, M.S., P.E. Transportation Engineer Consulting Engineer, Expert Witness, and Educator in , , Highways and Bikeways, Laws 7585 Church St., Lemon Grove, CA 91945-2306 619-644-5481 [email protected]

Monday, October 22, 2007

Bicycling, Transportation and the Problem of Evil

1 Introduction interurban lines, and the ferry steamers, (we car- ried out our plan to ride every line that then As some of you know, I have a reputation as existed), the switch to buses was being produced an expert in transportation. In that respect, by economic factors. Shortly thereafter, we recog- I was asked by Santa Barbara Safe Streets to nized that the switch to private motoring was being speak at a meeting organized to oppose certain driven by the combination of wealth and urban traffic-calming methods being proposed for that growth. Our youthful interests bore fruit: my best city. One argument presented by the proponents friend came from an Espee family, spent much of of these methods was that they protected cyclists his professional life as a civil engineer for them, against traffic dangers, and I was asked if I would then later as an international rail consultant. present an opposing argument. I did so, arguing I started cycling in 1936 in , England, that cyclists are better off with good roads of stan- a member of the fourth cycling generation in my dard design than the traffic-calming methods family, and was raised in the standard view that being proposed, which increase the danger for cyclists, as legitimate road users, had to obey the cyclists. The prime speaker, however, was Randal same rules of the road as all other drivers. My par- O’Toole of the Preserving the American Dream ents moved to Berkeley, California, in February, Coalition and the Cato Institute, who spoke on the 1940, to a home near the top of the Berkeley Hills, private auto as the enabling force for American and it wasn’t long before I was cycling those hills, urban growth. descending as fast as the cars did and obeying My own presentation, and its association the same rules. with O’Toole’s, aroused a storm of angry criticism Over the decades since, I have largely con- on the internet among those who call themselves tinued cycling: riding to work, club cycling, touring, bicycle activists. My participation in that discus- racing (most of that in my middle years when I had sion has led me to see the connection between more time). We were a cycling family of Dorris, bicycle activism and what philosophers call the me, and her two daughters, of which I was the problem of evil. only one who did not win a place in the national championship races. In many of those years, par- 2 Pre-Bikeway Cycling History ticularly in the 1950s, as the effects of the Depres- sion and World War 2 wore off, cycling was My expertise sprang from two childhood denigrated by society, as being an activity of those interests, one in transportation in general, the too poor to afford a car or otherwise unable to other in cycling, that I have continued until the conform to society’s norms. present day. In the days of the National City Lines We adult, active cyclists knew that we did not controversy, my best friend and I recognized that, conform to society’s norms in one respect. We though we loved the SF Bay Area streetcar and considered ourselves legitimate road users who

1 2

obeyed the rules of the road, which is the stan- tees and in the legal discussions, and organizing dard legal requirement. That view had partly come that opposition by publicizing the threat to adult from European cyclists, partly developed here cyclists. through experience. We kept in touch with Euro- I was accepted (actually by mistake) to the pean cycling thought, largely through the British first California committee, as the only cyclist up weekly, Cycling, and the publications of the against eight motorists. By the time of the second Cyclists’ Touring Club, but also through the French California committee, we cyclists had managed to cycling press, by those with French connections. get two representatives out of eight members. I We recognized that Americans thought differently won’t discuss details here, but we cyclists man- about cycling, considering it to be an activity of aged to head off the most dangerous proposals children that should be regulated as such, made by the motorists who ran the committees. although the traffic laws had difficulty in safely However, one aspect is fully relevant to this dis- accommodating such regulation. The resulting cussion. That is, those who ran the committees regulation of cyclists was confined to prohibiting insisted that the only laws and designs acceptable cyclists from using the full width of the roadway, or to them were those that institutionalized the long- the roadway at all wherever there was a usable standing treatment of cyclists as children. That is, path alongside, all excused as protecting child laws and designs that prohibited cyclists from cyclists from the great danger of same-direction using more than the right-hand margin of the motor traffic. Child cyclists were not considered to roadway. They tried to prohibit cyclists from any be competent and legitimate roadway users, as roadway that had a path alongside, but we cyclists were motorists, but as trespassers who would be frightened the government personnel with the greatly endangered if they left the side of the road- prospects of the lawsuits from dead and injured way. Motorists produced the “bike-safety” training cyclists that would result from that law. The com- that was given, concentrating on never leaving the mittee members also refused to consider any pro- edge of the roadway under pain of death. I posal that would actually ameliorate known described this training as: “Cyclists who ride in causes of car-bike collisions. traffic will either delay the cars, which is Sin, or, if The first study of car-bike collision statistics the cars don’t choose to slow down, will be (Cross, Santa Barbara County) was written during crushed, which is Death, and the Wages of Sin is this period. The statistics demonstrated that colli- Death.” sions between cyclists and same-direction motor However, we adult cyclists operated as full traffic were very infrequent compared to those drivers of vehicles with only very rare interference between turning and crossing movements, thus from child-centered officials, and we accepted the invalidating the safety excuse for limiting cyclists difference as social policy that we could not affect, to the edge of the roadway. The committee mem- except when we taught proper cycling to the few bers, who had paid for this study, believing that it new cyclists who joined us. would demonstrate the acute danger of same- I later named the adult cyclist tradition as direction motor traffic, refused to publish the study. , and the child cyclist tradition as Since I was present at the initial presentation, cyclist-inferiority cycling. before the committee members realized its con- clusions, I have one of the few copies. 3 Bikeway Origins Subsequent to the creation of the design standards for bikeways, Cross’s second study of Then, in 1971, the California government car-bike collisions, based on nationally represen- started a program of designing and building bike- tative data and providing more detail, was pub- ways, along with the appropriate changes to traffic lished. In the 1990s, a less detailed replication of law, that institutionalized in physical form the long- Cross’s national study was made, which showed standing treatment of cyclists as incompetent chil- that the general pattern had not changed. Thus, dren. At the same time, the Federal government over the years, the car-bike collision statistics was instituting a regulation that all bicycles sold in have consistently disproved the bikeway hypothe- America be designed as if for use by children. The sis. parallels demonstrate the thought of the time. I heard about both of these (though the Californians 3.1 Conclusions About Bikeways were secretive about their aims), and started the opposition to them, by participating in the commit- These bikeway design standards, produced 3

in California against the opposition of cyclists, However, a new political power entered the have been copied and adopted nationwide, with controversy, that of anti-motorists. One would some improvements over time. think that anti-motorists would oppose discrimina- Seven conclusions are to be drawn from tion against cyclists by motorists, but they took the these events. opposite course and supported it. 1: The actions of the committees were done by The anti-motorists sprang from the American motorists and largely opposed by cyclists. cyclist-inferiority tradition of shoving cyclists to the 2: The motoring members ensured that all actions side of the roadway under the excuse of the great shoved cyclists to the side of the road, or off danger of same-direction motor traffic. While the road if possible. vehicular cyclists saw bikeways as limiting cyclists’ 3: All actions of the committees served to physi- normal traffic rights in the interest of motorist con- cally institutionalize the traditional treatment of venience, the cyclist-inferiority American saw bike cyclists as incompetent children, to be kept at lanes as giving cyclists, for the first time, a safe the side of the roadway or off the roadway if and legitimate place on the roadway. Of course, possible. both facets of this statement were false: staying at 4: These actions were justified by the excuse of the margin of the roadway was no safer, indeed the great danger of same-direction motor traf- was more dangerous, than operating according to fic. traffic law; cyclists were always legally considered 5: The excuse of the great danger of same-direc- to have the rights and duties of drivers of vehicles. tion motor traffic had no scientific support at However, the force of several decades of “bike- the time, was said to be false by experienced safety” propaganda by motorists produced a cyclists, and was in fact conclusively dis- superstition that amounted, in many cases, to a proved during the operation of the committees phobia. by the first good statistical study. Anti-motorists need to have a substitute for 6: All the actions of the committees were actions private motoring. For various reasons, bicycling is that served the interest of motorists in shoving a most attractive substitute. That means that cyclists to the edge of the roadways, or off the many anti-motorists are strongly attracted to what roadways. they call bicycle advocacy, advocating bicycle 7: These discriminatory actions against cyclists transportation in place of motor transportation. were approved by the public because the pub- The anti-motorists recognize that the cyclist-inferi- lic wholeheartedly believed the propaganda ority fear of same-direction motor traffic prevents that the motorists had issued over the previ- many people from taking up cycling. ous forty years. The anti-motoring view by itself tends to exaggerate the evil aspect of motoring, including Consideration of the first five of the above its danger to other road users. In addition, the conclusions leads inexorably to the sixth, that the anti-motoring view tends to exaggerate the basic intent of these bikeway design standards strength or dislike of motoring among the general was to make motoring more convenient by shov- public, and to greatly understate the utility of ing cyclists aside or off the roadways. And, motoring to the public. What proportion of anti- equally, to the seventh, that this was possible only motorists actually fear same-direction motor traf- because of the strong public belief in the cyclist- fic, and what proportion simply use that fear to inferiority superstition. advance their anti-motoring agenda is unknown, probably unknowable. 4 The Injection of Anti-Motoring Through these thoughts, the anti-motorists concluded that a national bikeway program would If the bikeway controversy had been purely make cycling safe for even children, and would between the motoring establishment’s proposals thereby persuade transportationally significant and the opposition by the cycling organizations, numbers of motorists to switch a transportationally cyclists might have been able to successfully repel significant number of trips to bicycle transporta- the motorists’ desires. This is because cyclists tion. Therefore, the bikeway program, designed to could make the case that the bikeway designs limit cyclists’ use of the roadways for the conve- were motorists’ way of discriminating against nience of motorists, became the prime object of cyclists, and, at that time, the public viewed motor- bicycle advocacy under the belief that it made ists and motoring with skeptical eyes. cyclists safe and legal. 4

5 Changes Since 1978 puted. Government funded a review study of car- bike collision statistics, and found that the modern In the thirty years since these events, the pattern is the same as that of thirty years ago. same arguments continue. Some European studies have shown that bike- Vehicular cyclists argue that their style of ways increase collisions in the ways predicted cycling conforms to standard traffic-engineering here at the start of the bikeway era. principles and traffic law, and is confirmed by the In short, there has been no significant collision statistics and by comparison of the partic- change in knowledge concerning bikeways over ular traffic movements required of cyclists and of the past thirty years. motorists during normal traffic operations against those required when bikeways are included. Fur- 6 The Bike Forums Discussions thermore, these same data not only confirm the vehicular style of cycling, but they demonstrate 6.1 General Description that there is no reason to believe that bikeways Bike Forums is an internet discussion group can significantly reduce collisions, and may well with many distinct simultaneous discussions. For increase them. Vehicular cyclists argue that even some time they have had a division devoted to dis- child cyclists can learn to obey the rules of the cussing Vehicular Cycling, within which new varia- road in 15 class hours of instruction, and that tions of the subject are continually being nobody has shown that cycling in a city with a introduced. When the news arrived of my appear- bikeway system removes the need for any stan- ance at the Santa Barbara Safe Streets meeting, dard traffic-cycling skill. These arguments are all several new discussions appeared, specifically supported by scientific evidence. about me and what they thought to be my views. Some bicycle advocates argue against these When a talk on bicycle transportation that I gave claims, claiming that obeying the rules of the road at Google was made available on video to the is no safer than disobeying them, that bike-lane internet, that also added fuel to these discussions. stripes reduce car-bike collisions by some The active participants are people with agen- unspecified means, that bikeways make cycling das. Others surface occasionally by commenting safe for beginners, again by some unspecified that they had hoped to learn from these discus- means, that bike lanes make cycling legitimate, sions. Participants in these discussions rarely use again by some unspecified means. Other bicycle their actual names, and even hinting that one advocates have given up on the safety, engineer- might recognize, by his writing or argument style, ing, and legitimacy arguments as being unwinna- the person behind some alias brings down severe ble. In fact, many of these openly admit that they criticism. Some, like myself, have chosen to use choose to cycle in the vehicular manner because our actual names. I think it reasonable to say that that works best. However, both kinds of bicycle over half of the participants support the bicycle advocate are adamant that bikeway systems advocacy agenda, while less than one quarter cause many motorists to switch a transportation- support vehicular cycling. ally significant number of motor trips to bicycling, The discussions within the Vehicular Cycling and if a reason is given it is “comfort”, whatever Forum have all been based on opposition to vehic- that might mean. ular cycling. If there was an attempt to advocate Since 1978, government has funded many vehicular cycling, the critics of vehicular cycling attempts to justify its bikeway program, largely in quickly took over and the discussion became terms of safety or beneficial operating characteris- largely criticism of vehicular cycling and defense tics, as have some academic persons also. All of against that criticism. these attempts have failed, and many have been harshly criticized for poor scientific design. Bicycle advocates have attempted to show that bikeway 6.2 Outline of Argument systems significantly switch trips from motoring to There is no need to discuss in detail the lines bicycling. While these have shown correlation, of argument supporting vehicular cycling. They there are too many confounding alternate expla- are that vehicular cycling is in accordance with nations to attribute any change to bikeways. standard traffic-engineering principles and with The original engineering analyses of traffic standard traffic law, both of which are founded on movements that showed the superiority of vehicu- the inherent characteristics of drivers and their lar movement over others have never been dis- vehicles. That obeying the rules of the road for 5 drivers of vehicles allows traffic to flow in a rea- 6.4 Bicycle Advocates’ Vision sonable combination of safety and efficiency, and Bicycle advocates envision a society in which that disobeying those rules produces dangerous little of the transportation is by private car. In this conflicts. That vehicular cyclists operate coopera- sense, it is an anti-motoring vision. Since modern tively with other drivers, and that this method of suburbia depends on private motoring, their vision operation is sufficiently easy to learn that even is one without suburbia. Since large retail estab- young children can learn to do it in a reasonable lishments depend on customers who carry their instructional time. One might say that any child purchases by car, their vision opposes large retail who is able to play a reasonable game of soccer establishments. Bicycle advocates envision bicy- has all the abilities that are required to learn to cle transportation being done by a large propor- properly operate in traffic, and can learn the tion of the population, of all ages, as a matter of required skills in reasonable time. daily routine: to school, to work, to shop, to play. The main subject herein discussed are the Much of this bicycle transportation will be done on arguments produced in opposition to vehicular bike lanes or bike paths. Bicycle advocates so cycling and advocating bikeways and bikeway often admire that it is reasonable to cycling. conclude that Amsterdam is their ideal city.

6.3 Vehicular Cyclists’ View 6.5 Paradoxes in the Bicycling Vision Vehicular cyclists place greatest concern on The bicycling vision requires a different city the problems of cycling under present conditions and a different way of life than have been devel- in the cities that we have. The modern decentral- oped over the past eighty years. The extent to ized city offers fewer opportunities for bicycle which bicycle advocates recognize this is dubious. transportation than do earlier cities, in large part They praise Amsterdam because of its high because the distances are greater, and also cycling volume, but they insist that this is because because of the increase in linked trips for several of its bikeway system rather than its old urban destinations and several purposes. Because of design and history, which are far more likely the greater distances, higher average speed is causes. Bicycle advocates believe that bikeways necessary to make many trips practical. This is greatly increase bicycle transportation, while attained, in many cases, by using direct arterial refusing to believe that bikeways were designed, routes because they allow high cycling speed and by motorists and to suit their own convenience, to have fewer delays. Indirect routes to use bikeways limit the intrusion of bicycle traffic into motor traf- rarely provide shorter trip times. And, of course, fic. Bicycle advocates believe that bikeway sys- cycling in the vehicular manner is necessary for tems make cycling safe for beginners and children both safety and efficiency, as well as to avoid without training, although no evidence supports upsetting the public. this claim. In this, they are accepting the motorists’ With fewer opportunities for useful bicycle propaganda that the essence of “bike safety” is to transportation, it is likely that no modern city will stay close to the edge of the roadway, out of the have a large proportion of bicycle transportation, way of cars, otherwise called the cyclist-inferiority and it is likely that much of that which is done is superstition, while denying that this commands done by people who enjoy cycling. inferiority. Instead of praising vehicular cycling as Vehicular cyclists consider that American necessary for safety, bicycle advocates denigrate bicycle transportation has two major defects. The it as difficult, dangerous, and elitist. first is that too few cyclists obey the rules of the In summary, the bicycle advocates’ vision road for drivers of vehicles. This both endangers requires a completely different urban design than the cyclists and upsets the public. The second is that developed in the past eighty years, with its that governmental bicycle policy and practice are transportation system operating on principles con- based on motorist-designed bikeways and motor- trary to present knowledge. Attempts to change ist-inspired cyclist-inferiority cycling instead of on bicycling to conform to this vision produce para- cyclists as lawful, competent drivers of vehicles. doxes that defy rational thought. This policy naturally inhibits the instruction of cyclists in proper traffic procedures. 6.6 Some Lines of Advocacy Argu- 6 ment 6.6.5 Auto transportation is not very useful Bicycle advocates deride the concept that The following are very short summaries of many people choose motoring because they find it some of the lines of advocacy argument that have suits their transportation needs. These advocates appeared in the Vehicular Cycling section of Bike believe that most people do not like motoring and Forums. will therefore be susceptible to switching from motoring to cycling once the fear of traffic has 6.6.1 Bikeway systems greatly increase bicy- been removed by bikeways. cle transportation The evidence for this is of two kinds. First, 6.6.6 Vehicular cyclists advocate motoring old European cities, such as Amsterdam, have Because vehicular cyclists are reasonably bikeway systems and high proportions of bicycle happy with the current road designs and operating transportation. These are cities whose designs procedures (although several detail improvements make motoring inconvenient, with lifestyles devel- are desirable), they are accused of advocating oped in the pre-motoring era. Second, Portland, motoring and suburban living. OR, has been installing bikeways and has shown an increase in bicycle transportation into down- 6.6.7 Vehicular cyclists wish to limit cycling town. However, Portland has been conducting a Bicycle advocates do not admit that vehicu- many-phased anti-motoring campaign for lar-cycling skills are necessary for safe bicycle decades, and there is no way of knowing the transportation, and they advocate bicycle trans- extent to which bikeways have increased bicycle portation that is not based on vehicular-cycling transportation. skills. Therefore, they assert that those who advo- Of course, bikeways appeal to people who cate the use of vehicular-cycling skills, and, partic- have been raised with the cyclist-inferiority super- ularly, the principle that these skills are necessary, stition without the subsequent cycling experience must be interested in maintaining vehicular cycling to demonstrate its falsity, as is true for most Amer- as an elitist activity from which they want the gen- icans. eral public excluded. 6.6.2 Bikeway systems eliminate the need for 6.6.8 The cyclist-inferiority superstition and traffic-cycling skills phobia do not exist This is never stated in this fashion, but Bicycle advocates’ program is largely based always as bikeways make bicycle transportation on bikeways, and advocacy of bikeways is based suitable for beginners and children, although how wholly on the cyclist-inferiority superstition. When this is accomplished is never mentioned. Nobody such a frightening superstition causes people to has ever shown which traffic-cycling skills are not take actions contrary to their own safety, it needed in a city with bikeway systems. matches the standard definition of a phobia. Bicycle advocates are extremely upset at this 6.6.3 Vehicular Cycling is dangerous, difficult, argument that their program is based on a phobia. and elitist Therefore, they deny that such a phobia exists, but This is commonly stated. However, there has the only other motivation that they have supplied been no description of a better way of cycling. for their strategy is that of “comfort”. However, the Cycling in a city with a bikeway system still major comfort to be felt by a cyclist in a requires the standard vehicular-cycling skills. is the feeling of protection from the danger of same-direction motor traffic, and the minor com- 6.6.4 People who live in suburbia have not fort comes from the feeling that the bike lane has freely chosen to do so made him a legitimate roadway user, both of People do not really like to live in suburbia. which errors are manifestations of the cyclist-infe- Some have chosen to live in suburbia because riority phobia. they have been enticed by false promises pro- duced by land developers, the motoring establish- 6.6.9 Bike-path systems can carry a large pro- ment, and financial bribes from government. The portion of bicycle traffic. idea that people like the suburban environment is Bicycle advocates admire and advocate bike anathema. paths as the best of bikeways, seeing them as being completely separated from motor traffic. 7

However, they ignore the fact that in any typical 6.6.12 Traffic conditions have changed to there are very few locations for bike invalidate vehicular cycling paths that have very few connections with motor Bicycle advocates argue that traffic condi- traffic, and these locations may not be located to tions have changed so much since the origin of suit bicycle transportation patterns. One discus- vehicular cycling that it is no longer a good way of sant hoped for the day when all people could ride operating. The prime reason that they cite, today, to work on a path as good as the one she used, is the increased speed of motor traffic. However, which, for half its length, traversed a deliberately since they have never presented any way in which undeveloped marsh. their bikeways reduce the skills required, they can- And for paths with frequent connections with not rationally argue that their bikeways reduce the motor traffic, see below under sidepaths. danger of making the required movements in fast traffic. Rather, since bikeways conflict with stan- 6.6.10 Vehicular cyclists are out of touch with dard traffic movements, as the intensity of traffic modern cycling thought increases, so do the difficulties of dealing with it Bicycle advocates consider that vehicular while cycling in bikeways and in the cyclist-inferi- cyclists rely on ancient data and ancient memo- ority manner. ries that are hopelessly out of touch with modern bicycling thought. In a sense, they are correct, for 6.6.13 Vehicular Cyclists Can Use Bike Lanes vehicular cyclists are focussed on the present Some bicycle advocates say that vehicular according to lessons learned through decades cyclists have no right to criticize bike lanes, since over which not much has changed about the tech- vehicular cyclists can ride in bike lanes or on the nical aspects of vehicular operation. However normal roadway, whichever suits them best. The accurate this criticism might be, it is irrelevant facts are correct (unless the area has a mandatory because the bicyclist advocates’ vision has not yet bikeway use law), but they are irrelevant. When become real, and may never become so. operating properly on a street with bike lanes, a cyclist will sometimes be in the bike lane, some- 6.6.11 Bicycle Advocates’ View of Side-Paths times not. The fact that he is sometimes in the Bicycle advocates are conflicted about paths bike lane cannot demonstrate the validity of bike alongside urban streets (think sidewalks). On one lanes; indeed, the fact that sometimes proper side, they praise these for allowing safe cycling for cycling requires him to be outside the bike lane children and the aged. On the other, they use the demonstrates that bike lanes and their theory can- argument that because sidewalk cycling incurs not be valid traffic-engineering facilities. great danger of car-bike collisions at driveways Vehicular cyclists oppose the governments’ and intersections, bike lanes should be built program for bicycle transportation, implemented because they persuade some sidewalk cyclists to largely through bikeways, because those bike- use the safer bike lane instead. ways are the official statement of a policy that is It is believed that cycling on a sidewalk at the contrary to operating according to the rules of the speed and with the caution required of pedestri- road. The rules of the road for drivers of vehicles ans is about as safe as walking. However, cyclists have been worked out to provide for the reason- rarely choose to ride at speeds, and it ably safe and effective movement of vehicles, has been well established by analysis, accident according to the normal characteristics of wheeled statistics, and experiment that, for urban sidepaths vehicles and their drivers. Contradicting those that are crossed by many driveways and streets, rules creates both dangerously conflicting traffic cycling at normal cycling speeds incurs a very movements and confusion in the minds of road- high rate of potential car-bike collisions. However, way users. some bicycle advocates refuse to acknowledge The governments’ bikeway program is based this, writing that the report of my experimental ride only on the two sides of the cyclist-inferiority on such a sidewalk at normal road speeds, superstition. On one side is the motorists’ superi- describing the dangers of car-bike collision I ority assumption that they and their vehicles are encountered, as being “hilarious”. Since I wasn’t better than cyclists and their vehicles, and thereby killed, it could not have been dangerous. But, of deserve to have bicycle traffic cleared aside. On course, nobody has tried to repeat so dangerous the other side is the bicycle advocates’ inferiority an experiment. assumption that cyclists can neither protect them- selves from motor vehicles nor have the ability, or 8

even the right, to operate in the standard manner. insist on using auto transportation when it doesn’t benefit them and when they would prefer another 6.7 The Problem of Evil mode. Motoring both allowed the development of the decentralized city and is its lifeblood, but this Bicycle advocates clearly believe that their connection does not come within the bicycle advo- vision represents a far better way of life than that cates’ vision. Bicycle advocates deride the state- chosen by most people. Bicycle advocates believe ment that our employment, commercial, and that people are basically good and rational, and social patterns have developed to suit the avail- will choose better life styles when offered. How- ability of auto transportation, with many trips ever, this far better way of life has not yet come linked to several purposes, and of sufficient length about; in fact progress toward it is substantially nil. and diversity that they are practical only by private That is, some growth in bicycle transportation in a automobile. In the view of bicycle advocates, few places, countered by great increases in motor- much auto transportation is an expensive waste of ing almost everywhere else. This failure of the time, rather than the method of choice when living good and increase of the evil presents the bicycle in a decentralized city. advocates with the problem of evil; some evil Since the connection between automobile power must be influencing people to make bad transportation, suburbia, and the decentralized choices. city does not fit some bicycle advocates’ vision, For the most part, this evil power is exercised they like to pretend that these developments have by faceless organizations: auto manufacturers, not occurred. Other bicycle advocates complain land developers, oil companies, road builders, about the actual development that is occurring, government tax policy, home builders, the free particularly about arterial streets with high motor market, motorists, and the like. However, bicycle speeds (as if such had never existed before). advocates have one person to identify as their personal Satan; that’s me, John Forester, the 6.7.3 The Problem of Bikeways leader of the vehicular cyclists and the developer When it comes to considering bikeways, of the intellectual opposition to bikeways. bicycle advocates have the luxury of a personal embodiment of evil: John Forester leading the 6.7.1 The Problem of Suburbia vehicular cycling advocates, whom the bicycle One part of this evil power is that which has advocates call “Foresterites”. That’s me, of produced suburbia against the desires of good course, and I will use “I” and “my”. There are four people. Good people would not buy a house in major aspects to my work: suburbia. Therefore, the fact that many do 1: Justification for cycling according to the rules of requires that they have been misled by false prom- the road for drivers of vehicles, the vehicular- ises and misguided tax policy, all driven by the cycling principle profit motive. The land developer sees a way to 2: Acceptance of most aspects of road design and make a profit by selling houses that people don’t traffic operation, plus wide outside lanes to really want, but that requires road construction, allow motorists to overtake cyclists without and the proposed inhabitants require automobiles, delay and later gasoline, oil, and tires. Therefore, all 3: Opposition to bike lanes as contradicting the these supplying organizations conspire together rules of the road, and to many bike paths as to produce an overwhelming force for the con- doing so where they connect to motoring facil- struction of undesirable houses on land that ities should have been left alone. 4: Advocacy of the vehicular-cycling principle and The argument that if people really didn’t want criticism of the cyclist-inferiority superstition to buy these houses, the whole project would fail, as being its opposite thus preventing later wasteful projects, falls on deaf ears. Bicycle advocates do not believe in the Every one of these is a slap in the face of the free market. They believe that people buy the bicycle advocates’ vision of bicycle heaven. houses that they do only because they are Their vision of bicycle heaven requires that coerced by evil forces. bicycle transportation be so easy that anyone can do it with no significant training. This echoes the 6.7.2 The Problem of Transportation Choice motorists’ propaganda that any cyclist can be safe Another part of the evil power is that people if he stays at the edge of the roadway, or, prefera- 9

bly, off it; no real skills to learn. Therefore, bicycle informs them that their ideal, bike lanes, were advocates believe that vehicular cycling, obeying designed by motorists to shove bicycle traffic the rules of the road, is an unattainable standard. aside for the convenience of motorists, which is They refuse to believe the studies that have dem- what bike lanes do to this day. Bicycle advocates onstrated attainment in reasonable time, for sev- refuse to believe Forester’s criticism of the motor- eral ages. Of course, the bicycle advocates never ists in those events, because that would negate have been able to provide an alternate way of their vision, and their refusal allows them the addi- cycling in traffic that is as good as obeying the tional advantage of being able to claim that much rules of the road, but they ignore this difficulty by of their ill fortune is because Forester has sold out providing their own answer to this problem of evil. to the motorists. They claim that vehicular is an The difference between the vehicular-cycling elitist plot to restrict cycling to some elite few, the principle and the cyclist-inferiority superstition is lawful and competent, and to keep real cyclists, the foundation of the bikeway controversy, but those who do not obey the rules of the road, off bicycle advocates find it difficult to understand. the streets by describing them as incompetent. They easily see themselves arrayed against mon- The bicycle advocates’ vision of bicycle strous conspiracies of motorists, motor manufac- heaven requires that streets be made suitable for turers, highway builders, land developers, oil cycling in the unskilled, incompetent, and even companies, and the like, whose forces have pre- frightened manner that they admire. The accep- vented the realization of the bicycle advocates’ tance of most current design principles by vehicu- vision. They see themselves as weak persons lar cyclists is another slap in the face of that being endangered by the motor vehicles that are vision. Even the advocacy of wide outside lanes is the weapons of those conspiracies. One would suspect. However bicycle advocates have never think that they would eagerly accept the fact that developed roadway designs that are suited to the bikeways were designed by motorists as part of unskilled, incompetent, and even frightened the oppression of cyclists. But bicycle activists cycling that they desire. Bicycle advocates explain refuse to believe this, because their vision this conflict with their vision by saying that vehicu- requires that cyclists be exactly the unskilled and lar cyclists, particularly John Forester, have sold incompetent persons described by motorists when out to the automobile interests. justifying their bikeway program. The bikelane issue is the one of these that Bicycle advocates find it more difficult to upsets bicycle advocates most, probably because understand the vehicular-cycling vision founded it most directly confronts their program to imple- on cyclists’ status equal to that of motorists. Bicy- ment their vision. In this matter, bicycle advocates cle advocates certainly feel that cyclists are mor- don’t need the excuse of an evil power because ally superior to motorists, but that feeling reverses bike lanes are nearly everywhere; bicycle advo- when they consider actual cycling conditions. cates like to think that they won that battle long Therefore, their view of vehicular cycling is con- ago. Their problem is that winning that battle has taminated by their feelings of inferiority to motor not produced their vision. They believe that it will, traffic. They fail to understand that vehicular though the evidence is slender and even contrary. cycling is simply riding along the road according to The evil power in this case is John Forester, who the rules of the road in cooperation with all the both points out the failure and explains why it other drivers. Instead, they infuse their view of should have been expected. vehicular cycling with their own view of a fight The failure is that only a small proportion of against motor traffic, thus presenting, in words the motoring public has switched to bicycle trans- only, the parody of a person feeling inferior and portation. The primary reason is the low utility of vulnerable trying to do what he thinks vehicular bicycle transportation in the modern decentralized cycling instructs. city. But there are other failures: no reduction in However, bicycle advocates realize that the car-bike collisions, no reduction in the level of vehicular cycling movement presents the only required skill, in fact an increase because of the intellectual case against their vision, and that For- contradiction with traffic operating procedures, no ester is its leader. (None of the powerful conspira- increase in legitimacy. Forester is evil because he tors with whom the bicycle advocates think keeps reminding bicycle advocates that these fail- themselves in conflict ever bothers to say anything ures were all predicted decades ago. And bicycle against the bicycle advocates’ vision. They either activists are particularly confused when Forester agree with it, or consider it irrelevant. So much for 10

that “conflict”.) Bicycle advocates have no sub- ity. These characteristics mean that bicycle advo- stantive arguments against this contradiction of cates silently evaluate bikeways and traffic their vision; therefore, they invent evil qualities to calming by their supposed anti-motoring effects apply to vehicular cycling and particularly to For- rather than by the welfare of cyclists, about which ester. For example: Forester cannot know much they have little concern. about cycling, because he admits that he cycles Bicycle advocates consider bike lanes and because he enjoys it instead of being a dedicated bike paths to have a direct effect and an indirect transportational cyclist, as they consider them- effect. The direct effect, when present, is reduc- selves to be. Think what their argument shows tion of width available for motor traffic. The indirect about themselves: bicycle transportation is not effect, much more important, is persuasion of enjoyable, and one learns only by doing what one motorists, persons without traffic-cycling skills, to hates. Another: Forester has sold out to the switch trips from motor to bicycle transportation in motorists because he thinks that motoring is quite the belief that bikeways make cycling safe. Bicycle useful, that most road design is good, that obeying advocates consider purely for its the rules of the road is good, and the like. Bicycle effect in dissuading motorists, thinking that this advocates invent lies about Forester, such as writ- effect overwhelms any possible danger to cyclists. ing that he drives an SUV and is on the motorists’ In contrast to bicycle advocates, the person payroll. Their argument ignores entirely Forester’s who argues for the welfare of cyclists presents a decades-long criticism of the motoring establish- very different picture. He is concerned about get- ment for discriminating against cyclists, and his ting more cyclists to obey the rules of the road, as efforts to have that repealed, and to obtain wide being good both for them and for motorists. He outside lanes, bicycle-responsive traffic-signal desires road designs that properly accommodate detectors, bike-safe drain grates, and the like. lawful cyclists, as do today’s good designs without The fact that there is opposition to the bicycle bikeways. He deplores road designs that contra- advocates’ worthy vision of a bicycling society, is dict the rules of the road, as do all bikeway sys- proof that there is evil afoot. tems at critical points. These contradictions make obeying the rules of the road more difficult for both 7 Tactical Considerations When cyclists and motorists. He deplores many traffic- Opposing Bicycle Advocates calming items because they make driving of vehi- cles more difficult and dangerous, whether those Practically all designated “bicycle advocates” vehicles are motor vehicles or bicycles. In short, are anti-motorists who are using bicycle transpor- he is concerned about the welfare of the individu- tation as a tool to reduce motoring. Their goal is to als who are operating the traffic system, instead of entice motorists away from motoring by whatever being against the traffic system. means they think to be effective. Those who style Keeping these distinctions in mind will aid the themselves bicycle advocates advocate bikeways advocate of private vehicles (motorized or non- and traffic calming, and maybe such non-contro- motorized) when dealing with anti-motoring bicy- versial side issues as secure . cle advocates. They make big talk about safety to get what they want, but such talk is mendacious, ranging from 8 Recommended Basic Strategy simple superstition to outright falsehoods when Against Bicycle Advocates and stated by the better informed. Their arguments are Their Anti-Motoring Strategy rarely challenged because their listeners believe that same-direction motor traffic is the great dan- The American Dream Coalition demon- ger to cyclists and that bikeways make cycling strates that there exist persons and organizations safe, particularly for beginning cyclists, both of who desire to protect themselves from the anti- which claims are false. motoring strategy that is promulgated as bicycle Bicycle advocates make difficult opponents advocacy. One can call them advocates of private for two reasons. Their thought, being based on vehicles, whatever may be the source of energy strange beliefs, such as that people do not like liv- for those vehicles. A strategy that is based on ing in suburbia, leads them into arguments whose facts has much greater probability of success. accuracy and relevance are difficult to ascertain. Opponents of anti-motoring bicycle advocacy They see their motivation, opposition to motoring, must start by recognizing that they probably need as so important as to justify any level of mendac- to correct their own misconceptions, misconcep- 11

tions that are used against them by the bicycle Anti-motoring bicycle advocates plan to flood advocates. Sometimes the hardest part of accept- the roads with multitudes of bicycle riders who fit ing the facts is accepting responsibility for them. the pattern of childish incompetence that you The misconception that has caused all this motorists had devised and made so popular. Bicy- trouble is that cyclists, being children, are unable cle advocates recognize that only by appealing to to exercise judgement. Therefore, they should not this pattern of childish incompetence will they be be granted the rights of drivers of vehicles, but be able to generate the multitude of bicycle riders restricted to the side of the road. The highway that they desire. Bicycle advocates also recognize safety experts, being motorists and not cyclists, that insistence on cyclist competence, though it created instructions for operating in this cyclist- may be good for cyclists, is so hated that it will dis- inferiority manner. These instructions were taught suade those multitudes. to generations of American children, motivated by Bike lanes cannot keep incompetent cyclists fear of death from same-direction motor traffic for safe. Safe and lawful cycling sometimes requires disobeying them. These instructions comforted that the cyclist be where the bike lane is placed, American motorists with the thought that bicycle sometimes it requires that the cyclist be outside traffic was prevented from interfering with motor the bike lane. Only a competent cyclist can distin- traffic, and the bike-safety excuse enabled them to guish when to be in the lane and when to be out of disregard the fact that they were discriminating it, and only a competent cyclist can operate prop- against cyclists for their own convenience. erly either way and in the cooperative manner of These instructions were dangerous. Proba- the driver of a vehicle. bly the most dangerous was for making left turns If motorists manage to insist that cyclists from next the curb without yielding to overtaking obey the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles, traffic. If one is assumed to have no judgement, they will find that those who choose to cycle are then one cannot be held accountable for not exer- easier to have as fellow road users and many cising it. So motorists became worried whenever fewer than the number of incompetent bicycle rid- overtaking a cyclist, lest he swerve in front of ers that the bicycle activists plan to produce. Fur- them. But those same motorists never recognized thermore, discontinuing the bikeways program that this swerving cyclist was operating as he was would remove the major attraction both for this taught, taught by the motorists who were in multitude of incompetent cyclists and for disobey- charge of “bike-safety”. An equally pernicious ing the traffic laws. Cyclists need to be considered result was the view that traffic laws were for motor- to be drivers of vehicles, as well as to act as such. ists alone, not for cyclists. Of course, the bicycle advocates will argue This system never worked as imagined. It is that abandoning the bikeway program in favor of impossible to operate on the roadway without one of cyclist competence will destroy the hope of using judgement; those who used judgement dis- reducing motoring. This argument assumes that obeyed the system, while those who obeyed the motoring is not very useful, that many people dis- bike-safety system had high collision rates. Thirty like motoring, that the major deterrent to bicycling percent of car-bike collisions occurred because is the danger of same-direction motor traffic, that the cyclist was operating as he had been taught. bikeways remove that danger, and that these Then, when a later generation of motorists assumptions prove that many people would switch became concerned that bicycle traffic would plug many trips from motoring to bicycling if a bikeway up their roadways, they designed the bikeway sys- system were provided. tem to physically enforce this childish cycling sys- This argument is an empty threat. Despite tem that served their convenience. So certain thirty years of trying, no such reduction has been were that they were right, they were utterly aston- reported. For most people who live in modern ished when people who rode bicycles opposed decentralized urban areas, private motor transpor- them. tation works so much better than any of the alter- Motorists, you created both the false cyclist- natives that it is predominantly chosen for most inferiority ideology and the bikeway system to trips. enforce it, and now these have come back to bite Some bicycling trips are made by those with- you in the form of anti-motoring bicycle advocacy. out access to a car; there’s no need to encourage Only by admitting these faults can you weaken the these because they are made anyway. Some peo- system on which much anti-motoring bicycle ple choose motoring for trips that would, if done by advocacy is based. bicycle, serve the traveller’s needs and desires 12

better. Both of these types of traveller would be More detailed analyses of the data published much better served by a program that encouraged in all of the above is in: each traveller to cycle lawfully, competently, and Forester, John (1994); Bicycle Transportation enjoyably, without the cyclist-inferiority feelings 2nd Ed; The MIT Press that inhibit so many and on which bikeways are based. Accounts of the training and testing of young In short, a program that is based on the prin- cyclists are in the two following: ciple that bicycle traffic should be operated in Forester, John (1981) Elementary Level accordance with the rules of the road for drivers of Cyclist Training Program: Objectives, Techniques, vehicles has the following advantages: and Results, available at www.johnforester.com 1: For cyclists, it is best for those who choose to Forester, John, and Lewiston, Diana (1980) cycle Intermediate-Level Cyclist Training Program: 2: For motorists, it provides the most cooperative Objectives, Techniques and Results; Bicycling and safest bicycling road users Committee, Transportation Research Board, 3: It short-circuits much of the anti-motoring bicy- Washington DC, also available at www.johnfor- cle advocacy. ester.com

9 Bibliography A history of the bikeway controversy is given in: The most robust study of car-bike collision Forester, John (2001) The Bicycle Transpor- statistics is: tation Controversy, Transportation Quarterly, Cross, Kenneth D. and Fisher, Gary (1976); Spring 2001, Vol 55 No 2 pp 7-17 A Study of Bicycle/Motor-Vehicle Accidents: Iden- tification of Problem Types and Countermeasure The best description of the proper policy and Approaches. National Highway Traffic Safety practices for bicycle transportation is given Administration, Washington DC. (though I say it myself) in: Forester, John (1994) Bicycle Transportation The data showing accident rates by length of 2nd Ed; The MIT Press. experience is in: Watkins, S. M. (1984) Cycling Accidents. Cyclists’ Touring Club; Godalming, U.K.

Accident rates for general American cyclists are in the two following: Schupack, S. A. and Driessen, G.J. (1976) Bicycle Accidents and Usage Among Young Adults: Preliminary Study, Chicago, National Safety Council Chlapecka, T.W., Schupack, S.A.,etc (1975) Bicycle Accidents and Usage Among Elementary School Children in the United States. Chicago, National Safety Council.

Accident rates for American club cyclists are in the following two: Kaplan, Jerrold A. (1976) Characteristics of the Regular Adult Bicycle User; Master’s Thesis, University of Maryland; FHWA, National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA Moritz, William E (1998); Adult Bicyclists in the United States: Characteristics and Riding Experience in 1996, Bicycling Committee, Trans- portation Research Board, Washington DC