From: John_-_Forester@cup.portal.com
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles
Subject: Southern California Bike Plan Comments
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 92 13:52:28 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
Distribution: na



              COMMENTS ON DRAFT BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN
            FOR SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS

    The following is the text of a letter that I sent to Ryan Snyder
    Associates (1015 Gayley Rd, # 1248, Los Angeles CA 90024)
    regarding their draft plan.

    While several parts of the proposed plan are reasonable, the
    planned requirement for a complete network of bicycle routes is
    based on incorrect information. You are assuming that it is
    possible, indeed desirable, to have a bicycle transportation
    system operated by incompetent cyclists. You are assuming that
    incompetent cyclists need bike lanes and bike paths. Both
    assumptions are incorrect. Government planning should be based on
    normally competent, lawful cycling, as is required by the traffic
    laws and as is best for cyclists. Cyclists fare best when they
    act and are treated as drivers of vehicles. The deficiencies that
    limit cycling today are far more behavioral than physical and the
    plan should be directed at deficiencies that actually exist
    rather than superstitions and should be based on truth rather
    than lies.

    You say that this network shall be designed to provide easy
    access to all of a wide variety of locations. No change is
    necessary; each of those locations would not exist today if it
    did not have easy access by the road system. That's how people
    get there today, and how they should get there tomorrow.

    You say that this grid of routes should be designed to meet the
    needs of all levels of cyclists, especially those less than
    excellent riders who may need bike lanes and bike paths. This
    statement is false in three ways. 

    The first is the incorrect notion that it is possible, particu-
    larly with the distances involved in Southern California, to have
    a bicycle transportation system safely operated by incompetent
    cyclists. Nobody knows how to do this today, and it is most
    unlikely that such an invention will be made. I say it in
    different words. Nobody knows how to design a practical urban
    bicycle transportation system that can be used safely by cyclists
    who don't know how to ride in traffic. Furthermore, particularly
    with the distances typical of S. Calif. trips, time is very
    important, probably the most important factor in commuting trips,
    in modal choice. Short trip times require the use of direct
    routes with few delays. These are the main roads and cyclists
    will use them. Even if they try to stay on minor roads, cyclists
    still must operate in traffic and sometimes in the traffic of
    major roads; it is not possible to eliminate this situation.
    Cyclists must have the skill to operate safely.

    The second incorrect notion is that any transportation cyclist
    "needs" a bike lane or, except where it provides a shortcut, a
    bike path. Two objective excuses have been given for bike lanes
    and bike paths: they largely prevent accidents and they reduce
    the level of skill required. There is no evidence whatever that
    either of these claims is correct and plenty of evidence that
 
                                                                    2

    they are incorrect. For example, urban bicycle paths are the most
    dangerous facilities that we know. The facts are well known and
    are no longer debated. The subjective excuse for bike lanes and
    bike paths is that people think that these facilities make
    cycling safe without the need to learn safe cycling. While this
    excuse is, narrowly considered, correct in that most people do so
    believe, it is in fact a lie. Basing a program of encouraging
    cycling on bike lanes and bike paths is a public lie, an
    enticement perpetrated by government, about matters of life and
    death. The executive and legislative branches that perpetrate
    such a lie should be, and may well be, held responsible by the
    judicial branch for the deaths and injuries so caused.

    Bike paths that significantly reduce the trip time even when used
    at safer slow speeds can be beneficial, but there are only a very
    few such locations in most urban areas.

    The third incorrect notion is that only "excellent riders" know
    how to ride in traffic and that all others "need" bike lanes and
    bike paths. That is known in the trade as "weasel wording," more
    formally as mendacity. Learning to ride a bicycle in traffic is
    no more difficult than learning to drive a car in traffic; in
    fact, the skills are almost identical. British cyclists know how,
    and their skill is taken for granted by society and government.
    The fact that most Americans don't know how to ride in traffic
    shows simply that they haven't been trained to do so or, more
    accurately, have been systematically mistrained by bike-safety
    programs to ride dangerously and incompetently and to believe
    that they cannot learn better.

    The provision of wide outside lanes for collector and arterial
    streets is a different matter entirely. Wide outside lanes
    provide room for motorists to overtake cyclists without either
    intruding into the adjacent lane or getting dangerously or
    uncomfortably close to cyclists. This reduces the risk of
    overtaking collisions (which admittedly is a small risk) while
    making a considerable reduction in delay to motorists caused by
    cycle traffic. Wide lanes assist cooperation without introducing
    any negative factors.

    Given that the problem is the low level of cycling skill and that
    the facilities that were supposed to compensate for that low
    level of skill actually make cycling more difficult and
    dangerous, the proper basis for a cycling transportation program
    is obvious. The proper basis is a program for providing
    opportunities to learn the skill and motivation to take advantage
    of those opportunities. The Effective Cycling Program enables
    people to learn cycling easily, as proved in practice. What is
    lacking is a program that motivates people to participate in it.

    You may argue that the bikeway solution is more likely to produce
    the increase in cycling transportation than is a cyclist training
    program, because it is giving the market what it wants instead of
    trying to prescribe unpleasant medicine. That argument is false
 
                                                                    3

    and immoral from the beginning because the market wants safety
    but bikeways don't provide safety. Bikeways are a nostrum sold by
    quacks, not for profit but for ideology. In the medical field,
    and bikeways are equally a matter of life and death, they would
    be prohibited by law. In the long run, surely a program that
    actually does good for cyclists is more likely to produce a
    working cycling transportation system than one that does harm to
    cyclists. Even if it doesn't, it is the only moral choice
    available.

    Therefore you should rewrite the bicycle plan to reflect primary
    reliance on training people to ride properly and encouraging them
    to participate in that training, and to reflect a very minor role
    for bike paths in those few locations where they provide
    demonstrable benefits for cyclists.

    JForester@cup.portal.com               John Forester
                                           726 Madrone Ave
    408-734-9426                           Sunnyvale CA 94086 USA