Three and a half decades ago, John Forester's Effective Cycling was published. To this day, no one (of whom I'm aware, anyway) has done a better job of elucidating what needs to be done in order for the bicycle to be seen as a viable option for commuting and other purposes.
Essentially, he said that in order for the bicycle to be seen as a vehicle, and not merely a toy, we have to ride as if our bicycles are indeed vehicles. In explaining what that meant, he showed the folly of bike lanes and other planners' attempts to "accomodate" us.
In the ensuing years, not much has changed, save for the number of cyclists. If anything, the situation has gotten worse: more and more bike lanes are being built and lots of neophyte cyclists believe they are safer in them, and that said lanes are a sign of their city's "bike friendliness" or simply its "cool factor".
Here is an example of how, not only bike lanes, but prevalent notions of how cyclists ride in traffic, put us in more danger than taking a lane and thus making ourselves more visible to motorists:
Essentially, he said that in order for the bicycle to be seen as a vehicle, and not merely a toy, we have to ride as if our bicycles are indeed vehicles. In explaining what that meant, he showed the folly of bike lanes and other planners' attempts to "accomodate" us.
In the ensuing years, not much has changed, save for the number of cyclists. If anything, the situation has gotten worse: more and more bike lanes are being built and lots of neophyte cyclists believe they are safer in them, and that said lanes are a sign of their city's "bike friendliness" or simply its "cool factor".
Here is an example of how, not only bike lanes, but prevalent notions of how cyclists ride in traffic, put us in more danger than taking a lane and thus making ourselves more visible to motorists:
 |
| By Keri Caffrey |
