RIP John Forester

On 2020-04-24 15:54, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Friday, 24 April 2020 17:20:40 UTC-4, Joerg wrote:
On 2020-04-24 13:52, sms wrote:
On 4/23/2020 4:27 PM, Joerg wrote:

snip

Thankfully, the municipal leadership around my area does not
listen to such stuff. They built some great bike paths. I just
came back from a 44mi ride, around 95% of that on bike paths.
It was great. Except for the head wind on the way back.

Forester did succeed in getting rid of the mandatory bicycle path
law in Palo Alto. Reid could have at least mentioned that.


We are lucky. Many municipalities here such as Folsom didn't listen
and have rules that if you put in a new develoment you must build
cycling infrastructure. No bike paths, no permits. This will soon
result in an almost seamless connection of my favorite longhaul MTB
singletrack to the American River bike path system. By the end of
this month it will also result in a more direct bike path
connection from here to Costco, the Kaiser clinic, Home Depot,
Bevmo, and so on, avoiding a nasty hill. That's 3h round trip but
if you can free that time it will then become a nice trip, and
healthy.


Forester was initially a proponent of "bicycle boulevards," like
the one on Bryant Street in Palo Alto. Later he changed his
position and was against them.

The huge success of Palo Alto's cross-town bicycle boulevard,
which encouraged more residents to use bicycles instead of cars
to get around Palo Alto, was instrumental in changing his
position from "support" to "oppose." I can understand why this
apparent huge success for cycling would end up being opposed by
Forester after he initially supported it. I ride on that Bicycle
Boulevard fairly often and it is now heavily used by recreational
and transportational cyclists, including children, and can
resemble separate bicycle infrastructure in terms of the volume
of cyclists, even though it's on a suburban street. The parallel
arterial roads to the bicycle boulevard, Alma Street and
Middlefield Road (where Forester was cited) may be okay for
"Vehicular Cyclists" but they have little to no shoulder for a
lot of their length, and you have to "take the lane." With the
bicycle boulevard alternative available, very few cyclists choose
to use those two arterials.

Also not mentioned was that Forester was instrumental in helping
bicycling advocate Ellen Fletcher get elected to the Palo Alto
City Council, though it was probably not intentional: "Ellen
Fletcher, once the top bike activist in the world, was becoming
the most popular politician in Palo Alto because people there had
grown weary of John Forester’s machismo approach to cycling."
https://bikeroute.com/NationalBicycleGreenwayNews/2018/03/04/why-nbg-anchor-cities-can-finally-feature-dedicated-bike-lanes-as-a-way-to-connect-the-coasts/.




Main thing is, she got in. Must have been a remarkable woman.


Palo Alto's approach, advocated by Fletcher, of encouraging more
bicycling by building more bicycle infrastructure spread to other
cities in the Bay Area and California, so Forester was indirectly
responsible for a lot of new infrastructure and the increase in
the numbers of cyclists─probably not something that he would want
to be remembered for. He even admitted in an interview that at
best he had delayed the construction of new bicycle
infrastructure.


That's sad. This was before my time in the US but if John
seriously delayed the bike path movement that may in part be a
reason why, for example, the Netherlands has a bike modal share
almost an order of magnitude larger than the US. I lived there and,
to some extent, they have or at least had 30 years ago similar
(stupid) zoning laws as we have them here in the US. Maybe not
quite as extreme but where you have large residential areas with
hardly any shops so people have to make trip to go buy stuff or
visit a good restaurant. The big difference: A fantastic bike path
network. So almost everybody I knew would not even think twice
about using the bike for a 5mi or 10mi trip. They'd just do it.

I had to clock many more miles on the road bike than while living
in Germany for the same kind of errands. Yet I gladly did that
because their bike paths were so great and made for refreshing
rides.

-- Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

When I lived and worked in Toronto Canada, I commuted year round by
bicycle. Had I waited for bicycling paths, even door-zone paths that
exist there now, I would never have ridden my bicycle to work. Many
of the roads I rode were busy main Roads like Eglington Avenue and
Danforth/Bloor streets. Forester's contribution to bicycle use was
that he told people such riding could be done and could be done in
safety.


Same with me, for example going to high school. Part of that route was a
busy thoroughfare without shoulders. One cyclist in front of me was
brutally catapulted off the road by a trucker. What saved her was that
the truck had underride protectors on the sides.


This new thing that bicycling is only safe if done on segregated
bicycle paths is detrimental as it discourages many from bicycling or
using their bicycle as the main means of transportation.


No, what he didn't understand was that the vast majority of people is
not like you and I who clench their teeth and just ride. The vast
majority of potential candidates for cycle commutes will not ride on
busy narrow roads. Then they will use the car. Luckily the leaders in
Folsom, Rancho Cordova and finally even Sacramento understand this and
acted accordingly. The leaders in our town don't and, needless to say,
that clearly shows in the number of regular cyclists.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

On 4/24/2020 4:52 PM, sms wrote:
On 4/23/2020 4:27 PM, Joerg wrote:

snip

Thankfully, the municipal leadership around my area does not listen to
such stuff. They built some great bike paths. I just came back from a
44mi ride, around 95% of that on bike paths. It was great. Except for
the head wind on the way back.

Forester did succeed in getting rid of the mandatory bicycle path law in
Palo Alto. Reid could have at least mentioned that.

Forester was initially a proponent of "bicycle boulevards," like the one
on Bryant Street in Palo Alto. Later he changed his position and was
against them.

I don't believe Forester ever opposed bicycle boulevards, and I'm sure
I've been in far more discussions with him than Scharf has. Furthermore,
I know several very prominent allies of Forester, and not one of them
opposes bicycle boulevards.

One anti-Forester writer did make the same claim Mr. Scharf is making.
Here's Forester's written response:

"Epperson tries to argue the shakiness of my
opinions, in that I once advocated but have now
abandoned what has proved to be a good idea,
bicycle boulevards (BB). Epperson provides no
evidence that I have abandoned bicycle boulevards, and I do not
recollect having abandoned them."

Forester did object to the design of the termini on some bicycle
boulevards, and there are some that are badly designed. That's not the
same as categorically opposing all bicycle boulevards. And as with so
many pretty, shiny and "innovative" bike facilities, the devil is in the
details.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Friday, 24 April 2020 19:15:35 UTC-4, Joerg wrote:
On 2020-04-24 15:54, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Friday, 24 April 2020 17:20:40 UTC-4, Joerg wrote:
On 2020-04-24 13:52, sms wrote:
On 4/23/2020 4:27 PM, Joerg wrote:

snip

Thankfully, the municipal leadership around my area does not
listen to such stuff. They built some great bike paths. I just
came back from a 44mi ride, around 95% of that on bike paths.
It was great. Except for the head wind on the way back.

Forester did succeed in getting rid of the mandatory bicycle path
law in Palo Alto. Reid could have at least mentioned that.


We are lucky. Many municipalities here such as Folsom didn't listen
and have rules that if you put in a new develoment you must build
cycling infrastructure. No bike paths, no permits. This will soon
result in an almost seamless connection of my favorite longhaul MTB
singletrack to the American River bike path system. By the end of
this month it will also result in a more direct bike path
connection from here to Costco, the Kaiser clinic, Home Depot,
Bevmo, and so on, avoiding a nasty hill. That's 3h round trip but
if you can free that time it will then become a nice trip, and
healthy.


Forester was initially a proponent of "bicycle boulevards," like
the one on Bryant Street in Palo Alto. Later he changed his
position and was against them.

The huge success of Palo Alto's cross-town bicycle boulevard,
which encouraged more residents to use bicycles instead of cars
to get around Palo Alto, was instrumental in changing his
position from "support" to "oppose." I can understand why this
apparent huge success for cycling would end up being opposed by
Forester after he initially supported it. I ride on that Bicycle
Boulevard fairly often and it is now heavily used by recreational
and transportational cyclists, including children, and can
resemble separate bicycle infrastructure in terms of the volume
of cyclists, even though it's on a suburban street. The parallel
arterial roads to the bicycle boulevard, Alma Street and
Middlefield Road (where Forester was cited) may be okay for
"Vehicular Cyclists" but they have little to no shoulder for a
lot of their length, and you have to "take the lane." With the
bicycle boulevard alternative available, very few cyclists choose
to use those two arterials.

Also not mentioned was that Forester was instrumental in helping
bicycling advocate Ellen Fletcher get elected to the Palo Alto
City Council, though it was probably not intentional: "Ellen
Fletcher, once the top bike activist in the world, was becoming
the most popular politician in Palo Alto because people there had
grown weary of John Forester’s machismo approach to cycling."
https://bikeroute.com/NationalBicycleGreenwayNews/2018/03/04/why-nbg-anchor-cities-can-finally-feature-dedicated-bike-lanes-as-a-way-to-connect-the-coasts/.




Main thing is, she got in. Must have been a remarkable woman.


Palo Alto's approach, advocated by Fletcher, of encouraging more
bicycling by building more bicycle infrastructure spread to other
cities in the Bay Area and California, so Forester was indirectly
responsible for a lot of new infrastructure and the increase in
the numbers of cyclists─probably not something that he would want
to be remembered for. He even admitted in an interview that at
best he had delayed the construction of new bicycle
infrastructure.


That's sad. This was before my time in the US but if John
seriously delayed the bike path movement that may in part be a
reason why, for example, the Netherlands has a bike modal share
almost an order of magnitude larger than the US. I lived there and,
to some extent, they have or at least had 30 years ago similar
(stupid) zoning laws as we have them here in the US. Maybe not
quite as extreme but where you have large residential areas with
hardly any shops so people have to make trip to go buy stuff or
visit a good restaurant. The big difference: A fantastic bike path
network. So almost everybody I knew would not even think twice
about using the bike for a 5mi or 10mi trip. They'd just do it.

I had to clock many more miles on the road bike than while living
in Germany for the same kind of errands. Yet I gladly did that
because their bike paths were so great and made for refreshing
rides.

-- Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

When I lived and worked in Toronto Canada, I commuted year round by
bicycle. Had I waited for bicycling paths, even door-zone paths that
exist there now, I would never have ridden my bicycle to work. Many
of the roads I rode were busy main Roads like Eglington Avenue and
Danforth/Bloor streets. Forester's contribution to bicycle use was
that he told people such riding could be done and could be done in
safety.


Same with me, for example going to high school. Part of that route was a
busy thoroughfare without shoulders. One cyclist in front of me was
brutally catapulted off the road by a trucker. What saved her was that
the truck had underride protectors on the sides.


This new thing that bicycling is only safe if done on segregated
bicycle paths is detrimental as it discourages many from bicycling or
using their bicycle as the main means of transportation.


No, what he didn't understand was that the vast majority of people is
not like you and I who clench their teeth and just ride. The vast
majority of potential candidates for cycle commutes will not ride on
busy narrow roads. Then they will use the car. Luckily the leaders in
Folsom, Rancho Cordova and finally even Sacramento understand this and
acted accordingly. The leaders in our town don't and, needless to say,
that clearly shows in the number of regular cyclists.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

I do NOT clench my teeth when riding in traffic. When I commuted in Toronto Canada I ENJOYED my commute especially the ride home after work. By the time I got home I was nicely relaxed and any stresses from work were left somewhere on the road behind me.

Cheers

On Fri, 24 Apr 2020 16:44:21 -0700 (PDT), Sir Ridesalot
wrote:

On Friday, 24 April 2020 19:15:35 UTC-4, Joerg wrote:
On 2020-04-24 15:54, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Friday, 24 April 2020 17:20:40 UTC-4, Joerg wrote:
On 2020-04-24 13:52, sms wrote:
On 4/23/2020 4:27 PM, Joerg wrote:

snip

Thankfully, the municipal leadership around my area does not
listen to such stuff. They built some great bike paths. I just
came back from a 44mi ride, around 95% of that on bike paths.
It was great. Except for the head wind on the way back.

Forester did succeed in getting rid of the mandatory bicycle path
law in Palo Alto. Reid could have at least mentioned that.


We are lucky. Many municipalities here such as Folsom didn't listen
and have rules that if you put in a new develoment you must build
cycling infrastructure. No bike paths, no permits. This will soon
result in an almost seamless connection of my favorite longhaul MTB
singletrack to the American River bike path system. By the end of
this month it will also result in a more direct bike path
connection from here to Costco, the Kaiser clinic, Home Depot,
Bevmo, and so on, avoiding a nasty hill. That's 3h round trip but
if you can free that time it will then become a nice trip, and
healthy.


Forester was initially a proponent of "bicycle boulevards," like
the one on Bryant Street in Palo Alto. Later he changed his
position and was against them.

The huge success of Palo Alto's cross-town bicycle boulevard,
which encouraged more residents to use bicycles instead of cars
to get around Palo Alto, was instrumental in changing his
position from "support" to "oppose." I can understand why this
apparent huge success for cycling would end up being opposed by
Forester after he initially supported it. I ride on that Bicycle
Boulevard fairly often and it is now heavily used by recreational
and transportational cyclists, including children, and can
resemble separate bicycle infrastructure in terms of the volume
of cyclists, even though it's on a suburban street. The parallel
arterial roads to the bicycle boulevard, Alma Street and
Middlefield Road (where Forester was cited) may be okay for
"Vehicular Cyclists" but they have little to no shoulder for a
lot of their length, and you have to "take the lane." With the
bicycle boulevard alternative available, very few cyclists choose
to use those two arterials.

Also not mentioned was that Forester was instrumental in helping
bicycling advocate Ellen Fletcher get elected to the Palo Alto
City Council, though it was probably not intentional: "Ellen
Fletcher, once the top bike activist in the world, was becoming
the most popular politician in Palo Alto because people there had
grown weary of John Forester’s machismo approach to cycling."
https://bikeroute.com/NationalBicycleGreenwayNews/2018/03/04/why-nbg-anchor-cities-can-finally-feature-dedicated-bike-lanes-as-a-way-to-connect-the-coasts/.




Main thing is, she got in. Must have been a remarkable woman.


Palo Alto's approach, advocated by Fletcher, of encouraging more
bicycling by building more bicycle infrastructure spread to other
cities in the Bay Area and California, so Forester was indirectly
responsible for a lot of new infrastructure and the increase in
the numbers of cyclists?probably not something that he would want
to be remembered for. He even admitted in an interview that at
best he had delayed the construction of new bicycle
infrastructure.


That's sad. This was before my time in the US but if John
seriously delayed the bike path movement that may in part be a
reason why, for example, the Netherlands has a bike modal share
almost an order of magnitude larger than the US. I lived there and,
to some extent, they have or at least had 30 years ago similar
(stupid) zoning laws as we have them here in the US. Maybe not
quite as extreme but where you have large residential areas with
hardly any shops so people have to make trip to go buy stuff or
visit a good restaurant. The big difference: A fantastic bike path
network. So almost everybody I knew would not even think twice
about using the bike for a 5mi or 10mi trip. They'd just do it.

I had to clock many more miles on the road bike than while living
in Germany for the same kind of errands. Yet I gladly did that
because their bike paths were so great and made for refreshing
rides.

-- Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

When I lived and worked in Toronto Canada, I commuted year round by
bicycle. Had I waited for bicycling paths, even door-zone paths that
exist there now, I would never have ridden my bicycle to work. Many
of the roads I rode were busy main Roads like Eglington Avenue and
Danforth/Bloor streets. Forester's contribution to bicycle use was
that he told people such riding could be done and could be done in
safety.


Same with me, for example going to high school. Part of that route was a
busy thoroughfare without shoulders. One cyclist in front of me was
brutally catapulted off the road by a trucker. What saved her was that
the truck had underride protectors on the sides.


This new thing that bicycling is only safe if done on segregated
bicycle paths is detrimental as it discourages many from bicycling or
using their bicycle as the main means of transportation.


No, what he didn't understand was that the vast majority of people is
not like you and I who clench their teeth and just ride. The vast
majority of potential candidates for cycle commutes will not ride on
busy narrow roads. Then they will use the car. Luckily the leaders in
Folsom, Rancho Cordova and finally even Sacramento understand this and
acted accordingly. The leaders in our town don't and, needless to say,
that clearly shows in the number of regular cyclists.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

I do NOT clench my teeth when riding in traffic. When I commuted in Toronto Canada I ENJOYED my commute especially the ride home after work. By the time I got home I was nicely relaxed and any stresses from work were left somewhere on the road behind me.

Cheers

The question I would ask, "are special bicycle lanes actually
necessary?" I have ridden in at least three foreign countries that, at
least when I ride there, had no bike lanes although I believe that
Singapore has now built some, with no problems what so ever. And, I
might add that Thailand, where I now ride, has the 5th highest traffic
death rate in the world, nearly 3 times that of the U.S. (per capita)
and yet, I really can't remember a time where I felt endangered.

I might add that Frank and "J" and James, in Australia ( that rides a
lot), and of course "Sir" in the north lands, all seem to get along
without bicycle paths, or at least don't seem to mention riding on
them.

My understanding is that, in the U.S., State laws entitle a bicycle to
use public roads, as they do here, so why can't bicyclists just ride?

The argument that if we build bike paths more people will ride bikes
seems, well, similar to the theory that "if we build lower bridges
more people will bungee jump". From my admittedly limited reading of
State's traffic laws all that is really required is to enforce the
existing laws, for all vehicles using public roads, to safeguard those
timid chaps on two wheels.

As an aside, building bike paths costs the taxpayer money while
enforcing existing laws should not add to the existing tax burden.
--
cheers,

John B.

On 4/24/2020 2:20 PM, Joerg wrote:

snip

Main thing is, she got in. Must have been a remarkable woman.

I met her several times but did not know her well.

https://sf.streetsblog.org/2012/11/08/remembering-ellen-fletcher-palo-altos-pioneer-bicycle-advocate/

She accomplished far more for cyclists than John Forester.

On 4/24/2020 4:15 PM, Joerg wrote:

anip

No, what he didn't understand was that the vast majority of people is
not like you and I who clench their teeth and just ride. The vast
majority of potential candidates for cycle commutes will not ride on
busy narrow roads. Then they will use the car. Luckily the leaders in
Folsom, Rancho Cordova and finally even Sacramento understand this and
acted accordingly. The leaders in our town don't and, needless to say,
that clearly shows in the number of regular cyclists.

He understood it but he never was interested in increasing the number of
cyclists.

On 4/24/2020 9:12 PM, sms wrote:
On 4/24/2020 4:15 PM, Joerg wrote:

anip

No, what he didn't understand was that the vast majority of people is
not like you and I who clench their teeth and just ride. The vast
majority of potential candidates for cycle commutes will not ride on
busy narrow roads. Then they will use the car. Luckily the leaders in
Folsom, Rancho Cordova and finally even Sacramento understand this and
acted accordingly. The leaders in our town don't and, needless to say,
that clearly shows in the number of regular cyclists.

He understood it but he never was interested in increasing the number of
cyclists.

I think that's correct. And it directly rebuts the frequent criticisms
by people like Carlton Reid, John Pucher, Streetsblog and others of that
ilk. They frequently say Forester was a failure because he did not
increase the number of cyclists.

But that was not his objective. He showed those of us who choose to ride
a method that works in the real world, and allows us to ride wherever we
choose.

BTW, I think you can make a case that the Segregationists have failed by
their own standard. Yes, you can point to places like Portland that have
A) put in lots of segregated facilities and B) have increased bike mode
share.

But! There are places that experienced increased bike mode share
simultaneously with Portland, without installing segregated facilities.
San Francisco during the anti-bike-lane lawsuit is an excellent example.
It indicates a disconnect between facilities and ridership, and hints
that simple "fashion" may be as important in getting people to ride.

But more to the point, the Segregationalists cried, "Bicycling is
dangerous! We need special places to ride, for SAFETY!" They got a few
special places, on a really tiny proportion of America's 4 million road
miles. But they convinced millions of people that all the rest of those
roads were too dangerous.

There has been no big nationwide surge in bicycling in the last 15 years
that the "Paint and Path" contingent has yelled the loudest.

From https://bikeleague.org/content/new-data-bike-commuting
"The 2017 1-year data shows that overall, commuters are choosing to use
a bicycle as their primary mode of transportation to work slightly less
than in recent years. Year-over-year, the rate of people biking to work
has decreased 4.7%. Among the 70 largest cities (as of 2009 when the
League began tracking), a slight majority (37) cities had a
year-over-year decrease in bike mode share."

From
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...ms/2319972002/
"Fewer Americans bike to work despite new trails, lanes and bicycle
share programs."

So much public money was spent hoping to get people out of their cars
and riding in nice, "safe" bike lanes; but it may have scared more
people away from cycling. Overall, it is such a failure.

Oh, and "safe"? The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety found as many
as ten times the crash rate in some "protected" bike lanes.

Then there are the national fatality counts, which have turned upward in
recent years.

Reid, Pucher and others are failures. Their programs are failures. I
think they're attacking Forester out of frustration that he was right.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Sat, 25 Apr 2020 08:03:19 +0700, John B. wrote:


The question I would ask, "are special bicycle lanes actually
necessary?"

Depends on motor vehicle driver attitude.

On Sat, 25 Apr 2020 04:05:41 -0000 (UTC), news18
wrote:

On Sat, 25 Apr 2020 08:03:19 +0700, John B. wrote:


The question I would ask, "are special bicycle lanes actually
necessary?"

Depends on motor vehicle driver attitude.

Well, of course I can't comment on people in your part of the world
but I would say that I've ridden in three countries, in Asia, with no
problems. They might be a bit primitive, possibly, but certainly not
what one might call unfriendly to a bicycle.
--
cheers,

John B.

On 4/24/2020 8:44 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/24/2020 9:12 PM, sms wrote:
On 4/24/2020 4:15 PM, Joerg wrote:

anip

No, what he didn't understand was that the vast majority
of people is not like you and I who clench their teeth
and just ride. The vast majority of potential candidates
for cycle commutes will not ride on busy narrow roads.
Then they will use the car. Luckily the leaders in
Folsom, Rancho Cordova and finally even Sacramento
understand this and acted accordingly. The leaders in our
town don't and, needless to say, that clearly shows in
the number of regular cyclists.

He understood it but he never was interested in increasing
the number of cyclists.

I think that's correct. And it directly rebuts the frequent
criticisms by people like Carlton Reid, John Pucher,
Streetsblog and others of that ilk. They frequently say
Forester was a failure because he did not increase the
number of cyclists.

But that was not his objective. He showed those of us who
choose to ride a method that works in the real world, and
allows us to ride wherever we choose.

BTW, I think you can make a case that the Segregationists
have failed by their own standard. Yes, you can point to
places like Portland that have A) put in lots of segregated
facilities and B) have increased bike mode share.

But! There are places that experienced increased bike mode
share simultaneously with Portland, without installing
segregated facilities. San Francisco during the
anti-bike-lane lawsuit is an excellent example. It indicates
a disconnect between facilities and ridership, and hints
that simple "fashion" may be as important in getting people
to ride.

But more to the point, the Segregationalists cried,
"Bicycling is dangerous! We need special places to ride, for
SAFETY!" They got a few special places, on a really tiny
proportion of America's 4 million road miles. But they
convinced millions of people that all the rest of those
roads were too dangerous.

There has been no big nationwide surge in bicycling in the
last 15 years that the "Paint and Path" contingent has
yelled the loudest.

From https://bikeleague.org/content/new-data-bike-commuting
"The 2017 1-year data shows that overall, commuters are
choosing to use a bicycle as their primary mode of
transportation to work slightly less than in recent years.
Year-over-year, the rate of people biking to work has
decreased 4.7%. Among the 70 largest cities (as of 2009 when
the League began tracking), a slight majority (37) cities
had a year-over-year decrease in bike mode share."

From
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...ms/2319972002/

"Fewer Americans bike to work despite new trails, lanes and
bicycle share programs."

So much public money was spent hoping to get people out of
their cars and riding in nice, "safe" bike lanes; but it may
have scared more people away from cycling. Overall, it is
such a failure.

Oh, and "safe"? The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety
found as many as ten times the crash rate in some
"protected" bike lanes.

Then there are the national fatality counts, which have
turned upward in recent years.

Reid, Pucher and others are failures. Their programs are
failures. I think they're attacking Forester out of
frustration that he was right.


+1
nicely done THX.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971