From: John_-_Forester@cup.portal.com
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles
Subject: U.S. Federal Bicycle  Policy
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 92 15:15:53 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
Distribution: na






I have mailed the following letter. Would those of you who agree mail cards or
letters in support?
JForester@cup.portal.com               John Forester
                                       726 Madrone Ave
408-734-9426                           Sunnyvale CA 94086 USA
*******************************************************************


                           John Forester, M.S., P.E.
                        Cycling Transportation Engineer
               Consulting Engineer, Expert Witness & Educator in
         Effective Cycling, Bicycles, Highways & Bikeways, Traffic Laws
                   726 Madrone Ave., Sunnyvale, CA 94086-3041
                                  408-734-9426

                                       Tuesday, 21 July, 1992

Senator Al Gore
Governor Bill Clinton
Democratic National Committee
430 South Capitol St. S.E.
Washington DC 20077-0920


Re: Controversy regarding bicycle transportation

Gentlemen:

   The nation's policy regarding bicycle transportation is entirely wrong
because it does harm to cyclists, those whom it should be assisting. It has
been designed by the motoring establishment to get cyclists off the roads and
has been promoted by the environmental movement and the transportation
reformers because it does exactly that. The ones left out are cyclists, those
who choose to ride bicycles, who have unavailingly opposed that policy for the
last 20 years. We all know that some substitution of cycling transportation for
motoring transportation would be good for society and for the environment, but
the environmental movement has selected the wrong plan. It promotes the
motorists' plan of getting cyclists off the roads instead of cyclists' practice
of using the roads efficiently, responsibly, lawfully and safely.

   The nation's policy regarding cycling is supported by no scientific
evidence whatever and is contrary to all that is known about bicycle traffic
and about traffic in general.

PROPER POLICY IS TO TREAT CYCLISTS AS DRIVERS OF VEHICLES 
   The proper policy regarding bicycle transportation is to facilitate speed,
ubiquity, and safety. Cyclists fare best when they act and are treated as
drivers of vehicles. If cyclists can travel at their desired speeds, wherever
they want, and in reasonable safety we can have an optimum amount of bicycle
transportation. 

PRESENT POLICY IS TO GET CYCLISTS OFF THE ROADS
   However, the present governmental policy for bicycle transportation slows,
 



                                                                              2

delays, inconveniences and endangers cyclists. If this continues as present law
provides, the amount of cycling transportation used will be much less than the
optimum. Republicans see present policy as keeping the roads clear of
bicyclists for the convenience of motor traffic while Democrats have been
deluded into advocating Republican policy as environmentally sound, safety-
oriented transportation reform. This error produced the bicycling provisions of
the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act. 

   The motoring establishment has pulled off this coup by its long-term
strategy of making cyclists frightened of motor traffic, frightened of
exercising their right to use the roads, and by teaching them dangerous cycling
technique under the guise of bike-safety programs. It has succeeded so well
that the environmental movement, which normally opposes the motoring
establishment, is the strongest power advocating what the motorists want but
daren't argue for themselves, to get cyclists off the roads. 

OFFICIAL POLICY STATEMENTS CONCEAL REAL POLICY
   Official statements demonstrate the truth of this analysis despite the
effort to conceal it. On April 17, 1991, Mr. T. D. Larson, the Administrator of
the FHWA, wrote to  me and my Congressman, Tom Campbell, that "we believe that
bicyclists are legitimate users of the highway system." On May 7 he repeated
this in a public policy release saying that "bicyclists and pedestrians are
legitimate users of the transportation system." For the public announcement he
was thoroughly cheered by bicycle activists. Yet, when questioned by me in a
letter of 16 May, saying that the real question has always been whether
cyclists are legitimate *roadway* users, he stonewalled the question, limiting
himself to "the policy under this Administration is as stated in our letter to
Representative Campbell." His answer means that cyclists and pedestrians are
considered legitimate users of all parts of the highway system except the
roadways and he wants to conceal this limitation from the public. That is like
a secret policy that sailing vessels are legitimate users of all of the
nation's waterways except for the navigable parts. 

MIXING CYCLISTS AND PEDESTRIANS IS EXTREMELY DANGEROUS
   The present policy and the ISTEA classify cyclists as pedestrians with
wheels instead of as drivers of vehicles. Cycling among pedestrians is so
extremely dangerous that speeds must be reduced to about walking pace. No road
in America is so dangerous that speeds must be reduced to those on the typical
bike path. No road in America is as frightening, to a well-informed person, as
trying to ride at normal speed on the typical bike path.

PRESENT FEDERAL POLICY IS CONTRARY TO LAW
   The traffic laws of every state say that cyclists are legitimate roadway
users. The traffic laws of every state classify cyclists as drivers of
vehicles. The traffic laws of every state provide different laws requiring
different behaviors for pedestrians than for drivers of vehicles. The policy of
the FHWA that cyclists are not legitimate roadway users, are not drivers of
vehicles, and are classified with pedestrians instead of drivers is contrary to
the traffic laws of all the states. That policy is merely the attempt of the
motoring establishment to get by secret and devious means what it could never
get by legislative action: getting cyclists off the roads for the convenience
 



                                                                              3

of motorists.

WELL DESIGNED ROADS AND FULL RIGHTS ARE BEST FOR CYCLISTS
   It may surprise you to learn that roads are better for cyclists than are
bikeways. Two points are indubitable: the American road system is practically
ubiquitous and is the world's best. Americans can get practically anywhere they
desire by road, in theory using either motor vehicles or bicycles, and the
roads that they use are the best in the world. Because bikeways cannot be
ubiquitous (as is the road system), they are less convenient. Cyclists
operating on roads can usually travel as fast as their physical power allows.
With roads better than bikeways for convenience and speed, only safety is left.
The entire governmental policy about bicycles rests on the claim that bikeways
are substantially safer than the supposedly dangerous roads. That claim is
entirely false as is shown by the following facts.

BIKEWAYS WERE NOT INTENDED TO REDUCE ACCIDENTS TO CYCLISTS
   The committee that produced the present American bikeway traffic laws (the
California Statewide Bicycle Committee) had suppressed the first useful
statistical study of car-bike collisions (the first Ken Cross study) because
its data had proved that bikeways could not reduce car-bike collisions and
would in all probability considerably increase them. The committee that
produced the standards for American bikeways (the California Bicycle Facilities
Committee produced what became AASHTO's *Guide for the Development of Bicycle
Facilities*) refused to consider any methods of reducing accidents to cyclists.
It refused to do so because its members recognized that a goal of accident
reduction would produce recommendations other than bikeway construction. The
object of the committee was to produce bikeways, not to reduce accidents. I was
the most prominent member of the first committee and the most prominent non-
member participant of the second, and I know what went on.

BIKEWAYS WERE ADVOCATED AND DESIGNED BY THE MOTORING ESTABLISHMENT
   The driving force behind the bikeway movement was the motoring establish-
ment in the form of the California Highway Patrol, the Southern California
Automobile Club, the highway departments of California's cities, counties and
state, and the Federal Highway Administration. This work was started without
the knowledge of cyclists and, once discovered, was consistently opposed by the
cycling organizations (such as the California Association of Bicycling
Organizations) as being physically dangerous and legally threatening. The first
two attempts at a standard for bikeways (California's *Bikeway Criteria and
Guidelines* and the FHWA's *Safety and Location Criteria for Bicycle
Facilities*) were demolished by the criticism of cyclists. By applying the
standard principles of traffic engineering and the accepted statistics of car-
bike collisions, cyclists demonstrated that the designs were extremely
dangerous and their supporting research was incompetent. The only virtue of the
present standard, and why government adopted it, is that it has fewer
opportunities for personal injury lawsuits against government than had the
first two attempts.

NO THEORY SAYS THAT BIKEWAYS COULD REDUCE ACCIDENTS
   Bikeway advocates have never advanced a theory to account for the accident
reduction that they say bikeways would produce. The absence speaks for itself.
 



                                                                              4

NO EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE SAYS THAT BIKEWAYS REDUCE ACCIDENTS
   No study shows that bikeways reduce accidents to cyclists. It is well
recognized that bike paths are the most dangerous facilities that we know. It
is highly probable that bike lanes cause several times more car-bike collisions
than they could ever prevent. After 20 years of effort to prove that bikeways
make cycling safe, that is as much as we know. When all the scientific evidence
for 20 years has consistently been against an hypothesis there is no reasonable
probability that any study will turn up enough contrary evidence to reverse the
balance.

THE CYCLIST-INFERIORITY PHOBIA
   How has the motoring establishment made the dangerous side of the
controversy appear to be the protective side and the safe side appear to be
advocacy by reckless, anti-authoritarian libertarians? The answer is simple.
The motoring establishment has made the public believe that the car-from-behind
is by far the greatest danger to cyclists. The message is: "You don't belong on
the road; stay out of the way or you'll be crushed." Even though both
statements are grossly false, most people have been so conditioned by fear that
they dare not believe anything else. In some, the conditioning is so strong
that even when told the truth they cannot overcome the fear and change their
behavior. For them, the condition is a genuine medical phobia. The prevalence
of this psychological condition has enabled the motoring establishment to
attract public support, particularly from car-hating environmentalists, despite
the scientific knowledge of the subject.

A PROPER BIKE-SAFETY POLICY
   Bicycle accidents are either collisions or single-bike accidents. The best
way to reduce the collision rate is to teach cyclists to operate as drivers of
vehicles. Cyclists who are most likely to understand how the traffic system
operates have a collision rate only about 20% of that for average American
adult cyclists. Probably a good way to reduce single-bike accidents is to teach
cyclists to handle their bicycles better. The data we have shows that the
single-bike accident rate is inversely proportional to the miles per year. For
both types of accident, the most powerful factor in reducing the accident rate
is skill, either imparted by proper training or by experience. The Effective
Cycling Program graduates cyclists who pass driving tests in very heavy
traffic. 

RECENT BIKEWAY POPULARITY POLLS CONCEAL GREAT ERRORS
   Representatives Joseph Kennedy, Peter DeFazio and James Oberstar recently
released data from a Harris public opinion poll showing great public support
for bikeways and for bicycle planning, the process of producing bikeway
systems. The data sheet for the release gave the sampling error as +/- 3%. The
errors are in fact 100% because of the questions asked. For example, question
3: Do you think you would sometimes commute to work by bicycle .... If there
were safe bike lanes on roads and highways?  (Yes 46%)  If there were safe,
separate, designated bike paths to use? (Yes 53%) The error rate is 100%
because no correct answers to those questions exist. Bicycle lanes cannot
significantly reduce accidents to cyclists and, in all probability,
significantly increase them. Bicycle paths are the most dangerous facilities
that we know. We know these facts, we recognize why they exist, and we know of
 



                                                                              5

no solutions. No designs exist that make bike lanes or bike paths safer than
normal roads and we have good reason to believe that it is impossible to do so.

SPEED AND TRAVEL TIME ARE MOST IMPORTANT
   Sure, if you ride a bike path at walking speed and take far greater care
wherever it meets a street you may have an accident rate less than that on the
roadway at normal speed. But that is not how cyclists ride to work. In Northern
California commuting cyclists ride at 15-22 mph. The exceptions are those who
ride a mile or so to the train station, but they are not many. The commuting
cyclists ride fast because the distances both allow and require it. If they
were limited to walking speed they would drive cars to work and ride elsewhere
for pleasure in the time saved. 

CITY PLANNING AND BIKE PLANNING WON'T HELP NOW
   The suburb to suburb commute is the modern American reality. Even if we
were to start rebuilding our cities for a combination of cycling with mass
transit, what would cyclists do in the generation that it would take to
accomplish that goal? How would the people react to a situation that forced
them to live in what would be company towns where losing your job would mean
moving to a new town for a new job? The mobility that we have is a great asset
and people deserve to keep it. Therefore, even if we consider rebuilding our
cities to reduce travel distance or to allow mass transit to be efficient, we
must still consider that for many years many cyclists will need to travel fast,
and that most will want to do so.

VEHICULAR-CYCLING POLICY
   The proper policy is based on the vehicular-cycling principle that cyclists
fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles. For government
that means well-designed normal roads on which cyclists may operate with the
rights and duties of drivers of vehicles. For society that means accepting
cyclists as equal to motorists. For cyclists that means accepting their
responsibilities as drivers of vehicles.

MOST IMPORTANT FEDERAL ACTION
   The most important federal action is to change to a policy that cyclists
are legitimate roadway users and are best served when classified as drivers of
vehicles. As stated above this is not a legal change; it merely brings federal
policy into compliance with the state laws that regulate traffic. But such a
change would reverse present policy and remove the official discrimination
against cyclists that has for generations reduced the amount of cycling
transportation and grossly raised the accident rate.

Respectfully submitted,



John Forester
 
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles,can.general,ont.general,soc.culture.canada,ott.followup