5 ms·

"Well there's your problem" and NotJustBikes https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zm29fd-s7tQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zm29fd-s7tQ had a discussion about [Joh

"Well there's your problem" and NotJustBikes https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zm29fd-s7tQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zm29fd-s7tQ had a discussion about [John Forester](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Forester_(cyclist) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Forester_(cyclist)) and that generation of cycling activists in the US. For whatever reason, they were extremely vocal about having cyclists treated the same as cars; they're the people we have to thank for Sharrows, denoting car lanes as also valid bike lanes. Its unfortunate that the kind of rider we need to enable is precisely the kind who doesn't care enough to advocate on their own behalf.

seoaeu 4y ago
That podcast is over two and a half hours long so I didn’t listen to find out exactly what points they make about this, but presumably the strategy was because at the time cyclists not being treated like cars didn’t mean “bike lanes everywhere” but rather “bikes banned on city streets”
- actionablefiber 4y ago
  It's a good listen; it's been a few months since I heard it at this point, but the long and short of it is that vehicular cycling could be sensible as a compromise step if your starting point is complete, hopeless addiction to the car. Forester, though, thought of it as a set of prescriptions for how cycling should be done, and was influential in advocating to the DOT against dedicated cycling infrastructure.
et-al 4y ago
I'm hesitant to blame Forester for the GP's question. Yes, Forester was against bike lanes, but he still championed for equal treatment that would result in the courts actually taking car-bike collisions seriously. The sad fact is most Americans view biking as a "hobby" and not a viable mode of transportation. So bikes don't belong on the road [0]. The politicians who make the laws, the police who enforce them, the judges who would oversee any trials, and the media who reports on this deaths all suffer from this "windshield perspective". They prioritize cars above all. It's only recently with a new generation of urban planners are we finally seeing improvements in infrastructure and policy. [0] - see this comment for a perfect example: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31500161 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31500161

seoaeu 4y ago

That podcast is over two and a half hours long so I didn’t listen to find out exactly what points they make about this, but presumably the strategy was because at the time cyclists not being treated like cars didn’t mean “bike lanes everywhere” but rather “bikes banned on city streets”

actionablefiber 4y ago
It's a good listen; it's been a few months since I heard it at this point, but the long and short of it is that vehicular cycling could be sensible as a compromise step if your starting point is complete, hopeless addiction to the car. Forester, though, thought of it as a set of prescriptions for how cycling should be done, and was influential in advocating to the DOT against dedicated cycling infrastructure.

et-al 4y ago

I'm hesitant to blame Forester for the GP's question. Yes, Forester was against bike lanes, but he still championed for equal treatment that would result in the courts actually taking car-bike collisions seriously. The sad fact is most Americans view biking as a "hobby" and not a viable mode of transportation. So bikes don't belong on the road [0]. The politicians who make the laws, the police who enforce them, the judges who would oversee any trials, and the media who reports on this deaths all suffer from this "windshield perspective". They prioritize cars above all. It's only recently with a new generation of urban planners are we finally seeing improvements in infrastructure and policy. [0] - see this comment for a perfect example: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31500161 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31500161