To Be, or Not to Be... On the Road

[XLFD]

Notorious bicycle pioneer John Forester rode to the far right on the highway to heaven on April 14, 2020 at the tender age of 90.  In the 1970s, Forester came up with an idea for keeping cyclists safe while riding on busy roads. The idea was that bicycles should be piloted, and be treated, like motor vehicles — riding alongside moving cars, using hand signals and crossing traffic for left-hand turns. The idea, which he called vehicular cycling, caught on, and it soon became the dominant theory of bicycle transportation in North America.

Forester's theories included some that looked at road engineering, but he was adamantly opposed to bike lanes.  His Effective Cycling educational program, developed after his research which claimed that integrating motorists and educated cyclists reduced accidents more than creating separate bicycle lanes. 

These theories have become disfavored over the course of time, bicycling advocates are almost in complete concurrence with the new theory that building bicycle-specific infrastructure like bike lanes and paths are much superior than riding in traffic, and more likely to get new riders interested in bicycling on the safer routes.  Forester was a vocal adversary against these measures, claiming they just didn't work for safety and efficiency.  He was an additional obstacle bike lane advocates had to control in order to get new bike lanes and paths.

This is why many news and bicycling outlets reporting his death did so in a manner south of respectful.  R.I.P. bike lane hater, Death Of A ‘Dinosaur:’ Anti-Cycleway Campaigner John Forester Dies, and one that crossed my news feed earlier today, Why John Forester was wrong.   

But was he wrong, was he a dinosaur, did he hate bike lanes?  On his website he notes that the right of cyclists to cycle properly and safely is disappearing. If you don't fight to preserve it, it will disappear.  He fought for Bicycle anti-discriminatory laws, he pursued engineering objectives that didn't look for road width that wasn't there and costly constructions of unsafe paths.  He codified his approach and it has changed little since its introduction, here's an instructional video from the seventies, coincidently the decade this author took up bicycling and learned through experience that his theories were correct (without even knowing about him).

So I can look back at my last four decades of bicycling and in 2020 I can make the heretical statement that Forester was correct all along.  Bicycle-specific infrastructure may make bicycling appear safer, but it actually has the reverse effect in most every case (excluding the circular paths which have no interface with vehicle traffic).  

Current adherents to the 'vehicular cycling' philosophy cannot make themselves heard over the 90% plus majority of bicyclists vehemently calling them wrong-thinking, dinosaur, bike-lane haters, so you have to look at statistics, and point to the obvious.

In the article, "Here’s what happened when one city rejected vehicular cycling", we find that the city in question is Montreal, the article relaying that the city has grown into a bicycle haven in a continent of car-centricity, perhaps the most bike-friendly city in North America.  It has done this with bicycle infrastructure:  segregated bike paths, bike sharing, etc.

And yet, when we look at the safety statistics for Montreal in comparison to other sizable cities in southern Canada, we get some alarming numbers all around.  From Montreal cyclists have more bike paths — and more accidents:

"The Pembina Institute published a study on Thursday examining the state of cycling in Montreal, Vancouver, Toronto, Calgary and Ottawa... Vancouver had the highest rate of cyclists among the cities, with 4.4 per cent of commuters using bikes to get to work, compared to only 2.9 per cent for Montreal, 2.5 per cent in Ottawa, 2.2 per cent in Toronto, and 1.3 per cent in Calgary.

Despite having the highest modal share of cyclists, Vancouver had the second-least amount of bicycle infrastructure, such as bike paths and multi-use trails... (Montreal) has the most bike paths compared with the other cities, but it also has a crash rate of seven per 100,000 cycling trips, compared with Toronto at five, Calgary at four, Ottawa at three and Vancouver, which had a rate of less than one..."

So, Montreal proclaims itself as the most bicycle-friendly city in North America, but its crash rate is over seven times more than Vancouver, which has considerably less bicycle infrastructure, and Montreal has considerably less bicycle commuters among their workforce than Vancouver (4.4% to 2.5%).  Statistics like this reoccur south of the border too, but rarely this dramatic. 

Integrating motorists and educated cyclists reduces accidents more than creating separate bicycle lanes.  John Forester, in my estimation, was a visionary rather than a dinosaur.

[Willy]

I know you are a cyclist X and have skin in this game but I completely disagree that bikes should be allowed to be on busy streets. If a person wants to ride on a busy road then they do so at their own peril and must take full responsibility, The old argument that because a bike has wheels, they should be allowed to be used on  the streets is absurd. Common sense is yelling very loudly that riding along side of 2 ton cars and 80 ton trucks is dangerous. Stick to the side streets and country lanes. The only thing I agree with is the old guy holding the sign at the bottom of the post. That makes much more sense.

[XLFD]

The old guy is John Forester holding a sign that he stole from a municipality back in the 1960s so that he could ride on the road, the picture is from a very good interview with him from half a year ago stridently defending his position even with 95% of bicyclists hating on him.  

The main argument, which he covers in the interview, is that (without bike infrastructure) only 5% of car/bike accidents occur when the two are going in the same direction, meaning that 19 out of every 20 such accidents occur at intersections and turns.  Segregated bike paths at best would only prevent 5% of accidents, but statistics show they actually create more accidents when they intersect streets, because of visibility.

Riding in the road is statistically safe, and I can vouch that of the five bicycle accidents in my 100K of riding miles that I was struck by a car, three happened when I was on a sidewalk, one in a parking lot, and the other was when I was in a crosswalk.   The amount of time I have used my bicycle on sidewalks, crosswalks and parking lots has been much less than 1% of my time on a bicycle, and yet has accounted for 100% of accidents.  

In the Ludington area, we have one bike lane for part of Bryant Road, which doubles as road shoulder.  If I ride on US 10 or out to the state park, you can bet I'm riding on the shoulder of the road, but when there is no improved shoulder, like the case for most Mason County secondary roads, you need to develop good vehicular cycling skills, not avoid the experience until somebody puts in a bike lane or trail.   These are the best rides in the county.

As Forester might put it, if you are fearful of 2 ton cars passing you, then why wouldn't you be fearful in a 2 ton car having an 80 ton truck pass you.  The fear exists for me when I see folks bike riding on a sidewalk or sidepath and vehicles turn into them or their path because the rider isn't seen until it's too late.