What Would John Think Of James?

He and John Forester would hate each other.

Or would they?

John Forester in the 1970s.

Forester, who died nearly five years ago, was best known as the author of Effective Cycling and for his advocacy of vehicular cycling.  He accused bike lane advocates of promoting what he called the "cyclist inferiority hypothesis" which, he said, was the product of motordom's propaganda campaign to frighten cyclists off the road.  

On the other hand, former "Top Gear" presenter James May  says "People on bicycles are really just pedestrians" and that the bicycle is "an elaborate piece of footwear."  He decries "vehicle levels of traffic controls for bicycles" he sees in his native Britain.

James May near his home.

Another point of contrast:  May, so far, has been praised for his point of view.  Forester was often vilified though, to be fair, many of his critics reacted to his "shrill, nasty" tone rather than to the substance of his arguments.

But, as with so many whose views seem, on the surface, to be polar opposites, they actually share an important commonality:  Forester was, and May is, opposed to much of the "bicycle infrastructure" that's been built. 

And their criticisms might look oppositional, but they share a same root concern:  that too many bike lanes, signals and such constructed, ostensibly, out of concern for cyclists' safety actually puts us in more danger.

Forester's criticisms of bike lanes mirror my own:  that because of their poor design, they make it all but impossible to turn safely and also put cyclists in the line of opening car doors and other hazards.  May takes issue with "extremist" measures like bicycle traffic lights.  One near his home should instead be a "give way" (or, to us Americans, "yield") sign and allow cyclists to make their judgments.  "As long as people cycle in a sympathetic way, and pedestrians are still at the top of the hierarchy--the world belongs to people, not machines--then it ought to work."

James May, after a charity ride.

Ah, there's another point  of commonality: the notion that motor vehicles don't reign supreme. One could say, however, that Forester advocated for equality between cyclists and motorists while saying nothing about pedestrians, while May, as quoted above, believes that pedestrians (who, in his view, include cyclists) are at the top of the food chain, so to speak.

So, how would James May and John Forester see each other?  Of course, we'll never know about Forester and, to my knowledge, May--who is a lifelong cyclist--either doesn't know or doesn't think about him.  But I could see both of them pulling up the bollards from a bike lane.

Riding To Work

"How do you do it?"

You've probably heard that from at least one colleague if you bike to work.

You suggest that co-worker could do the same.  You'll most likely hear one of these objections:

"It's too far!"

"What about the cars?  Trucks?  Buses?"

"It looks like a lot of hassle."

"How can I wear these clothes and ride?"

"What if it rains?"

"What if I get a flat tire?"

"I'll be too tired when I come in!"

The funny thing is that even after people see that you ride every day, that you haven't missed a day of work and you're refreshed, in a good mood and productive, they're still convinced cycling to work won't work for them.

Now, if someone's  commute is a two-hour drive or train ride one-way, it may well be "too far" to bike.  However, if such a commuter lives a couple of miles from a railroad station, he or she could benefit from pedaling there.  Said commuter could lock up a "clunker" at the station or ride a folding bike and bring it aboard the train, which would provide easy and quick transport from the train to the office.

From FunCheapSF

Someone who's not accustomed to riding in traffic does, of course, need grow accustomed to it.  That happens pretty quickly:  The key the is to remember that the bicycle is a vehicle, with the privileges and responsibilities that attach to it. Of course, one shouldn't pedal in an interstate, or even on the shoulder of one.  Which leads me to my next point:  Bike lanes are not, in any way, safer than streets (especially given how poorly-designed and -constructed some lanes are).  The best way to ride is to take a lane, keep to a line and remain as visible as possible to drivers. Do that, and cars, trucks and other motor vehicles will just seem like bigger fish in the sea you're swimming.

All of the other objections noncyclists raise are about issues that can be planned for or around.  Use good tires, and flats are less frequent than expected.  When they happen, they can be fixed or a tube replaced, and everyone should to make such a repair (or ride in the vicinity of bike shops that will be open during your commute).  As far as weather goes:  A new bike commuter can decide whether to ride "rain or shine".  For some, it might be a good idea not to ride in bad weather, at least in the beginning.  

And, when it comes to work attire, people have all sorts of ways of dealing with it. Some can ride in the clothes they wear on the job.  Others can duck into a bathroom and change.  (If you work in a college or school, you might have access to locker rooms and showers).  Still others keep changes of clothes at work. 

I think that the real objection that underlies the ones people usually express is that they'll "stand out" if they ride to work.  They might be seen as "weird", eccentric or vaguely subversive. I can understand that:  I have worked in offices and for organizations in which I was the only one riding to work.  I'm sure some co-workers laughed at me, and in at least one school in which I taught, students had less respect for me than they would have had I driven in to teach them.  Now there are many more bike commuters here in New York, as well as in other cities, than there were in my youth.  However, if you are living in working in a suburban area (or a city that feels more suburban than, say, San Francisco or Boston), you may have to "educate" your co-workers--not to mention the drivers you encounter on your way, who may not realize that you have as much right to (and have probably paid more for) the road. 

In one way, bicycle commuting is like a lot of other things:  Do it long enough, and it will seem absolutely normal--to you and, later, to those who try to dissuade or discourage you from it.  And you'll wonder how you didn't do it! 

Effective Cycling, Revised

The latest edition of John Forester's Effective Cycling has been published.  I plan to obtain a copy, in part because I am curious to see what has changed.  Also, given Forester's age, it might be his last revision to his book.


I have one of the early editions of the book, from 1985.  It may have been the first publication--at least in this country--to advocate and explicate the concept of Vehicular Cycling.  This means that cyclists should ride as if their bikes are vehicles--which, in fact, is what they are for many of us.  That means, among other things, taking and using lanes in similar ways. In turn, he says, motorists and policy-makers should treat bicycles as if they are vehicles.  


At the time the first edition of the book came out, Vehicular Cycling seemed like a radical idea.  Even more radical was his notion that there shouldn't be separate infrastructure for cyclists because if cyclists acted more like vehicle operators, there wouldn't be any need for separate bike paths and such.


Almost everything urban planners have done to promote cycling and make their cities more "bike friendly" runs counter to what Forester says.  One reason for that is that most planners are not cyclists; even the ones that are labor under the same misconceptions the non-cycling public has.  Also, it seems that cities can get money for building bike lanes, but not for Effective Cycling courses (or any cycling courses, for that matter).


I don't entirely agree with Forester's idea that there should be no infrastructure for cyclists.  If Vehicular Cycling became the norm, there wouldn't be as much need for paths and such.  There are a few areas, I think, in which such lanes make sense.  However, I would rather not have any lane at all than lanes that are poorly conceived- and -constructed and therefore even more dangerous than the streets from which the lanes are supposed to protect cyclists.  


Still, I think the fact that such questions are being discussed at all is perhaps Forester's greatest contribution.