From David Fiedler,
Your Guide to Bicycling.
FREE Newsletter. Sign Up Now!

You have written that it is a mistake when government bike planners mix cyclists with pedestrians? Why is this mixing a mistake?

It is a mistake because it is the physical embodiment of the cyclist-inferiority superstition, saying that both shoes and bicycles are inferior to cars, so we’ll just push them aside in places where we won’t have to worry about them. What it ignores is that bicycles and their drivers have the operating characteristics of other vehicles and their drivers, while pedestrians have entirely different operating characteristics. Cycling at normal cycling speeds among pedestrians is about the most dangerous activity a cyclist can do, and for the same reasons that we all recognize that motoring among pedestrians is extremely dangerous, at least to the pedestrians. The mixing of vehicular travel with pedestrian travel reduces all vehicular travel to the speed of pedestrians. Cyclists object just as much as do motorists.

What should the ordinary “Joe Cyclist” be doing to ensure that his safety and best interests are being kept in mind by government officials?

The first thing for Joe Cyclist is to learn and practice vehicular cycling until the feeling that this is right comes naturally to him. At the same time, learn the explanations of why vehicular cycling is right; the information will aid the practice, and the practice aid the information. Then, spread the word to his cycling friends and associates, either informally or by teaching them. Develop a group of like-minded vehicular cyclists. Then, whenever the opportunity arises for discussion of bicycle transportation, either in the non-governmental sector or with government officials, there will be a group of cyclists who clearly know the subject and have the valid arguments. Vehicular cyclists have to oppose and discredit decades of massive effort by both motorists and anti-motorists advocating the cyclist-inferiority bikeway agenda. Succeeding in opposition will be a very long task.

What do you see to be the most likely state of cycling in twenty years?

Futurism is a most inaccurate subject. The American trend of the past sixty years has been gradual formalization of the cyclist-inferiority system, first through the motoring establishment and then through government, together with some ups and downs of cycling volume largely determined by demographic factors. I think it likely that the bikeway program will slow down because it has occupied the most likely streets and has less opportunity for growth. That suggests not much change for the next twenty years. The same argument applies to motoring, both in its sphere and as the competitor to cycling.

Naturally, I hope that a greater proportion of cyclists will become competent vehicular cyclists. Of course, it is up to us vehicular cyclists to make that change occur, for government won’t assist us. That is, not until we have won over a large group.

As for the future of motoring, I will make no prediction except that motoring is so valuable a means of transportation (despite what bicycle advocates claim) that great efforts will be made to preserve it, and that if those methods fail the results will be so far-reaching in the sphere of urban transportation that it is impossible to predict how we will handle them.

John Forester is the author of the book Bicycle Transportation (The MIT Press, 1983, 1994), which laid out the scientific principles supporting vehicular cycling. Its counterpart in expressing the practical applications of his research is Effective Cycling (The MIT Press 1984, 1993). Mr. Forester is also the creator of the Effective Cycling Instructor's Manual, the film Bicycling Safely On The Road (Iowa State University, 1978), and the video Effective Cycling, The Movie, (Seidler Productions, 1992).