Cyclecraft

[mattheus]

• "Roadside cycle tracks increase the number of junctions that a cyclist meets, for they are interrupted by every driveway as well as every road. In each case, it is the cyclist who must give way to crossing traffic, unlike on the road, where there cyclist would have the same priority as accompanying vehicles", [just plain BS - the driveways form junctions with the road too and it's pretty rare to see a cycle track giving way to driveways]

Weasel words! (my bold)

And I know of plenty counter-examples to your statement. Sadly.

[mjr]

• "Roadside cycle tracks increase the number of junctions that a cyclist meets, for they are interrupted by every driveway as well as every road. In each case, it is the cyclist who must give way to crossing traffic, unlike on the road, where there cyclist would have the same priority as accompanying vehicles", [just plain BS - the driveways form junctions with the road too and it's pretty rare to see a cycle track giving way to driveways]

Weasel words! (my bold)

I know, but I'm only writing a forum post, not a manual that some take as gospel. If I was being paid to write a manual, I'd do some actual research to assess whether that claim was still true, and refer to it properly, else not include it in the manual.

And I know of plenty counter-examples to your statement. Sadly.

Well, I know of a few famous ones from sites like Pete Owens's, but I think it's rare to see one in real life and most of them are pretty old stuff that was probably substandard when built.

One problem is that including so many debatable half-truths in a manual means that it can mislead cyclists into eschewing even good cycleways and having a much less enjoyable ride, possibly to the point of giving up cycling and switching to cars. So I'm interested in whether they're all still there.

[pjclinch]

Do the following examples of dodgy politics still appear?

Don't have a copy to hand, but a few comments on your comments...

Introduction, How Cyclecraft can help you to cycle well: "very often conflicts could be avoided altogether by the cyclist riding more diligently." [Let's open a government-backed cycling manual with victim-blaming, eh?]

You seem to have taken an assumptive leap there. I can think of plenty of conflicts between pedestrians and cyclists where the cyclist is not the clear victim and where riding more diligently would prevent it.

Chapter 2, Cadence and sprint speed: "Increasing cadence and sprint speed are two of the most positive steps a cyclist can take to enhance safety. [...] a sprint speed of 32 km/h (20mph) will enable you to tackle most traffic situations with ease." [Widely criticised, including on the "alt dft" and "as easy as" pages I linked above.]

It deserves criticism for the same reason that vehicular cycling in general deserves criticism, but as a tool to deal with existing conditions (which is what it is) it's more interested in results than idealism. And the fact of the matter is that if you're dealing with e.g. a major roundabout with brisk, heavy traffic the ability to step on it can make a very useful difference. Maybe you don't ever use a turn of speed to get where you want to be in traffic from time to time, but I certainly do.

Chapter 3, Sharing the roads (itself a dodgy political term): "no alternative to the general road network has yet been devised which is as safe or advantageous overall for cycling." [weasel words]

One I disagree with personally (see "The Netherlands"), but while such a system has, I would say, been devised it certainly doesn't exist in the UK. You may feel sharing the roads is dodgy politics, but I fell it's reality for most of my riding, most of the time.

Chapter 7, Other cyclists: "the riding standard of many cyclists is not high" [weasel words]

I don't care if they're "weasel words", it is quite true. Were I not quite prepared for people making manoeuvres across my path without bothering to look or signal I'd have come off a lot more than I have.

Chapter 8, Choosing routes: "main roads with bus lanes which cyclists can use are often good routes". [weasel words]

How are those "weasel words"? They can be. When I had to get from the Glasgow SSE Hydro to Queen Street on a very tight schedule for the last train I spied it out on Streetview first and... chose the main roads with the bus lanes.

Chapter 10, Cycle paths and other facilities, is full of it. As well as the absurdity of leaving where most people would start riding until the last techniques chapter, it's a good way to leave the rant ringing in the ears of anyone reading the book start to finish, because many people will skip the tandem/recumbent stuff and the less excited stuff about poor weather and equipment won't displace it. Most of these claims are debatable, many contain weasel words, all are stated without evidence (often without basic details to allow fact-checking) and all are basically political IMO:
• "experienced cyclists often avoid using cycle paths," [weasel words and implied insult of cycleway users]

But we do, because a lot of them are pants.

• "there is evidence that some facilities are both dangerous in themselves and lead to unsafe cycling practices", [unverifiable]

No, clearly obvious to anyone who's opened their eyes around the UK. Like anytime there's a waffere theen paint-delimited piece of nonsense alongside a busy road.

• "Facilities segregated from the carriageway mainly benefit riders who fear motor traffic", [just plain BS]

I'm with you there

• "Using cycle paths can result in these cyclists being more at risk", [weasel words]

You love saying "weasel words", but the fact of the matter is that if you don't realise that to be the actual case you are being disingenuous in the extreme

• "it is usually easier and more predictable to keep with traffic", [debatable]

Needs more context

• "the lack of regular flexing by wide-tyred vehicles can lead to premature break-up [of cycle track surfaces]", [just plain BS - heavy motor vehicles do thousands of times more damage, breaking up surfaces. The main reasons for cycle track damage near me (on cycle tracks designed to be used by maintenance vehicles) is illegal incursions by heavy motor vehicles!]

I'm with you there

• "Even well-designed cycle tracks are notorious for broken glass, persistent mud and other nuisances, for they do not benefit from the cleansing action of motor vehicles," [just plain BS]

So you've never come across complaints of glass in a farcility? Really?

• "the consequences of two cyclists, each riding at about 25 km/h (15 mph), colliding head-on are not much different from a single cyclist colliding with a car. The fatalities which have occurred on cycle tracks illustrate this", [just plain BS - the kinetic energy of a car doing 15mph is so much bigger than a cyclist doing that]

I'm with you there

• "cycles and pedestrians usually mix less well than cycles and cars, as discipline is poorer", [just plain BS]

Sounds a lot like reality to me.

• "Roadside cycle tracks increase the number of junctions that a cyclist meets, for they are interrupted by every driveway as well as every road. In each case, it is the cyclist who must give way to crossing traffic, unlike on the road, where there cyclist would have the same priority as accompanying vehicles", [just plain BS - the driveways form junctions with the road too and it's pretty rare to see a cycle track giving way to driveways]

Sounds a lot like reality to me, especially if you take values of "giving way" that encompass what actually happens as opposed to what should. Especially where sightlines are poor and a driver has a meter of bonnet to push out before they can actually see anyone who might be coming.

• "On the road, you can use positioning and listening to reduce the angle over which you need to concentrate to less than 90° close to a junction," [just plain BS - if you do that, you're in danger of a surprise left-hook]

I need a bit more context for this one

• "If you cycle abroad, the use of roadside cycle tracks is often compulsory, although some countries are now reviewing these laws in a bid to cut cycling casualties", [unverifiable]

Given how many countries there are overall, you'd always be best to check on local conditions and laws yourself

• "It is quite wrong, however, to think of these [cycle trails] as 'safe' routes, for each year many people are hurt, sometimes very seriously, using cycle trails", [weasel words]

But it's true.

• "Many by-pass facilities are only really suitable for the more timid and slow rider who is prepared to accept the delay and shortcomings of an indirect route" [weasel words and insults]

But it's true. Last time our CTC group went through Guardbridge the lead rider took the signed cycle route. Me and another at the back know it, ignored it, and beat them through a few hundred meters by several minutes without adjusting our speed.

Most of your issues seem to be "weasel words" which in turn seems to be a problem with pointing out the reality of cycling in the UK, particularly with regard to the cack put in to notionally help us. But the reality is that if you're prepared to do it, vehicular cycling works okay and the caveats about alternatives are fair points.
The wider reality is that many people are not prepared to do it (and I have no problem with that) and for the many, rather than the few, we ought to have a system like NL where Cyclecraft would be fairly irrelevant. But we don't have a system like NL so cycling here is for the few, and a book that deals with reality rather than ideal situations for unicorn riders strikes me as more useful. I'm not onside with the idea that we don't need and shouldn't want something like NL because the roads are great on an (incorrect) "if I can do it, anyone can do it!" basis, but the meat of the book is "this is how to deal with the busy roads you probably can't avoid".

Pete.

[rfryer]

I have a copy that claims to be the "Third TSO Edition, published 2014". I'm happy to answer any questions about it, but can't compare it to any earlier versions s it's the only one I've read!

Do the following examples of dodgy politics still appear?

Without accepting that these are examples of dodgy politics (I'm generally in agreement with Pete's post above), I'm happy to answer the factual question about which edits have been made. The answer is not a lot - only the ones below have been removed or changed in my edition.

Chapter 7, Other cyclists: "the riding standard of many cyclists is not high"

No longer present.

Chapter 10,
• "there is evidence that some facilities are both dangerous in themselves and lead to unsafe cycling practices",

Rephrased as "there is evidence that some facilities are both hazardous in themselves and lead to unsafe cycling practices.

• "Roadside cycle tracks increase the number of junctions that a cyclist meets, for they are interrupted by every driveway as well as every road. In each case, it is the cyclist who must give way to crossing traffic, unlike on the road, where there cyclist would have the same priority as accompanying vehicles",

Rephrased as "Roadside cycle tracks usually increase the number of junctions that a cyclist meets, for they are interrupted by every driveway as well as every road. In each case, the cyclist must be prepared to give way to crossing traffic, unlike on the road where the cyclist has the same priority as accompanying vehicles."

• "If you cycle abroad, the use of roadside cycle tracks is often compulsory, although some countries are now reviewing these laws in a bid to cut cycling casualties",

Rephrased as "If you cycle abroad, the use of roadside cycle tracks is often compulsory, although some countries have modified their laws in a bid to cut cycling casualties."

• "It is quite wrong, however, to think of these [cycle trails] as 'safe' routes, for each year many people are hurt, sometimes very seriously, using cycle trails",

No longer present. But the following is included.

Cycle trails are not inherently safe routes, nor are they safer than most roads. The paths often demand a degree of skill that is not elementary, yet is rarely appreciated, but people often think that they are safe and therefore take less care. Common hazards are uneven and loose surfaces, bad visibility (particularly near bends), the behaviour of other cyclists (who often do not keep left) and dogs.

• "Many by-pass facilities are only really suitable for the more timid and slow rider who is prepared to accept the delay and shortcomings of an indirect route"

No longer present.

[rfryer]

Almost forgot.

There is still no mention of hook turns or 2 stage turns.

But in an exciting new development, the book does now point out that:

Studded snow tyres are available.

[mjr]

Thanks to rfryer for the updated texts!

Introduction, How Cyclecraft can help you to cycle well: "very often conflicts could be avoided altogether by the cyclist riding more diligently." [Let's open a government-backed cycling manual with victim-blaming, eh?]

You seem to have taken an assumptive leap there. I can think of plenty of conflicts between pedestrians and cyclists where the cyclist is not the clear victim and where riding more diligently would prevent it.

It's in a book which is primarily about cycling among motorists. I think it's much more of an assumptive leap to interpret it as written about collisions with pedestrians.

Chapter 2, Cadence and sprint speed: "Increasing cadence and sprint speed are two of the most positive steps a cyclist can take to enhance safety. [...] a sprint speed of 32 km/h (20mph) will enable you to tackle most traffic situations with ease." [Widely criticised, including on the "alt dft" and "as easy as" pages I linked above.]

It deserves criticism for the same reason that vehicular cycling in general deserves criticism, but as a tool to deal with existing conditions (which is what it is) it's more interested in results than idealism. And the fact of the matter is that if you're dealing with e.g. a major roundabout with brisk, heavy traffic the ability to step on it can make a very useful difference. Maybe you don't ever use a turn of speed to get where you want to be in traffic from time to time, but I certainly do.

Maybe not "don't ever" but, thanks to my health over the years, as well as some of the cargo I've pulled, I don't always have such speed to use. This being emphasised so strongly so early in a cycling manual strongly suggests that the official view is that the likes of me should not be cycling on UK roads!

Chapter 7, Other cyclists: "the riding standard of many cyclists is not high" [weasel words]

I don't care if they're "weasel words", it is quite true. Were I not quite prepared for people making manoeuvres across my path without bothering to look or signal I'd have come off a lot more than I have.

So what? Where in the book does it make the equivalent equally-valid claim about motorists?

Chapter 8, Choosing routes: "main roads with bus lanes which cyclists can use are often good routes". [weasel words]

How are those "weasel words"? They can be.

They can be but are they "often"? I suspect most "main roads with bus lanes" are in London where they are pretty terrible places to ride (too many buses and taxis in them for cycling to be comfortable) and share most of the flaws that people complain about when cycleways do them, such as evaporating at junctions. Great if you know a bus lane or have checked it out in recent photos, but as a general rule, it's pretty iffy.

• "experienced cyclists often avoid using cycle paths," [weasel words and implied insult of cycleway users]

But we do, because a lot of them are pants.

Do we? What does "often" mean here? When were we last asked or studied?

• "there is evidence that some facilities are both dangerous in themselves and lead to unsafe cycling practices", [unverifiable]

No, clearly obvious to anyone who's opened their eyes around the UK. Like anytime there's a waffere theen paint-delimited piece of nonsense alongside a busy road.

Come on, where's the evidence that it does really "lead to unsafe cycling practices" as claimed? Many of those who scrape up such narrow lanes would be scooting up the kerb anyway.

• "Using cycle paths can result in these cyclists being more at risk", [weasel words]

You love saying "weasel words", but the fact of the matter is that if you don't realise that to be the actual case you are being disingenuous in the extreme

I'm not saying it can't result in that. I'm saying that filling a manual up with such things and so much more often when it's about cycleways is a political act. After all, we've seen this week that blowing one's nose while cycling on-carriageway can result in cyclists being more at risk - and that's not mentioned in Cyclecraft, so why is this?

• "Even well-designed cycle tracks are notorious for broken glass, persistent mud and other nuisances, for they do not benefit from the cleansing action of motor vehicles," [just plain BS]

So you've never come across complaints of glass in a farcility? Really?

That's going to the other extreme. Are the DNA path or the new Cambridge stepped cycle tracks "notorious for broken glass"? Would "the cleansing action of motor vehicles" do anything to help the notorious drainage problem near Fenstanton on the Cambridge-St Ives cycle track? No and no - the claim is overstated and overgeneralised because it's one of the few without weasel words.

• "cycles and pedestrians usually mix less well than cycles and cars, as discipline is poorer", [just plain BS]

Sounds a lot like reality to me.

Poorer discipline than motorists? When's the last time you saw a pedestrian so-called accidentally run dozens of metres off a road and jump in a drain, then? When did a walker last total a bus stop and house?

• "Roadside cycle tracks increase the number of junctions that a cyclist meets, for they are interrupted by every driveway as well as every road. In each case, it is the cyclist who must give way to crossing traffic, unlike on the road, where there cyclist would have the same priority as accompanying vehicles", [just plain BS - the driveways form junctions with the road too and it's pretty rare to see a cycle track giving way to driveways]

Sounds a lot like reality to me, especially if you take values of "giving way" that encompass what actually happens as opposed to what should. Especially where sightlines are poor and a driver has a meter of bonnet to push out before they can actually see anyone who might be coming.

Again, I'm not seeing this as significantly different to roads.

• "If you cycle abroad, the use of roadside cycle tracks is often compulsory, although some countries are now reviewing these laws in a bid to cut cycling casualties", [unverifiable]

Given how many countries there are overall, you'd always be best to check on local conditions and laws yourself

Yeah, but what countries are reviewing [or modifying according to latest edition] those laws in a bid to cut cycling casualties? Far too many for every reader to check.

• "Many by-pass facilities are only really suitable for the more timid and slow rider who is prepared to accept the delay and shortcomings of an indirect route" [weasel words and insults]

But it's true. Last time our CTC group went through Guardbridge the lead rider took the signed cycle route. Me and another at the back know it, ignored it, and beat them through a few hundred meters by several minutes without adjusting our speed.

Is your CTC group's lead rider a more timid and slow rider?

Most of your issues seem to be "weasel words" which in turn seems to be a problem with pointing out the reality of cycling in the UK, particularly with regard to the cack put in to notionally help us. But the reality is that if you're prepared to do it, vehicular cycling works okay and the caveats about alternatives are fair points.

But it's not just caveats. The entire chapter is packed with the negatives and the drawbacks and very light on the practical skills on how to ride that environment. There's almost three pages of whining before the basic instruction of keeping left is given - and he fluffs even that, claiming that "the primary riding position should be just to the left of centre of the track"! I'm pretty sure anyone trying that on busier cycleways in London or Cambridge will get voluminous abuse from faster cyclists behind for anti-socially making overtaking more difficult (a cycleway equivalent of the middle lane dawdler?) and the more reckless will attempt to overtake in the gap they'd be leaving to their left.

The wider reality is that many people are not prepared to do it (and I have no problem with that) and for the many, rather than the few, we ought to have a system like NL where Cyclecraft would be fairly irrelevant. But we don't have a system like NL so cycling here is for the few, and a book that deals with reality rather than ideal situations for unicorn riders strikes me as more useful. I'm not onside with the idea that we don't need and shouldn't want something like NL because the roads are great on an (incorrect) "if I can do it, anyone can do it!" basis, but the meat of the book is "this is how to deal with the busy roads you probably can't avoid".

The meat of the book is fine and useful, like I've always said. It's just an awful shame the author has included so much skewed invective against cycleways instead of dealing with the reality of them in a similar way to the chapters on carriageways, such as how to handle the common junction types and methods of negotiating with other cycleway traffic.

[thirdcrank]

...

Introduction, How Cyclecraft can help you to cycle well: "very often conflicts could be avoided altogether by the cyclist riding more diligently." [Let's open a government-backed cycling manual with victim-blaming, eh?]

You seem to have taken an assumptive leap there. I can think of plenty of conflicts between pedestrians and cyclists where the cyclist is not the clear victim and where riding more diligently would prevent it.

It's in a book which is primarily about cycling among motorists. I think it's much more of an assumptive leap to interpret it as written about collisions with pedestrians. ...

On this point alone, I've checked my 2007 edition and the index has nine references to pedestrians. The overarching theme is taking care in respect of pedestrians. eg p154

Pedestrians

All pedestrians are vulnerable, even to a cycle, while the elderly and infirm are unable to move quickly. You should show caution consideration and courtesy towards pedestrians ....

To avoid allegations of selective quoting, I'll say there's plenty more but I'm not typing the lot. Some is potentially controversial eg, if push comes to shove and you cannot stop in time, it's better to hit a pedestrian than go under a motor vehicle. (My words, not JF's.)

[Bmblbzzz]

• "cycles and pedestrians usually mix less well than cycles and cars, as discipline is poorer", [just plain BS]

Sounds a lot like reality to me.

Poorer discipline than motorists? When's the last time you saw a pedestrian so-called accidentally run dozens of metres off a road and jump in a drain, then? When did a walker last total a bus stop and house?

It seems to me that in this case you're confusing lack of discipline with lack of control. Pedestrians tend to have very good control but poor discipline, because good discipline is generally not needed at walking pace. Motorists tend to have decent discipline, because their speed and size make it necessary, but are more likely to lose control.

However, I've not read Franklin's book, I'm just responding to your comment here; and you're responding to pjclinch who is in turn responding to you. Discussion of the actual book seems to have got lost.

[mjr]

However, I've not read Franklin's book, I'm just responding to your comment here; and you're responding to pjclinch who is in turn responding to you. Discussion of the actual book seems to have got lost.

Yeah, I know what you mean. I was in two minds over whether to respond in detail to pjclinch, or to make a vague hand-sweep and post basically the last two paragraphs above (from "But it's not just caveats" onwards) only. So I'll ignore your other point (that I don't agree with) and now that rfryer has confirmed the book is still toxic, I'll try to return us to the topic:

Ultimately, the vital topic of riding on purpose-designed cycling infrastructure gets just 13 pages out of 200 and much of that is anti-infrastructure politics, with some of the few skills taught being arguably incorrect, such as the hugging the centre line mentioned above. The next edition should delete that chapter entirely (along with other anti-infrastructure rants) and change the subtitle to "Carriageway Cycling Techniques for Adults", so at least the limitation would be acknowledged.

[Mike Sales]

I have twice, on a cyclepath, been confronted with oncoming riders who seem determined to keep on the right hand side (my left). I am not clear about the reason, maybe they think it is optional, as they are not on the road.
I feel that it would be helpful, and indeed safer, if it was made clear to all that the same convention on as on the road applies.
Does Franklin make this point? Or should there be a "Cyclists Keep Left" sign at access points?

[mjr]

I have twice, on a cyclepath, been confronted with oncoming riders who seem determined to keep on the right hand side (my left). I am not clear about the reason, maybe they think it is optional, as they are not on the road.
I feel that it would be helpful, and indeed safer, if it was made clear to all that the same convention on as on the road applies.
Does Franklin make this point? Or should there be a "Cyclists Keep Left" sign at access points?

Cycle tracks are a type of road/highway and the same law applies. Franklin gets this right and does mention "moving well left when meeting someone coming the other way" immediately after his dodgy advice about normally riding almost in the middle.

He doesn't mention the ways to get other cyclists to move over, though.

[Bmblbzzz]

However, I've not read Franklin's book, I'm just responding to your comment here; and you're responding to pjclinch who is in turn responding to you. Discussion of the actual book seems to have got lost.

Yeah, I know what you mean. I was in two minds over whether to respond in detail to pjclinch, or to make a vague hand-sweep and post basically the last two paragraphs above (from "But it's not just caveats" onwards) only. So I'll ignore your other point (that I don't agree with) and now that rfryer has confirmed the book is still toxic, I'll try to return us to the topic:

Fair does, I shall check in on this topic to see if the book might be interesting (or I could just borrow it from the library to make my mind up!) and (try to) refrain from commenting till I've read it! Discussion of control v discipline can indeed go on elsewhere (or nowhere).

[Vorpal]

When discussing Cyclecraft (or indeed the american equivalent, written by another JF, John Forester), it is important to remember that it was written by a vehicular cyclist about how to operate a bicycle as a vehicle on the public roads. I think that to a certain extent, selling vehicular cycling as how to do cycling is to be expected.

That does not decrease its value in or detract from the primary purpose of the book, which is to teach people how to do vehicular cycling.

JF is an expert at what he does, and the book is a very good resource both for people who want to improve their cycling on the roads, and those who want to teach it (i.e. Bikeability). That something is a good resource for not using segregated faiclities doesn't mean it should be considered a definitive resource about segregated facilities.

That said, his statements about and descriptions of segregated facilities was spot on for most of those I encountered in Essex, East London, and Suffolk. There are some better facilities around, and some of those built in the last 10 years are much improved, but many of the older ones in Essex are horrible, most unnecessarily so. The few that were designed and built 20 years ago as decent facilities only connect to crap, with maybe one or two exceptions.

I never used them until I had children, and when I did start to use them, they were so horrible, they drove me to become a cycle campaigner.

As for being able to sprint, I somewhat agree. Not because I think it is a necessary skill, but because the intimidating conditions of British roads have made it seem a necessary skill. Certainly I have used some roundabouts with a sprint-for-it philosophy that I would never consider taking my kids across. But it's fair to criticise it. Not because JF thinks it's needed. But because it is needed. that's one of the reasons we need segregation. So kids can ride their bikes to school. So parents can take small children on bikes. So elderly people can do the shopping by bike.

[mjr]

When discussing Cyclecraft (or indeed the american equivalent, written by another JF, John Forester), it is important to remember that it was written by a vehicular cyclist about how to operate a bicycle as a vehicle on the public roads. [...] JF is an expert at what he does, and the book is a very good resource both for people who want to improve their cycling on the roads, and those who want to teach it (i.e. Bikeability). That something is a good resource for not using segregated faiclities doesn't mean it should be considered a definitive resource about segregated facilities.

I agree that it shouldn't be considered that, but that is what it is sold as: "Cyclecraft is the definitive guide to skilled cycling technique" is on the cover of my copy. No limitation to carriageway or vehicular cycling. You and I may agree it's a good resource for that, but its claimed expertise is far broader.

It simply does not live up to that claim. A simple fix would be to dial down that claim and remove the dodgy stuff about purpose-built facilities (not only segregated ones). A more comprehensive improvement would be to add in a chapter or two about them written by an experienced pragmatist who can give useful tips on how to ride them.

[thirdcrank]

In the interests of broadening my knowledge and as a reference source I'd be happy to consider shelling out for something not intended for so-called vehicular cyclists. Can anybody point me to something dealing with such cycling in the UK including complying with the current law, sufficiently received so as not to make me the target of criticism, and not mountain biking or BMXing. I'm talking about advice on how to carry out the activity, not campaigning. I can always google. Is there a search term? Non-vehicular cyclist sounds like an oxymoron.