Another great discussion. Thank you, John and Bill. It's interesting listening to the perspective in the US from the UK. We share some of the culture you are talking about, but in other ways we have moved (a little) closer to the Dutch in road design terms. Forester is indirectly very influential here in the way we teach cycling. Like the Dutch, we talk about creating confident and independent cyclists. We need those skills even with Dutch style infrastructure. The skills apply to riding with other cyclists just as much as they apply to riding with motor vehicles, and most riding will still be in shared spaces. As John says, there's value in Forester's approach to cycling skills, even if his later (paranoid?) obsession with being controlled held back the development of good infrastructure that enables others to cycle. Not sure we can blame Forester in the UK. Out failure to establish safe spaces for active travel is our own.
You are quite welcome! Yeah, once the United States headed down the supposed modern path of transforming our existing cities and building our new communities to prioritize only driving everywhere for everything all the time, the vision of "a car-based modernity" spread around the globe like a virus. The Dutch pushed back on these transformations sooner than most of us. Because the Vehicular Cyclist philosophy, which was tolerated if not embraced by Motordom, was embedded into the official design guides here, it has proved to be quite difficult to correct. Nobody likes to admit they were wrong, especially when lives are at stake. That's human behavior.
I believe it was Peter Harnik in his book, From Rails to Trails, who said he was meeting with another bicycle activist to coordinate their efforts, when he laid down the basic principles they agreed on. "We want more people on bikes, right?" "No." The advantage of vehicular cycling is that it's for the young, the strong, the fearless who know they can't get killed. It's an exclusive club that blocks everyone else. And too many vehicular cyclists like that exclusivity. My standard is, "Would you let your children ride here; and if so, have you considered the benefits of adopting out?"
Wow, what a great discussion! As a former bike messenger, my mindset 30 years ago wasn't that different from a racer's. Then again, there weren't many utility cyclists on the road back then. Becoming a cycle commuter has certainly changed my perspective. Seeing a bike network spread across our city has been wonderful. Of course recent events here in Toronto are tarnishing that more than a bit. ☹️
I know nothing about this subject, being a Dutchman, but I am pretty sure that when reading 90 per cent of this new handbook my basic reaction would be: DUH?! I guess we have to congratulate The US with this new guide. Literally no Dutch traffic consumer has ever read CROW over here, but it is an essential, but (and this is important) not the only element in the entire mix. Handbooks matter,just as advocacy, the legal framework ,public opinion and various other elements.
Yup. Essential indeed. Our manuals, up until recently, made building in a best-in-class Dutch-style safe systems approach pretty near impossible. These two new bike facility design guides will help, but as we said, we must bring the MUTCD in line with global best practices as well. It's worth noting that there is a lot of money behind the drive everywhere for everything status quo that does not want to see these changes, which is just one of the reasons why it is so difficult.
We are 50 years behind - I have such fury at Forester & the vehicular cyclist proponents, who just happened to align well with the Dark PR fossil fuel & auto industry efforts as the oil crisis threatened their hegemony. I am now headed into my 7th decade on this threatened planet & still discouraged to cycle by our unsafe streets. It is really frustrating as a longtime advocate watching the latest local projects roll out that are substandard mostly paint-only bike lanes with car dependence by design still remaining central. I appreciate the host & guests' long view toward a safe streets approach in the US. And yet the climate system doesn't care about our petty politics. And the remainder of my one life is short. I was born in the wrong country.
I hear you. It can be so frustrating, but we must keep pushing for safer streets. The only chance we have at changing the drive everywhere all the time status quo is to grow awareness within our communities and hold our elected officials accountable. Having these design guide help, but mainly when our leaders are committed to doing something different, so ultimately we have to grow our movement.
Good podcast on an interesting subject. More traffic engineers and city planners need to realize that people need safer streets for biking, walking, and other types of mobility. I would never want to walk or bike on heavily traffic high speed streets. It just isn't safe for anyone. Even secondary streets through neighborhoods need slower speeds, not 4 lanes of traffic at 40 MPH.
Another great discussion. Thank you, John and Bill.
It's interesting listening to the perspective in the US from the UK. We share some of the culture you are talking about, but in other ways we have moved (a little) closer to the Dutch in road design terms.
Forester is indirectly very influential here in the way we teach cycling. Like the Dutch, we talk about creating confident and independent cyclists. We need those skills even with Dutch style infrastructure. The skills apply to riding with other cyclists just as much as they apply to riding with motor vehicles, and most riding will still be in shared spaces. As John says, there's value in Forester's approach to cycling skills, even if his later (paranoid?) obsession with being controlled held back the development of good infrastructure that enables others to cycle. Not sure we can blame Forester in the UK. Out failure to establish safe spaces for active travel is our own.
You are quite welcome! Yeah, once the United States headed down the supposed modern path of transforming our existing cities and building our new communities to prioritize only driving everywhere for everything all the time, the vision of "a car-based modernity" spread around the globe like a virus. The Dutch pushed back on these transformations sooner than most of us. Because the Vehicular Cyclist philosophy, which was tolerated if not embraced by Motordom, was embedded into the official design guides here, it has proved to be quite difficult to correct. Nobody likes to admit they were wrong, especially when lives are at stake. That's human behavior.
I believe it was Peter Harnik in his book, From Rails to Trails, who said he was meeting with another bicycle activist to coordinate their efforts, when he laid down the basic principles they agreed on.
"We want more people on bikes, right?"
"No."
The advantage of vehicular cycling is that it's for the young, the strong, the fearless who know they can't get killed. It's an exclusive club that blocks everyone else. And too many vehicular cyclists like that exclusivity.
My standard is, "Would you let your children ride here; and if so, have you considered the benefits of adopting out?"
Yep. That's a good standard to have.
Wow, what a great discussion! As a former bike messenger, my mindset 30 years ago wasn't that different from a racer's. Then again, there weren't many utility cyclists on the road back then. Becoming a cycle commuter has certainly changed my perspective. Seeing a bike network spread across our city has been wonderful. Of course recent events here in Toronto are tarnishing that more than a bit. ☹️
They sure are.
I know nothing about this subject, being a Dutchman, but I am pretty sure that when reading 90 per cent of this new handbook my basic reaction would be: DUH?! I guess we have to congratulate The US with this new guide. Literally no Dutch traffic consumer has ever read CROW over here, but it is an essential, but (and this is important) not the only element in the entire mix. Handbooks matter,just as advocacy, the legal framework ,public opinion and various other elements.
Yup. Essential indeed. Our manuals, up until recently, made building in a best-in-class Dutch-style safe systems approach pretty near impossible. These two new bike facility design guides will help, but as we said, we must bring the MUTCD in line with global best practices as well. It's worth noting that there is a lot of money behind the drive everywhere for everything status quo that does not want to see these changes, which is just one of the reasons why it is so difficult.
We are 50 years behind - I have such fury at Forester & the vehicular cyclist proponents, who just happened to align well with the Dark PR fossil fuel & auto industry efforts as the oil crisis threatened their hegemony. I am now headed into my 7th decade on this threatened planet & still discouraged to cycle by our unsafe streets. It is really frustrating as a longtime advocate watching the latest local projects roll out that are substandard mostly paint-only bike lanes with car dependence by design still remaining central. I appreciate the host & guests' long view toward a safe streets approach in the US. And yet the climate system doesn't care about our petty politics. And the remainder of my one life is short. I was born in the wrong country.
I hear you. It can be so frustrating, but we must keep pushing for safer streets. The only chance we have at changing the drive everywhere all the time status quo is to grow awareness within our communities and hold our elected officials accountable. Having these design guide help, but mainly when our leaders are committed to doing something different, so ultimately we have to grow our movement.
Good podcast on an interesting subject. More traffic engineers and city planners need to realize that people need safer streets for biking, walking, and other types of mobility. I would never want to walk or bike on heavily traffic high speed streets. It just isn't safe for anyone. Even secondary streets through neighborhoods need slower speeds, not 4 lanes of traffic at 40 MPH.
Thanks so much! I couldn't agree more. Cheers! John