Dan Gutierrez's recent posting of <a href="http://www.youtube.com/user/CyclistLorax" target="_blank">their videos on youtube</a> have ignited an interesting discussion that I'm CCed on. The latest video is entitled <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rU4nKKq02BU" target="_blank">The Rights and Duties of Cyclists</a>. I think it's the first one Dan has posted on youtube in which he has dubbed commentary. Again, it's worth a look.<br>
<br>Messages discussing these videos keep getting forwarded between
this ad hoc list and the list of the Association of Pedestrian and
Bicycling Professionals (APBP). I think this started when someone
posted a link to the youtube videos on the apbp list, to which someone
responded, that was forwarded to Dan, and Dan CCed a bunch of us when
he responded to that.<br>
<br>This particular message from John Schubert is particularly good, I
think, so I'm forwarding it. Many of you should recognize his name as
he is a fairly well known and obviously talented and knowledgable bicycling writer, and is the technical editor of Adventure Cyclist magazine. Though it's out of context
from the rest of the discussion, Mr. Schubert is providing context with
each point, and there is an earlier message attached as well. But he
touches on many of the fundamental issues that we discuss and debate on
our San Diego list, succinctly and clearly. If I was to pick the
highlights, I wouldn't know what to exclude. I hope at least some
of you enjoy it as well.<br><font color="#888888">
<br>Serge<br></font><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">---------- Forwarded message ----------<br>From: <b class="gmail_sendername">John Schubert</b> <<a href="mailto:schubley@aol.com">schubley@aol.com</a>><br>Date: Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 2:19 PM<br>
Subject: Re: Now playing on YouTube - The Rights and Duties of Cyclists<br>To: [email addresses deleted]<br><br><br> Robert Shanteau/John Allen,<br>
<br>
Could you please forward this reply to the APBP list? Thanks.<br>
<br>
-- John Schubert<br>
<br>
Dear APBP list:<br>
<br>
Your recent debate has spread far and wide beyond your list members. A<br>
few quick comments, forwarded to the list by a friend:<br>
<br>
-- I roundly dispute the notion that slow cyclists can't ride in a<br>
vehicular manner. I do it myself all the time. Anne Lusk (quoted<br>
below) has inferred from the riders' equipment that they were riding at<br>
high speed. Dan Gutierrez has directly responded that they were not.<br>
I live on a hill with a 13 percent grade, and often position myself for<br>
a left turn while climbing that grade at walking speed in a 25-inch<br>
gear. One look at all the fat old men and women who are vehicular<br>
cyclists really should put to rest the notion that this is for athletes.<br>
<br>
-- If humble equipment is a litmus test for political correctness, I<br>
also note that many people, myself included, ride in a vehicular manner<br>
when wearing street clothes, riding slowly, on very ordinary bikes. I<br>
used to do so in downtown Washington DC traffic (before they had their<br>
door zone bike lanes) and found Washington a very easy city to ride in<br>
by bike (a three-speed that I brought home from the dump) when I lived<br>
there.<br>
<br>
-- If videos of people using humble equipment are necessary to prove<br>
the point, this is a public relations question, not one of operational<br>
effectiveness. When I'm driving and I encounter cyclists, I don't<br>
divert my attention by looking at their clothing. I have no quarrel<br>
with using female cyclists in such a video, but then again, this is a<br>
matter of public relations, not proving the validity of the concept.<br>
<br>
-- Earlier, Steve Faust raised an interesting (but unproven) notion:<br>
that vehicular cycling "doesn't work" when the bicycle modal share gets<br>
too high. I guess that might be true if your top priority is to allow<br>
motorists to accelerate to top speed between stop lights. But what if<br>
that's not your priority? Then what's the problem?<br>
<br>
-- In a lifetime of cycling, I have no experience delaying an<br>
overtaking motorist from safe overtaking by more than about 15 seconds.<br>
Very few motorists don't already have this level of patience. I don't<br>
think it matters much to the overtaking motorist whether a cyclist is<br>
going eight mph or 16 mph. This is the difference between a slow<br>
utility cyclist and an athlete -- it's a big difference for the cyclist<br>
-- but I just don't believe it matters to the overtaking motorist. (It<br>
takes less road space to safely overtake a slower vehicle than a larger<br>
vehicle, so this teeny difference would actually cut in favor of the<br>
slower cyclist, in terms of the overtaking motorist's convenience.)<br>
<br>
-- One thing that none of us can change is as follows: the distances<br>
in the U.S. are usually greater than in older European cities. Few<br>
Europeans ride as far as four kilometers; most of their bike trips are<br>
one to three kilometers. For me (I live outside of a small town), the<br>
grocery store is six km away. My own experience has been that<br>
Europeans ride at jogging speed (six to nine mph). Because longer<br>
trips have longer trip times, and people the world over are sensitive<br>
to trip time, for cycling to be attractive to potential U.S. riders,<br>
higher speed (if you call 12-14 mph "higher") is a benefit. But I<br>
repeat: the great thing about vehicular cycling is that it works at<br>
any speed. Look at all the delivery bikes riding at slow speed,<br>
claiming the lanes on the main streets in New York. No one told those<br>
riders to be afraid, so they just ride.<br>
<br>
-- The exercise benefit of cycling at 6 mph (it barely makes your pulse<br>
flicker) isn't so wonderful that we should abandon all concern over<br>
intersection accidents to encourage cycling at 6 mph. We don't have an<br>
established base of millions of 6 mph cyclists; what we do have is an<br>
established base of millions of people who ride at higher speeds than<br>
that. Note that two of the three cyclists killed in bikelane accidents<br>
in Seattle and Portland last year were riding at speed. Those riders<br>
_are_ our constituents.<br>
<br>
-- The incoming anecdotal and statistical evidence keep me very focused<br>
on the need to base public policy on _not_ designing collisions into<br>
our roads and special facilities. This includes some traditional<br>
"malign neglect" issues such as sewer grates and slippery steel<br>
grating. It also includes putting bicyclists in the blind spot of<br>
turning motorists, the door zone, and other sad consequences of taking<br>
marginal road space and calling it "exclusive" for bicyclists. Note<br>
that Copenhagen reported a 30 percent increase in the accident rate<br>
from their cycle tracks; Berlin reported a sharp uptick in accidents<br>
when they installed sidepaths; Toronto has documented a large<br>
percentage of dooring accidents.<br>
<br>
-- What these facility-based accidents have in common is that the<br>
individual cyclist who obeys the traffic control devices (lane lines,<br>
signs, whatever) is the one who will have the accident. I can't think<br>
of any non-bicycle-specific traffic control device that has a similar<br>
safety problem. I don't believe society can get all motorists to look<br>
at their five o'clock bearing for an ant-size cyclist zooming downhill<br>
on their right at 25 mph, just as the motorist is making a right turn.<br>
Even if they did look, not all would see. I've spent enough time in<br>
large commercial trucks, and studied human visual perception enough, to<br>
know a bit about the visibility limitations. It so happens that Dan<br>
Gutierrez, whose video started this discussion, once parked his car,<br>
looked behind himself, opened his door. . . and almost doored a cyclist<br>
who had popped out of a driveway into the door zone at just the wrong<br>
time.<br>
<br>
-- The very notion of "separated" is a myth except in the case of rural<br>
rail trails and other park-like settings. Certainly for any urban<br>
transportation function, bicyclists and motorists will always be in the<br>
same corridor, and not very far apart. Pursuing the illusion of<br>
separation, with the consequence of making intersections more complex,<br>
does not have a good track record.<br>
<br>
-- Traffic cycling, vehicular cycling, integrated cycling, whatever you<br>
want to call it, suffers in popularity in large part because its<br>
traditional spokesman, John Forester, is such a wretched salesman.<br>
(I've said this to John to his face many times.) This is a hidden<br>
agenda behind many of these discussions: people don't want to be<br>
thought of as "Forester-like." But the viability of a thought exists<br>
apart from the person who had the thought. I consider Forester to be a<br>
good friend, and I somehow manage to disagree with him, politely, in<br>
many areas. I grant that not everyone has the same experience. But<br>
that should't be the basis for policy decisions.<br>
<br>
-- Roads of the coming century will accommodate an increasingly strange<br>
mix of vehicles. I'm waiting for small-displacement motorcycles to<br>
come back; they're extremely widely used in many other countries.<br>
Electric versions of same become more and more practical every year.<br>
The Twike (side-by-side human/electric powered faired recumbent) and<br>
similar machines are waiting in the wings. Every month, Popular<br>
Science seems to have a story about another machine that's somewhere in<br>
the continuum between roller skates and the traditional car. Many of<br>
these devices are closer in speed to a bicycle than to a regular car.<br>
Are we going to build special lanes for all of these categories of<br>
conveyance? No, and I sure hope we don't even try. From the<br>
standpoint of making viable public policy to accommodate all these<br>
conveyances safely, I believe we already have a superb plan in place:<br>
one set of rules, with speed positioning and destination positioning by<br>
individual need.<br>
<br>
-- I dispute the notion that "motorist wrath" is exacerbated by people<br>
wearing ordinary clothing when riding, for several reasons. This<br>
notion doesn't fit my personal experience; it requires more atttention<br>
spent looking at the bicyclists' "kit" than I think most people devote;<br>
and the public comments I see from non-cyclists tend to focus more on<br>
ridiculing spandex cycling clothing.<br>
<br>
-- Ian Walker's study purporting to show more space given to unhelmeted<br>
bicyclists is unworthy of serious consideration. The difference he<br>
measured was a few inches, an utterly insignificant finding because the<br>
average space given was around five feet. He chopped the Y axis on his<br>
graph to make this difference look more dramatic than it really was.<br>
This small difference most certainly was not operationally significant.<br>
But if you want to stick up for that study, you have to live with the<br>
fact that it purports to show greater motorist courtesy given to people<br>
who didn't look like athletes on their bikes, which runs counter to the<br>
assertion that such cyclists are magnets for "motorist wrath."<br>
<br>
To summarize: vehicular cycling works fine at any speed, with any<br>
equipment. I think it would be a great idea to have videos that show<br>
this, and I'm glad that Dan said he's working on that. I think Dan<br>
deserves some praise for insisting on professional quality production<br>
standards. Nice clothing on good-looking cyclists is part of Dan's<br>
passion for perfection, not automatic evidence that riders get harassed<br>
for riding in street clothes.<br>
<font color="#888888"><br>
<br>
John Schubert<br>
Secretary, Pennsylvania Pedalcycle & Pedestrian Advisory Committee<br>
Member, National Committee on Uniform Traffic Control Devices Bicycle<br>
Technical Committee<br>
Accident Reconstruction Expert Witness<br>
Freelance writer & author of two cycling books<br>
Coopersburg, PA<br>
</font><div><div></div><div class="Wj3C7c"><br>
<br>
-----Original Message-----<br>
___________________________________<br>
<br>
Dear All,<br>
In studying the video, I noted the quick release pedals and cleats.<br>
The riders were on touring bicycles and, especially with cleats, better<br>
able to maintain the faster speeds of the cars. They were not using old<br>
slick black rubber pedals, riding heavy bikes, or carrying children and<br>
groceries.<br>
Mighk Wilson nicely suggested that the video should include female<br>
cyclists. In the U.S., there are many experienced female cyclists who<br>
easily ride a touring bike, wear lycra, and use cleats. Thus, if this<br>
video just included females riding the touring bike, wearing cleats,<br>
and riding quickly, it still would be a singular vehicular bicyclist<br>
able to ride at fast speeds. These women might wear regular clothing<br>
but, to maintain the speeds, they still might want to be on a lean bike<br>
and wear cleats (or at least have toe clips). The slow speed bicycling<br>
and the very different non-vehicular-riding "look", as discussed by<br>
Andrew, causes frustration on the part of the car drivers or the driver<br>
just doesn't know what to make of a bicyclist that looks like this (a<br>
study suggested that a wider distance is given by car drivers to<br>
helmet-less bike riders).<br>
Perhaps with the U.S. push by John Forester in the 1970's to have<br>
vehicular cycling as the singular mode, we have created an iconic image<br>
in the U.S. of the solo high speed bicyclists who can bicycle<br>
effectively in traffic. A car driver will see this singular bicyclist,<br>
know they can behave properly as a vehicular cyclist, and give them<br>
their due. When the bicyclist does not look like that iconic solo<br>
vehicular cyclist and they are traveling at much slower speeds, that<br>
can bring on the wrath of the car driver (as experienced by the skilled<br>
bicyclist Andrew). Thus, a slower bicyclist without even toe clips, on<br>
a heavy bike, not wearing lycra, sitting upright, and perhaps carrying<br>
groceries, could be subjected to even "more" wrath from some car<br>
drivers than the vehicular cyclists, causing them to be doubly stressed<br>
riding in traffic. This bicyclist, as Andrew has commented, will doubt<br>
if he or she wants to continue bicycling if their only choice is<br>
vehicular riding.<br>
The model that we have built in the U.S. for bicyclists as vehicular<br>
riders is to have males or females riding solo, at a relatively high<br>
speed, on fast bike, and with gear that makes them "look" like a<br>
vehicular cyclist. The car drivers know and respect these bicyclists.<br>
Even if we change the perception of the car drivers and tell them that<br>
all bicyclists now can behave effectively as car drivers but they just<br>
don't look like the iconic vehicular cyclists (old rubber pedals, heavy<br>
bike, groceries, girls bar with some females wearing skirts), we still<br>
will have the slow speed issue. Bicyclists on these bikes can't ride<br>
any faster. It will be hard to tell the car drivers that they have to<br>
adjust their behavior and drive at 10 MPH (the comfortable speed for<br>
the laden bikes) behind these bicyclists. It will also be hard to tell<br>
the car drivers that they have to follow behind many bicyclists going<br>
10 MPH.<br>
John Forester was an effective champion for the solo fast vehicular<br>
cyclist who didn't want to pick up groceries (Steve's comment). The<br>
model for this vehicular icon should continue because they ride<br>
effectively in the road and are respected by the car drivers (yes,<br>
there are exceptions). We should probably not, based on Andrew's<br>
experience, expect many more people to ride heavier bikes and become<br>
regular riders in car traffic, especially because when they ride slowly<br>
in their shoes with their clothing on their heavy and laden bike, they<br>
receive more wrath from the car drivers than a touring bicyclist. For<br>
these people, we might need other models, especially if we want to<br>
encourage them to bike.<br>
Anne<br>
<br>
Anne Lusk, Ph.D.<br>
Harvard School of Public Health<br>
665 Huntington Ave Bld II Rm 314<br>
Boston, MA 02115<br>
<a href="mailto:AnneLusk@hsph.harvard.edu">AnneLusk@hsph.harvard.edu</a><br>
617-432-7076 work<br>
617-872-9201 cell<br>
617-432-2435 fax<br>
</div></div></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br>NOTE: Any opinions expressed above are mine and not necessarily shared by any organization in which I am involved.