down a backstreet with no through (thus fast) traffic - preferably little traffic. I guess that makes me of a generation to believe some of Forester's material. "Own the lane", yes. "Behave as a slow car", yes. Would I do that down a road with 40/50/60mph traffic. In town, not willingly. In a country lane, of course - you want to own the lane to make it slow down.
Recently, due to covid, we had some pop-up cycle lanes that were not well used. There was a perfectly good existing cycle route a block or so south (actually two of them) which is actually just bikes in mixed traffic but nothing more than some bikes painted on the road and advance stop areas on the traffic lights. That is the route people use. The separated lane on the main road was dropped. Nobody lamented.
No one lamented because it was a probably a poor location or not given enough time. There is a still a culture shift that needs to happen to decrease car travel before bike lanes become widely used by many. COVID-19 is an okay time to test out bike lanes but far from the best time and way.
In lack of a proper cycling infrastructure "taking the lane" is still safer than "riding the curb".
Also: vehicular cycling would be easier to put in place as it doesn't require much changes to the roads. But it would only work if allowed speed in cities would be reduced to 30kph or 15mph. To compensate crossings could be converted into roundabouts. They are especially efficient with mixed traffic at lower speeds. The time from a to b in a city would be comparable for automotive vehicles and a lot faster for cyclists. There wouldn't be crossings between both infrastructures and it would cost a lot less. Additionally emissions and nitrox pollution would decrease in relation to driven distances. Furthermore such infrastructure would allow for hybrid vehicle development that lay between bikes and light cars. Again allowing for less emissions with modern solutions.
In those areas where space isn't an issue it'd be still better to construct separated infrastructures. But as always one solution isn't always the best.
And I wouldn't be sad if we even got rid of cars in city centers altogether. Cars could be parked outside and free tickets added on top of the parking fee. Also cities could easily subvention such developments by giving out financial support to its residents to buy better bikes.
Just get that seperated bicycle infrastructure already.
Greets from the Netherlands.
In Germany we have Bernd Sluka with a similar position, citing bike lanes as dangerous based on 30+ year old studies and totally missing the vastly different number of cyclists in both cases.
Not a committed bicyclist, but as a moped rider I can say that where I live, the rules certainly treat us sub-50CCs as second class drivers. We may not use bus lanes (even though cyclists may) and we are allowed to execute proper left turns if the road has only one lane in the direction we are going. Naturally, most riders disregard the left turn rule because hand-pushing your moped/scooter across a zebra feels as stupid as it sounds, wastes time and attracts weird looks from both peds & drivers, and I have seen some people perform hook turns (they are not forbidden explicitly) if road markings allow it, but the left turn rule is mind-bogglingly stupid. Some say the limit is due to mopeds top speed being limited by rules to 50 km/h and therefore too slow for the left lane, but it is enough not to hold back cars slowing down before a traffic light when changing lanes - nationwide speed limit for cities is 60 km/h.
I wonder if John Forester ever did "vehicular cycling" in one of the many stroads, that take up 90% of the US and Canadian roads, where cars are ripping through at 80 km/h. Did he happily bike on a lane at 20 km/h while cars were blaring their horns at him telling him to get the hell off the road?
Honestly, the two biggest reasons I've gotten so confident cycling was a mix of being late while commuting and having no regard for my own safety. When I'm late while commuting I will push the envelope to make it on time going wayyy out of my comfort zone.
i'm living in mexico, here i think the solution is the road education for make possible share the road with bikers, drivers and buses. Some people is very unconscious with his cars against cyclist.
I'd love see more people sharing the streets with no problems
I still use hand signals for left and right turns and use left turning lanes. Luckily for me it's early morning with minimal traffic. My route home is more scenic and relaxed. I ride a commuter bike with cruiser handlebars and biking to me is a fun part of my day.
I learned from Forester how to cycle in traffic and it's a valuable skill. He's also right that we shouldn't give up our rights to ride on the road. What got him started was when he received a ticket for cycling in the street.
The problem is, as the video makes clear, that most people will never feel comfortable cycling around cars. We need a bicycle infrastructure to make the transition to mass ridership.
Forester was pretty dogmatic. I argued with him at a talk he gave.
Still, Forester is a hero who helped keep bicycling alive during difficult times.
While most of my commute outside of work such as to the store or to a friends are still stroad ridden, I'm proud of the progress my area has made. My commute to work if in no rush is a 3 mile commute that is nearly all trails through beautiful woods, around the back of suburbia and through some parks. In the next few years once the newer portions are finished, I can bike almost entirely to work with only crossing 3-4 roads with minimal fuss. I am currently working on biking home from work every day in order to build my endurance so once spring comes, I know the way around my city better. Super thrilled lol
I live in Georgia, United States. Our traffic and marine law states that a bike is a vehicle and therefor is prohibited from sidewalks and forced onto main pathways. It also states that self propelled vehicles (row boats, sailboats, kayaks, bicycles, and such) have the right of way priority. All motorized vehicles are required to yield to self propelled vehicles in all waterways and roadways.
It's pretty consistent as far as common sense is concerned. The issue is that no one cares and offenders are rarely ticketed. As a result, it's very dangerous for cyclists at times. Even motorcyclists are weary of urban traffic.
So I'm a fan of both ideas. At least urban areas ought to have bike lanes because of non attentive drivers. Open roads, I'm fine with sharing the lanes with motorized vehicles.
For about a year in the early 1980s I commuted on Seattle arterials much like Forester advocated. Looking back, I think I was crazy and could have been killed. The size and power ratio is simply too great to be workable. In my case, I actually tried to find safer side streets to use, but none were available for the route I needed to take.
That's also why I considered absolutely insane what Seattle was doing when I moved away in 2012. That was drawing little white lines alongside busy arterials and calling the result a "bike lane." If that painted line can't stop SUVs and the city's 10-foot-wide stretch buses, I told myself, then its no bike lane.
My neighborhood was too well established to add a dedicated path for bikes like the city's Burke Gilman Trail, built along a former rail route. But the city could have found residential streets and configured them for bike traffic, with only local automobile traffic permitted.
No one has never tauch me about "taking the lane" and yet I do it all the time and most importantly, I find it very effective, specially in a city with virtually no cycle lanes as mine.
He was mentioning about the numbers of cyclists staying minuscule under the system of "vehicular cycling" (not a common a term here), but isn't it true that in the 1970s you had a massive bike boom especially for road bikes generally, and specifically "ten-speeds", regardless of no European low country type of changes being implemented? That would of had an effect over time also for the popularity of bikes. So that happened in spite of Forester's dominate thinking.
Actually this is still being pushed today by cycling advocates and forums who naively think they are being super safe and try to encourage other people to as well. It’s very common in the USA and UK and is really annoying and idiotic and made me avoid a lot of cycling forums. 50 years.
For a lot of people is either that or not ride at all. This spells the death of cycling. Hence why we actually need both.
You can either wish and wait forever until separate bikelines exist, or you ride like John Forrester: Assertive riding
As a child of the 50's, I was taught to pedal my bicycle as a vehicular cyclist. I never heard of Mr. Foster back then. No one knew of complete street design which segregates the road for user use. But, I could pedal my bicycle anywhere in town. The majority of motorists used common sense when approaching a cyclist. Today, one can not assume the motorist has common sense - it is so bad, that companies are actually trying to manufacture automobiles that rely on computers to perform the task of driving. I wonder how dangerous these driver-less cars will become?
I get what your saying about computers in cars. To some degree it helps, like maybe older folks who still need to drive but aren't as keen anymore, but for people learning, it creates a false sense of security, which can be a bad thing if automated systems fail, or if they get into a car they're not used to or is older than the technologies themselves and end up putting themselves and others in danger due to their lack of driving experience and technique. Probably a small ish problem right now, but this might become more prevalent in the coming future
Sadly I think I'd put more faith in the computers.
The vehicular cycling idea was also quite prominent among cycle activists in Budapest in the 00's AFAIK. The reason may have been the large number of intersections in a given distance on a city street there, and a seperate bike lane makes designing safe intersections more challenging. The pace of car traffic is also quite slow due to the frequent traffic jams.
I've also seen intermingled car-biycle traffic in Danemark in busy urban areas. The reason there too may have been the slower speed of motor vehicles.
It took me awhile to realize that the vehicular cyclists expect to be able to keep up with traffic; I'll stick with riding my #partypace as far right as practicable.
Always leave yourself some wind wobble / pothole dodge space.
@@armadillito and door dodging space.
This is not accurate, and usually physically impossible. Vehicular cycling is not about speed, but positioning. For superior safety, position yourself to be visible and unpassable at all times, just like a motorcyclist would. Do not "hide" or "get lost" in the gutter or between parked cars. Of course, children and slow riders should stay on the sidewalk. Note that riding fast on the sidewalk is exceptionally dangerous.
@@tails8333 On the streets around here, I'm either in the door zone or in the lane. At 10-12 mph, in the lane is not feasible, as I'm the slowest thing on the pavement, so door zone it is. And no, riding on the sidewalk is not an option; it's illegal for anyone but little kids and, like you said, dangerous.
@@Korina42 when you’re visibly in the lane, approaching cars will see you early on and go into the other lane to pass you. Alternatively, you can pull over periodically to let groups of cars past you. Cars naturally travel in clusters because of traffic lights, so there are gaps in traffic you can ride through. Of course, very fast and busy two lane roads with no center lane would still be very difficult to ride along, but multi lane roads become a piece of cake once you become comfortable with taking the lane. In areas with giant block sizes and multi lane roads, taking the lane is the safest option.
This is awesome, man. Know why? Anyone who's super into this stuff probably already knows it, but having it laid out so clearly in such an accessible format, is super useful, eg to be able to send to friends when arguing about these issues.
Also John Forester obviously wasn't prescient of the rise of the SUV, on any road now cyclists are definitely second class citizens.
Also also, is that a Beeline on your handlebars?
I have a very simple benchmark to determine if a place has safe and proper cycling infrastructure. I just ask myself: "Would I let my 5 and 7 year old children go to school on their bikes in this place?". If the answer is yes, the bike infrastructure is safe. My children are used to going to school by bike (accompanied by parents). They do know to stop for traffic lights, use hand signals and to cross the road, however their attention span is limited and do regularly swerve somewhat.
If I imagine my kids to ride their bikes with this "vehicular driving" type of infrastructure it is pretty clear that this is not safe cycling infrastructure.
Here in Philippines, we have no bike lanes, so we are basically forced to be excellent in bike handling 😂
I started using a bicycle for transportation in the '70's, and I feel Forester was just recognizing the reality in the US.
Now there are bike lanes all over Seattle, where I live, but most of them create new problems. The typical bike lane I use is a door zone bike lane. I need to hug the line next to traffic to stay mostly out of the door zone. Or, I encounter an even worse situation where the bike lane is between a row of parked cars and the curb, so I have nowhere to go when a passenger opens their door in front of me. For drivers about to turn right, I'm hidden by the row of parked cars, so I'm guaranteed to get right hooked. I won't ride in those, so the drivers get angry 'Why don't you ride in the bike lane?!'. Or, we get two way bike lanes on one side of a street. Drivers entering the street will look upstream of the normal traffic direction, and be oblivious of any cyclist riding on the side of the bike lane going opposite the vehicle traffic on that side. A separated one way bike lane outside of any door zones is a rare treat.
All because, in the US, providing free parking for cars on the street is more important than providing space for bikes. This is the reality Forester recognized.
Bike lanes as they are done in North America are often so difficult to navigate as well and bike trails fail to connect into roads properly. His ideas might’ve enabled the sprawling car-sized developments you see in Bellevue and Renton though. But whatever the case, the skills to bike like a car are really important and maybe education would be more effective than putting up bike lanes parallel to roads.
vehicular cycling makes perfect sense, and i do it all the time in berlin. if you have actually good bike infrastructure, that's better, no question. but i'm not going to stay on a painted-on bike lane that will have me crash into an open door or a car turning right.
with these techniques i may be closer to the cars, but i have much less risk of them crossing my path, where unintuitively the gravest danger lies.
it's also much faster to do a left turn. on the bike path, you're forced to stop at least once. on the road, there's a good chance you can just go on.
Exactly! Much safer to go with the flow. Other vehicles see you sooner and have more time to decide how to avoid hitting you. All my bike crashes over 30 years have been on the MUTs, none on the roads. I take the lane to avoid invisible debris that gives me flats, but when I hear a car coming up behind, I graciously slide over to the right and let him pass. If there's oncoming traffic? Stay in the lane.
I live in a city in USA with a decent amount of bike lanes, but 70% of my riding is just on busy streets full of cars. Can only think of 2 separated bike lanes in my whole city. As you can imagine, I have to rely on these techniques a lot.
Well, I understand his reasoning, because if I look at the old bike infrastructure in Berlin, it’s really just a narrow strip or a mix with pedestrians. In these times, bike infrastructure was built ironically for the car, so that they didn’t had to bother with bikes; bike paths were mandatory to use.
But of course the idea of sharing the road on an equal level is an idealization, that never was going to happen. Of course a car wins, because no one (except the fearless) want to gamble with their life in order to get an equal treatment. Taking the lane just doesn’t work if someone honks at you and trying to squeeze in between. Also it’s so stressful navigating in heavy traffic as a cyclists. I‘m glad that they finally built proper cycling infrastructure on main roads, but although there is a cycling network, there’s still a lot todo.
Vehicular cycling completely ignores the needs of the disabled, women and children. Segregated infrastructure with networks of low speed/traffic is the only safe option if you sit lower in traffic, or are slightly wobbly!
As a bike advocate, it is clearly much better to have accessible bike lanes with higher ridership rates. However, there is something so enjoyable about vehicular cycling. It’s hard to explain but it’s very fun to assert yourself and flow alongside or with traffic
This video is too generous to Forester.
This video is a great example of the fact that people can disagree, but still they have respect for different opinions.
Thanks for this video showing that.
BTW I am just back from my daily 20-30 kilometres bicycle ride.
As the infrastructure for bicycles is extremely poor here I use unpaved agricultural roads in my area.
I don't know why, but this made me cry.
That where the rules that they removed in the Netherlands. It wasn't that safe, so they switched to cycle lanes.
In Bournemouth, we only have a few bike lanes, which most of the time have cars parked on them. I usually cycle on the road, as do 70% of the people here. Had no problems with any motorists luckily. Motorists tend to be nicer to cyclists here than the average town/city as most of the drivers also cycle! Seen plenty of families cycle on the roads with no issues, it's just really down to mutual respect and being considerate. Can't say the same for city cycling though!
I agree. Most places in GB the cyclist is an inconvenience to the motorist. Taking the lane is impossible on busy roads with poor visibility of cyclists by car drivers. Not so busy roads tend to have 40 to 60 mph limits and are difficult to cross for that reason.
I've found too that many car drivers are just inconsiderate. On urban roads they object to having tthe lane blocked due to lower speed. On a very quiet country road, twisty and rising 800 feet over 8 miles with rocky overhangs in places (Borrowdale in the Lake District), I was regularly tailgated by a car for half a mile and then overtaken on a blind corner with rocky overhang. Bad enough during the day but appalling on a moonless night.
Well, in a certain way his idea of vehicular cycling came true in the Netherlands and more and more in Germany, but kind of the opposite way. There are cycling-streets where cars are allowed to drive but only as guests. They must not overtake cyclists and there are speed-limits for cars.
and most importantly, car density has to be below certain levels or these cycle streets do not work. So they can only be implemented when all through traffic is diverted elsewhere.
John Forester changed my life for the better thirty years ago when I read his book Effective Cycling and took it fully to heart.
I'm late to this one but it pertains to the left hand turn. In your video you went from the right side of the road, the shoulder, straight across lines of traffic to execute your left turn. Hardly practical and actually dangerous if there are vehicles around. So in this scenario taking the lane and preparing a left hand turn in the left lane is more practical and safer. That being said quite recently I had an argument with a senior citizen because he said I was going to slow in his Lane and I should be in the bike lane on the right. Little did he know I was executing a left-hand turn immediately so I pulled him aside cuz I didn't like his attitude and I explained to him how dangerous it would be for me to go from the right hand shoulder straight across the lane to execute a left hand turn. Forever will the danger be coming from uninformed motorist. Let's just say at the end of my conversation with him he removed himself from my presence as fast as he could.
I mean didn't "vehicular cycling" exist as the default long before John Forester. Like when cars really first came on the scene in the 20s and 30s didn't cars and bikes mix freely like the "shared space" concept today?
I didn't know vehicular cycling was dead. Now I know why so many people yell at me and honk the horn when I take the lane. I should be able to legally do anything on my bike that you can on a motorcycle provided I am not severely blocking traffic. And even that should be OK if I don't have any other choice.
North America has space enough, even within city limits. All you'd have to do is make the width of lanes smaller. Use that space to plonk in decent bike lanes. It would mean something else, switch to max widths of cars to say, 7ft 2inch. Including mirrors.
Very interesting, thanks for sharing.
How do you feel about riding on the sidewalk? It is technically illegal where I live but if the street has lots of cars that is where I ride.
In the college town where I live, biking on the sidewalks is permitted except in the downtown, where there is a lot of pedestrian traffic. That said, the sidewalks are narrow and typically only on one side of the street, making them almost worthless for biking.
The town has an abundance of quiet residential streets that would be great for biking except for the reason why they get so little auto traffic. Most run for only a few blocks before being interrupted. The city wants to force cars onto the arterials, but that means that bikers must do the same. The result is very little biking, even among college students.
Sidewalks are fine if riding at slow speeds. I never ride on the sidewalk, at any speed. All issues I've had cycling have been on the sidewalk, so I just don't it anymore and dismount immediately. Imagine the obstacles: slower pedestrians, dogs on leashes, baby cribs, runners, uneven concrete slabs with slits, bushes sticking out, commercial signs displayed in the middle of the sidewalk, uncleared branches and debris, up and down curbs, often unnaturally bending pathways, uncleared snow, ice, and lack of salt, general invisibility to cars when entering intersection from sidewalks with any high speed, etc.
I didn't know about John Forester, but I agree with him. I've been riding in the streets while commuting for 30 years, and I think it's important to assert your rights as a road user. I think the reason people don't like doing that is due to the weight of responsibility of the cyclist. I have to be hyper aware about who is doing what and where, and to anticipate what they will do. Also, it's important to give way to the faster vehicles whenever possible. The give and take of both motor powered and human powered can coexist just fine among reasonable, enlightened people. I don't mind bike lanes in certain areas where traffic is moving much faster than I am, specifically the suburbs. I don't need bike lanes in the city.
You talk for the 1% of cyclists. Which is understandable, because that is what you are used to. But what about the other 99% of cyclists? Consider the following. Cyclists like:
ruclips.net/video/swqaAIkGtpA/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/8NUgB_xkIvU/видео.html Would you send your child to school on a bicycle in your own town? Normal in The Netherlands.
ruclips.net/video/Ojb7OKz6wKk/видео.html primary school
ruclips.net/video/FLRrA-rKY-Q/видео.html Can you cycle like this in your town? (3 kids and the groceries)
ruclips.net/video/ynwMN3Z9Og8/видео.html Some more of the other 99%. Mainly daily commuters.
Consider the following. This:
ruclips.net/video/gqqVTNg6tC4/видео.html
Versus this:
ruclips.net/video/ioSZOt37PBo/видео.html
What feels more esthetical human to you? honestly!
Or this:
ruclips.net/video/2VYE2i5Sw8M/видео.html Ambulance in rush hour taking the cyclepath. A common practice (also for police and fire trucks)
Versus this:
ruclips.net/video/bkJ-Js7fuoI/видео.html
What is more efficient? Honestly!
Good for you. But we don't want just athletic fearless types to be the only ones who feel safe to ride.
If Granny is still able to pedal, however slowly, she should be able to bike to bingo if she wants to. And that's where separate bicycle infrastructure comes in. I cycle vehicularly, but only because I had the misfortune of not being born in the Netherlands.
I don't know where you find these reasonable, enlightened people but it sure is hell ain't the United States.
Actually, here in the Netherlands, the education for cyclists and car drivers includes "taking the lane" and similar manouevers, if you need to change lanes in a spot where there is no bicycle infrastructure.
And our road laws support it, bicyclists are considered "drivers", like those riding a horse or motorbike or horse and carriage. They have an equal right to the road by law.
here in SE Texas there is a hodge-podge of sporadic acknowledgement that wheeled vehicles even exist other than cars, trucks and motorcycles.
I swear they Hate wheelchairs, disability scooters, and especially Bicycles.
Bicycle lanes are almost non-existant. Sidewalks end 3/4 of the time with a huge drop-off curb instead of a ramp and are interspersed with stretches of no sidewalk at all.
Most streets have no shoulder, some a shoulder on one side only, and I don't know how they do it but they manage to make a lot of intersections blind corners.
There is a law that vehicles Must share the right hand lane with bicycles, HOWEVER,
Even public busses slam on their brakes at the last second, honking frantically, to avoid hitting you. The anger shown is indicative of the total lack of knowledge that they are required to "share The Road".
Some days are good though. I remain alive ... so far.
Next time a car is about to kill me and I can brake hard/swerve to avoid, I'll have to remember to assert myself more. I'm sure I'll be fine
Bike lanes dangerous? He should tell the Dutch this. They have all those DANGEROUS bike lanes afterall. ;-)
In my city we have bike lanes but they are shit. It's just painted on and people use it as parking space. It's filled with hazardous stuff because noone cleans up the sides and people never let you get in the lane to use the roundabouts.
That is not a cycle lane. It is, like sharrows, a waste of paint.
I agree, separate but equal is the way to go.
Great video
It always fascinates me how people that are for motorised vehicles often are strongly against cycling, whilst more cycling actually improves the motor vehicle driver's experience vastly by congestion relief. It is much the same how people that love eating meat are often quite vocal against vegetarians and vegans, where the environmental implications suggest eating the amounts of meat we do today is not sustainable. As in not possible to keep on doing so forever, so in fact when others would turn vegetarian the chance of you being able to keep eating meat actually increases. I guess a lot comes down to the feeling of belonging, the feeling of being accepted, even in unsustainable behaviour people will want to keep getting this confirmation that what they're doing is OK, by having similar minded people around them.
Have to agree with you on your assessment in this video, Tom.
I have arguments with a fellow cyclist about riding the lane where cars inhabit... Or riding the line. He was bumped once. I say keep away from cars as much as possible. Most drivers are annoyed at cyclists anyway... just for being there!
The problem is that cars won't keep away from you if you hide near the gutter or between parked cars. So you must risk the smaller chance of getting hit from behind with the much riskier chance of getting sideswiped.
Vehicular cycling is tied directly to road racing bikes, especially the expensive type. We don't see the Giro, il Vuelta or TdF raced on bicycle paths, and that sums it up. Road racing bicycles I think are now a dying breed, especially after the covid lockdowns, and certainly since MTBs and all terrain bikes. Wide tyres and sturdy construction with well made componentry are for the commuting cyclist. And then there are e-bikes or electric mopeds that enable older or regular unfit people to ride to the shops and visit friends. As we know, there's the future on 2 wheels.
Great vid, but pretty annoying to see you out of focus the whole time
I live in the UK. We have a relatively small country with a lot of people and buildings. Our town layouts date back to the Romans so, many of our roads are narrow. This means where cycle lanes have been introduced they are either, just letting bikes on the pavements, usually going in both directions and sharing with pedestrian or, an extra line at the edge of the existing narrow road, resulting in insufficient room for either cars or bikes. To add to this, UK cycle lanes seem to start and stop at narrow spots in the road or, just where the planner decided you would no longer want to ride so, you can cycle in a bike lane all the way to a school but if you want to go further you just have to join the cars on the road. Then when a cycle lane does appear, there's only one dropped kerb stone and you've just gone past it. Conclusion, bike lanes are not great in all of Europe 😉
I always hold the lane. I live in #Winnipeg with virtually no bike lanes anywhere around ..well, most places, and if I don't hold the lane, people will lane-split at high speed and hit me/force me into an accident.
If you give them room to pass, they will with no regard to your life. On the other hand, they won't run you over from behind directly. Your safest spot is to be visible and in the middle of the lane.
In my city, it also helps make sure you have room to avoid the potholes, which are also big enough to destroy your bike and you. It's also the only way to stay safe. Mostly. Trucks still like to force me off the road purposefully by hitting me just because I exist.
EDIT: fixed dyslexia errors #sorry
He actually said, that there won't ever be a bike infrastructure that reaches everywhere, it is simply impossible and would require to duplicate the street network, basically. Therefore you would still have to teach the rules of the road for those sections, anyway.
He also stated that there's actually no data that shows vehicular cycling was worse on terms of getting people onto the streets on cycles, than the segregated facilities EQUALLY ADVERTISED. I think this is the key idea, that people actually advertise the idea of being unsafe on the road which resonates with existing fear and creates the demand for segregation even though if you look at data you get more serious crashes that way at intersections.
He believed education was the key for bridging the gap between the not too complex skills that are required to get by safely on roads and the skills that people possess without education or experience. (And demonstrated this by teaching 6-8 year old kids riding vehicularly
As local residential streets can be narrowed and traffic calmed so that the few cars will travel slow enough for traffic mixing to be viable. This eliminates the need to add bike lanes there. Ergo bike lanes only are meant for roads with high traffic density or high speeds. To which protected intersections and bike signals will solve the issue of intersection crashes.
That aside, vehicular cycling would result in few people cycling precisely because it is stressful even if you know how to do everything by the book. It is a comparable experience to riding a moped or a motorcycle at a similar speed. And you know how common either of those modes of transport are.
@@nianbozhang9070 Forester also created his own observational studies. He looked at 2 similar cities in the us, both campus cities with comparable population. One added bike infrastructure (lanes), the other did not, and the population % riding was also comparable in the two locations. The only difference was that he observed the unsafe (left turn from right side of the road etc) behaviors much more often in the bike lane city.
Another thing to add to your reply: in the book “target risk” (pdf avail able online)there’s a study that was about comparing signalized and non-signalized intersections (even the same ones after applying the signals) over time. The result was that on the signalized intersections there were fewer but more serious crashes on non-signalized it was more but less serious. In the end the crashes (weighting in both number and severity) did not correlate with the intersection being signalized or not, but rather the volume of traffic. Therefore I’d be vary of saying that traffic signals would solve anything.
@@andrejszasz2816 Care to share me a link to ''target risk''? Whose the author?
0:03 yes
Wow, thank you so much for sharing this I had no idea it’s sad that he’s no longer with us may God receive him into his loving arms. But like you said I will be thanking him every time I take a lane because we still have a long way before we get segregated bike lanes they say the US is the richest country, so why are we acting so poorly? if we have everything to thrive.
There are so many reasons to build bike lanes, and their success is so well documented that I can't understand why their growth is still so slow.
Shifter I would like to understand why that is, we have thousands upon thousands of cyclist bicyclist with the knowledge of knowing that we as humans are dangerous when driving and yet no one seems to care it comes down to the fact that we have been brainwashed to think everything is so far away and we need to drive to get there but if we normalized bicycle commuting if we advertised bicycles instead of cars I can guarantee that no one would be driving as much is the advertisement and convenience that people fall for. So bottom line we need to come together and take action just like they did in NETHERLANDS 🇳🇱 Back in the 70’s
@@bikelanez7376 Agree to all of this. We have an ingrained car culture backed by decades of marketing and lobbying that is only starting to be questioned. It will take some time, but I can see the changes coming.
That's probably because in a car oriented country like yours, drivers hate cyclists, and hate it even more when money is spend and car space is sacrificed to bicycles. Planning cycle paths may be more successful if it would be sold to drivers as a way to get those pesky cyclists off their streets.
But they'll still be angry when stuck in traffic every day in their $30.000 SUV's seeing people on $500 bikes scooting past them. Difference being that here in the Netherlands, almost every driver is also a cyclist from time to time.
Peter Tuijtjens I started cycling because there was a video recommendation here on you tube of the Netherlands what fascinated me was that everyone was on a bike I loved the idea after watching it I was obsessed and started searching for cyclists that inspired me each and every day I fell in love with the NETHERLANDS 🇳🇱 never been there but I would love to visit I do admire the history of what’s been done in the NETHERLANDS 🇳🇱
I disagree, he was ahead of his time. Fundamentally the streets shouldn't belong solely to cars, and that’s what he was against. I foresee the majority of cities in the future putting in speed limits of 30 km an hour for the majority of the city, and bikes having their own lane on the street but also being free to use other lanes.
I mean I think it is pretty evident from Europe that the way we get there is by a mix of separation and traffic calmed streets. Not implementing bike lanes following his guidance left us with hostile streets to anyone not in a car and we never saw the steps to getting streets safe enough for shared mobility. Protected bike lanes are not only a great way to build demand for more car lite or car free spaces, but they will be required on many roads for a long time if not indefinitely as they still will be major multimodal corridors where shared space between cars/buses/trucks and bikes is unsafe.
@@street_ruffian I totally agree that this area is up for debate, and I have not been myself formed a strict opinion on this. I just often see the practical negative effects that sometimes arise when cities create separated bike lanes either on sidewalks, or their own lane, but separated from cars. And what happens is it re-enforces a belief in drivers that the street belongs to cars, and only cars, and bikes have no place on the road.
What ends up happening is that cars drive more recklessly, because they don't expect cyclists on the road, and if they do see one, they will often honk at them because they say 'why aren't you using the bike lane'.
But the bike lanes are often more dangerous than riding on the road, they are often built next to parked cars, so that at any time a door can swing out and hit you when someone tries to get out of the car, and pedestrians often walk on them, and they are often blocked my delivery trucks that stop at them temporarily to deliver goods.
We end up with a situation where the city spends a bunch of money on bike lanes, that most experienced bike commuters don't use, because they prefer the roads.
A much cheaper, and more effective option for cities would be to reduce the speed limit within cities to 30 kilometers an hour, and to then have shared roads with cars and bikes. When drivers see that bikes often go the same speed or faster than them, while also not having to wait as long on stop signs and red lights (I support the idaho stop), then you will get people switching to using bikes.
I do admit, however, that countries like the netherlsands and copenhagen who have separated bike lanes have the most cyclists, and that in practice, it is evidence that this may be the best approach to get more people cycling. But I also see the practical problem where when separated bike lanes are built in countries that don't have a cycling culture, they are often not used, built wrong, and built haphazardly so that you don't have a unified network.
I don't know, it's a tough debate, but I as a cyclist who cycles year round, and have done so in some harsh climates like Moscow in the winter time with a bunch of snow on the ground, I almost never use bike lanes and prefer to share the road with cars. I feel that eventually all cyclists who cycle for a longer period of time end up doing the same, except for a few countries where this isn't the case, like the Netherlands and Denmark. But they have their own problems too, like bike rush hour, because they've confined all cyclists to the sidewalk. It's not all rainbows and sunshine over there.
@@nikolasirovica3250 I agree many bike lanes are bad and dangerous. Any actual proponent understands these flaws and criticise these poor excuses of bike lanes. Painted gutter or worse a buffer between parked cars and travel lanes are not actual infrastructure. And I agree with forester fighting to allow people to still bike in roads. I wouldn't be surprised if bike lanes can make drivers believe even more that the roads are just for them and not for bikes. However, in the US people think this regardless so I really don't see this a great point.
If there are no bike lanes most people on bikes hug the curb or go close to parked cars because people are going to be trying to pass no matter what so they want to avoid all the cars passing them. So few people will ever be comfortable with this kind of environment. Politically it's probably even harder to reduce the speed limits with traffic calming to the point that most people would be comfortable in mixed traffic then add bike lanes. Plus good separated bike lanes are a part of traffic calming measures, especially when there is so much space for car lanes like much of the US.
Being against bike lanes is actually in support of leaving our streets dominated by cars and against taking that space back. I don't think fixing our streets is a one size fits all solution, some streets will need bike lanes, some will only need drastic traffic calming, and others will need to have cars removed entirely. Plus in general issues that can be dealt with to improve bikability are not just road infrastructure based as we need better enforcement and training for drivers, a crackdown on vehicle sizes, better public transit, and rezoning of areas for higher density while reducing parking.
@@street_ruffian Remove cars entirely?
Not on my street! I could see it in a shopping district of a few blocks of small shops.
@@ghz24 I agree, at least for now removing cars from most streets is not possible. Sometimes this means bike lanes should be used, other times what Nikola is talking about is best, especially the case for residential streets. The point is we should be making efforts to slow down cars on all streets while improving other transit options. That isn’t removing cars per se, but it is reducing the need and dominance of them.
Brave or crazy ride the vehicular cycling method, I do, but then I have been hit by 21 cars, as well as being run over ankle to rib cage by an eight ton truck. In other words, please make Alabama USA start respecting bicyclists and not forcing them to the edge of the road!
OMG: I’m glad you’ve survived to tell the tale!
3:05 Found the wibbly-wobbly!
I not that mad on him. He tought what it's best. But only head experienced riders in mind.
Still i do not like protected bike lanes because they run cyclelane on one side of the road this least to tricky conditions with incomming traffic when they aren't 4 meter wide.
A pain are the CS routes in London
Nope. Every road altercation I ever got into was due to this stupid thinking. Ride like a car, take the lane, go out into traffic to turn left, obey all the traffic laws and sit out there in danger for no reason. So dumb and so dangerous. 1700 lbs is the minimum weight of an F1 car, an average car or truck on the road is much heavier than 2000 lbs.
2 ton metal boxes on wheels don't mix well with the vulnerable; pedestrians, bicycle users, children, older folks, the infirm, oh and other 2 ton metal boxes on wheels.
The thing is, while in an ideal world, everywhere would look like Amsterdam, in the imperfect world that we have, most of of our time cycling is spent on roads. Also given that existing bike lanes are often totally impractical for getting where you're going, 'vehicular cycling' is still an important idea.
Set against quality, direct, well maintained segregated bike paths, it's not ideal. But set against the also common notion of banning bikes from roads and forcing cyclist onto poor quality, unusable bike lanes, it's indispensable.
It's actually not just the city of Amsterdam that has decent bicycle infrastructure. It is the entire country of the Netherlands. Not just within the cities and towns themselves, but it is usually also possible to cycle from city to city without ever having to share a road with cars that go over 50km/h (30 mph). So it is possible, if your government is willing to invest.
@@zoransteinmann2503 That may be. But I have to live in a world where they're not so willing. Therefore skills and awareness to ride on the road are very necessary.
Driving recently in our new 20mph urban area, (no cycle lane) I only just saw a cyclist in my semi blind spot behind the mirror, guess going so slow that my attention wondered. Not that I am against the 20mph, just that it has issues.
...in UK
imagine John Forester had never excisted..... maybe, just maybe America would have a system more like Amsterdam or Copenhagen, less cars, more bikes.....that would have been awesome......
Bicycles have equal rights on the road here in NL. And we don't need to anxiously scurry along the edge of the road when we share it with cars. But still, separate bicycle lanes are a good thing when cars move past you with 3 times your speed or more.
No cyclists don't have equal rights on many roads in the Netherlands. If there is a bike lane on a certain route, cyclists must use it & can be fined for cycling in the car lane, while UK cyclists have the (dubious) "right" to use all roads except for motorways.. That's not a criticism of the Netherlands. Separation of modes is a good thing, & Dutch cyclists would be crazy to want to mix with cars on fast roads when the bike lanes are so good. While many UK main roads are unusable for most casual cyclists.
@@zivkovicable when cars and bicycles have to share a road, they do have equal rigths. A bicycle coming from the right has priority over a car from the left. And a seperate cyclepath alongside a priority road has priority too.
@@arthurhagen3826 What I mean is that cyclists do not have the right to use the car lane if there is a bike lane running along side. In the UK that isn’t the case.
@@zivkovicable aha, but that's not 'equal'.The car can't go on the bicycle path. But anyway, I prefer cycling here, where cyclists are not considered inferior road users by people encased in a ton of steel :)
@@arthurhagen3826 Yes I prefer cycling in the Netherlands. Actually I prefer driving in the Netherlands too.
A vehicle is a vehicle is a vehicle is a vehicle is a vehicle is a vehicle is a bicycle!
0:51... ahem.. that is a bikeway, not a bike lane...
Your conclusion is wrong. Vehicular cycling has dominated the design of our streets for years and mostly eliminated our ability to build what the Dutch and Danish have. Comparing the recent growth in cycling compared to the ridership in Europe makes this easily clear. Forester validated the "do nothing" approach in engineering for years. Forester’s statements reflected more a personal philosophy about the appropriate relationship of bicycling to driving than they did a reasoned understanding of safety research and emerging trends. In arguments he would state that “[bicyclists] acting subservient to motorists” is an “indignity”, phrasing such as “cyclist-inferiority cycling”. In discussions about how people riding bicycles are “disenfranchised” from riding on the public roadways by cycle tracks, are about as relevant to this discussion as the flimsy research study Forester cited as the basis for his critique. He was also opposed to building rail-trails in the 1980s and 1990s for these same reasons, which have proven to be groundless.
The fact is that transportation policies are advancing to support increased bicycle transportation; but the damage of the past 40 years has been done. Relying on vehicular cycling-and thus relegating bicycling to only those few willing to ride in such environments- represented a massive failure both of policy and engineering.
I feel like our conclusions are the same. The Dutch and Danish approach to cycling has influenced the recent, and very limited, advances in bike lanes in North America, but it's been hobbled by the legacy of vehicular cycling. My point is that Forester's ideas on how we personally navigate traffic are still relevant, because we're still forced into traffic and need to stay safe.
Okay, I heard something pretty different. The lag between European design and U.S. practice is still significant.
An important difference as i understand it, is that in designing streets, in the USA "Level of Service", i.e. the amount of traffic a road can process, is the most important aspect, where as in the Netherlands safety for all road users is paramount.
That does not mean every street has a cycle path, or even a cycle lane. most have none.
City planners over here do exactly what their names suggest: they plan cities, not just a stretch of road.
That means slowing down traffic in residential streets, no cycle lanes, designing street plans for different sections where cars can go in an out, but not through, so those streets will have less car traffic. These sections are connected by bicycle paths though and arterial roads often have bicycle lanes. Only the wider roads with large numbers of cars are likely to have separated bicycle lanes.
Peter Koonce read Jeff Speck’s books on Walkable Cities. You will get more history & background on city planning thru ages in North America. He had run in with this fellow years ago too. The Dutch cycling channel has lots on the gradual movement in the NL after the 1978 ‘Stop Killing Our Children’ movement, which lead to political changes for them to adapt cycling. It has taken decades of work there. Look at pictures from 70’s and early 80’s still was a work in progress. I was in Amsterdam in early 90’s in winter and faced lots of car traffic and very,title cycling. Paradigm shifts like this need consistent work and effort.
Some folks referred to his book derisively as “Defective Cycling”
You have a very convoluted way of describing Effective Cycling. Those European bicycle lanes are setup with the humans in mind. They are safe by design and supported by the powers that be. If a bicyclist or pedestrian is struck by a motor vehicle the driver usually looses their right to operate a motor vehicle. Our so called bicycle paths are poorly designed. One difference is the way things are handled at intersections. Some bicycle motor vehicle collision studies show up to 89% of car bike collisions happen at intersections. Another problem is the codling of the motorists when they say they didn't see them. Say that line to a judge in Norway and see how fast you loose your license. If you want the license back there is a huge fine and months of remedial driver training. That is only if you haven't severely injured someone. Like myself Forester didn't like poorly built dangerous facility's. Davis California built safer infrastructure for there bicycling children to travel to school at one time. If you want safer bike lanes you need the cooperation of everybody. As things currently sit this is not happening. There are never going to be bicycle lanes everywhere. So read Effective Cycling and when your ride in those bicycle lanes remember to avoid getting doored and do not ride to the right of large vehicles when they go to make a right turn.
One problem with cycle paths, UK, is that they share with dog walkers etc, so not ideal for fast commuting cyclists, and are often indirect
As a Dutchman having cycled somewhat in the UK, I agree that the cycling infrastructure in cities and towns in the UK in general is crap. However the rural roads are a joy to ride on.
I would not enjoy cycling on most rural roads in England...far to much traffic, that drives far too fast. Rural roads in Scotland, most are quiet and beautiful, some challenging steep...just avoid the main routes
I will always appreciate bike lanes, but doesn’t mean they can’t be improved.
I am sorry to say that you are wrong in almost everything to stated in this video. The Netherlands and Denmark is not Europe. Having prima facia laws in Europe is the main difference. Even is southern Netherlands the bike lanes are crap and it would be better to be able to use the road in many places. Separate but equal is a real problem; it is just that in Amsterdam and a few other cities it is the cars that are getting the short end of that stick. Even in Amsterdam there is a bike lane that is closed in one place, but the road is open, cars can get through and I have to detour 5 km.
Bikes ARE vehicles -- not pedestrians! Bikes do need to obey the same laws as motor vehicles -- with the exception and understanding that a bike is a slow-moving vehlcle and therefore needs to either stay clear of motor traffic or, have separate lanes for bike-only use. In Tennessee, for instance (if not changed), bikes can either turn left by "taking the (turn) lane" as would a motor vehicle OR, approach the far side of the road being crossed and stop (or slowing to walking speed) to face left and (when signalled or when clear) proceed across the road being left, thus turning onto the new road being travelled (much like a pedestrian crossing in the crosswalks -- or, like a truck making a square turn to avoid running over the left-hand corner or other vehicles stopped on the left).