The Art of Urban Cycling (Hurst)

I checked out Forester's "Effective Cycling" and found it much too dry and tedious. I hoped there was some variant out there that was easier to digest. I think "The Art of Urban Cycling" is kind of that, but not quite. Has anyone read this, who knows the ins & outs better than I do? I've had the Road I, and what I've seen on Bike Forums and another advocacy group led me to think that there is some vehement fight going on but it's not clear to me just what it is about. Something to do with Forester divorcing himself from the Bike League after they adopted his principles into the Road I course. This book seems to be part of all that.

For example this section on stop signs. Hurst starts off by saying vehicular cyclists are too inflexible about their rules and don't allow for situational variances. He basically says it's ok to run stop signs if you are really really careful about it and experienced and do it slowly. That's ridiculous. That's like telling my almost-teenage daughter, when she is learning to drive, that it's ok to run stop signs once in a while if she's really careful about it and no one is watchig.

I don't want to start a flame war here like I've seen spring up at the drop of a match on Bike Forums, but could someone enlighten me, what exactly is the controversy? I kind of get the feeling it's just a matter of semantics...

well, there's running stop signs and there's running stop signs.
I always slow down but if there is no traffic anywhere I do not come to a complete stop. I do the same "rolling stop" that cars do.
It's pretty foolhardy to just go through stop signs like they weren't there. Stop signs mean, caution, you could get killed. So I slow way way down, to nearly a stop.
On Mercer Island, i put a foot down. if you don't do that there, you'll get a ticket.
Bottom line, do what makes YOU comfortable. I ride a lot with my DH and he is less cautious than me. Lots of time he has to wait for me because i slowed way down in an intersection (not necessarily a stop sign) and he didn't.

I think rather than ask various people who may or may not have even read the book about their stop sign techniques is non-productive and inaccurate as it relates to your question. I foresee this thread just turning into a debate about stop signs. That would be a real shame because this is an important subject and there is so much more to it than a simple stop sign debate. The stop sign example, taken out of context of the book, makes little sense without the rest of the book's message.
Correct me if I'm wrong but your question is not really about whether to always stop for a stop sign or not, right?....

You can get Hurt's book used on Amazon for about $10 (look for it under its new title, The Art of Cycling in the 21st Century or something like that- it's cheaper than the first edition titled Art of Urban Cycling)...same exact book though.

I think just as when one is driving there may be situations where to be safer you must do something not strictly by the rules, the same holds true in bicycling in traffic, but your choices and decisions are even more dangerous and critical since you are so physically vulnerable and so often not seen by cars.

There is another urban cycling book out there now (not by Hurst or Forester) that advises downright dangerous moves in biking in traffic. Forester's advice was at the opposite end- strictly following auto rules regardless of the situation you find yourself in. I feel that Hurst's book falls in the middle between the two extremes. In his book, Hurst writes of his great respect for Forester and Forester's methods, but then goes on to explain how and why he has developed certain ways of staying safe in today's traffic situations that differ from Forester's advice.

I read Hurt's book and it empowered me and completely changed my traffic cycling methods. I truly believe that having read this book will one day save my life riding in traffic. What's more, I suspect it may have done so already, perhaps on more than one occasion. I used to do things i 'thought' were safer when in fact they merely put me into dangerous traffic situations without my even realizing it. New cyclists so often confuse etiquette with safety. No wonder I kept freaking out and finding myself in terrible situations on the road. I was scared and confused in traffic... and rightly so. :( Every situation required me to make critical decisions in a split second.
Now I know how to ride defensively and safely by keeping myself from getting into those traffic death traps to begin with. I feel way more in control and I keep safe. I think ahead and look ahead so as to avoid potential traps.

Personally, I cannot recommend Hurst's book highly enough- he thoroughly explains exactly why he recommends certain methods of defensive cycling. He also covers road hazards and hazardous conditions aside from cars. Also interesting is his history of America's road grids and how we became a nation of communities built around the holy premise of Car as King.

Read his book, try it out for yourself and make your own judgement.

As to stop signs....everyone will have a different opinion on that can or worms. :rolleyes:

I read it.

The whole point of the book is that a bike is not a car, so what you wrote about it being okay for your DD to drive through a stop sign in a car is missing his point about bike riding in a big way. In another way, you're hitting the nail right on the head. He teaches that we (cyclists) are invisible, and should expect your teenage daughter to run that stop sign, and what we need to know to keep from getting hurt.

Since I read the book, I never assume any car driver is following the rules of the road. I assume they're talking on their cell phones, not paying attention, and are going to make mistakes, and my job is to be ready for them. I now know where to positon myself to avoid the side swipe, the car that makes a right turn in front of me with no signal, the opening door (I got hit with one of those once--so I already learned that lesson). He doesn't say don't follow the rules of the road, but use your judgment, primarily to stay safe.

It's a book about anticipation, focus, and bike handling skills. It's also about foriving mistakes, and remaining cool under pressure. I highly recommend it.

Correction.. he does say don't follow the rules of the road (as they are written for cars). His opinion is that bike rules should be different, since we are more vulnerable, and less visible.

I picked up the Hurst book after reading raves about it here. His point about being flexible is well-taken, but I have to say his bike-messenger machismo made me a little uneasy. I'm trying to ride safely so that I can avoid road rash (or worse) so why would I want to embrace it? I liked the beginning chapters about the history of bikes and cycling. They put a lot of what we go through now into greater perspective.

I read Effective Cycling when I first delved into cycling eleven years ago, and I like that book. (Hung on to my copy all these years.) I work at MIT and appreciate his thorough, scholarly engineer's approach to the subject, though his gear-ratio charts are maybe a bit much for all but the nerdiest among us. I like that he includes information about bike maintenance and repair, as well.

I didn't realize until I got back into cycling this spring that something approaching a religious war has developed between the vehicular cycling movement (Forester's approach) and others. According to Hurst, the vehicular cyclists believe that it's demeaning for a cyclist to ride in any other way (say, in bike lanes or on bike paths) than taking their god-given place on the roadways. That isn't what I took away from Forester's book. I do think that there is a danger in drifting too far from the vehicular approach of cyclists being more marginalized than we already are. Should we have less of a right to the roads because we can go places cars can't (paths) or because we have the option to hop off the bike and act as a pedestrian in certain circumstances? I don't think so.

As I learn more about cycling this time around, I'm grazing through more sources, taking a couple of classes, and trying to arrive for myself at a safe, sensible riding style. Most of the time that amounts to vehicular cycling, but we have advantages of flexibility and maneuverability and it would be silly for us not to use them.

Thanks, you are right I did not intend this to be a discussion of stop signs, that was just the first example I encountered in this book that really raised my hackles.

That is what surprised me too, finding out that Hurst thinks vehicular cyclists tote their god-given place in the middle of the road. I kind of picked up on that religious war you mention, but I wondered if knowing the history of it would help me understand it. What I suspect is there are some people who are so dead set against bike lanes and bike paths, because they were so poorly designed in the 70's, that they can't accept that they are different today.

A new study, like the suppressed one that launched Forester, would put a lot of the arguments to rest. I would do a lot to see that study, or a series of studies, conducted.

Hurst is a lot more readable than Forester's "Effective Cycling", which is very dry and self righteous. I'm about halfway through now, and though I believe the Road I course is the most effective way to empowering new cyclists, this book is a good substitute or introduction if the Road I course isn't available. There's only a few things that go against the grain for me. (I'm struggling not to list examples, to avoid a debate I'm not interested in!) But the overall message is good.

I'd like to read that other book that advocates the opposite of vehicular cycling (for research purposes). What is it called?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Melalvai

I'd like to read that other book that advocates the opposite of vehicular cycling (for research purposes). What is it called?

---

Here it is. http://www.amazon.com/Urban-Bikers-T...4141476&sr=8-2
I did not order it and I don't plan to read it, based on reviews I've read. Apparently the author engages in some pretty dangerous riding tactics. (like hanging onto moving cars (wtf!?!) )

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Melalvai

What I suspect is there are some people who are so dead set against bike lanes and bike paths, because they were so poorly designed in the 70's, that they can't accept that they are different today.

---

I'm not sure they're all that much better today, at least not in my area. This area claims to be bike friendly, and indeed it seems like there are more bike lanes going down all the time, but the lanes tend to be narrow and put cyclists squarely in the door zone. The only way to remedy this would be to eliminate some on-street parking, and that is just not going to happen. There are some trails, but they're not connected well and they're all multi-use so they're not great for biking (even though they're often referred to as "bikeways.") Progress on rail-trails seems to have been stalled for several years.

While the effort to provide cycling facilities is half-hearted and not terribly well thought out, it seems to be enough to convince motorists that since there are bike lanes and trails, cyclists don't belong in the roads. I think that's probably what vehicular cyclists really object to. Cycling facilities may be better than they were in the past, but in most places they're simply not adequate either for commuters or for recreational riders, so we still have to be insistent upon our right to use the roadways.

Having had to read, digest, and regurgitate all three of the above references, each has its own unique viewpoint. Forester's Effective Cycling is probably still the most influential, mostly because it was the driving doctrine behind the whole vehicular cycling thing, especially the LAB's Effective Cycling training program (now called "Bike Ed"). Forester's book was meant to be a one-book-fits-all comprehensive reference on bicycles, to the extent that it not only tallks about traffic safety and hazard avoidance, but Forester throws in long sections on the anatomy of 70's and 80's model road bikes, wiring up hub generators & bike lights, reviews of cycling-themed novels and movies, and even how to find & romance your sweetheart via bicycle (you have to read pretty far through, but believe me, it's in there). It's a good book, but John Forester is a very opinionated man and you have to wade through all his rants in the book. Some say that's the fun part of reading Effective Cycling, though...

Robert Hurst's The Art of Urban Cycling was the book that introduced me to vehicular cycling and got me interested in those sorts of issues, as well as changed the way I ride when it came out back in the summer of 2004.
Hurst writes from the viewpoint of a bike messenger, one who takes his bike and his bike out in the streets every day to mix it up with traffic, and so trusts nothing and no one with four wheels and a mechanical motor. Hurst starts from the viewpoint of the Vehicular Cycling Principle ("Cycists fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles." -- Forester) and then notes that our communities have also furnished us with bike-specific facilities such as paths, bike lanes, etc.. The Art of Urban Cycling tells us that as bicyclists, we enjoy the best of both worlds -- we can behave as vehicles per the Effective Cycling principles and your bike will take you anywhere that your legs have the power to pedal it, and at the same time we can also take advantage as convenience and the situation at hand dictate, and thus avoid much of the motor traffic while maintaining a Zen-like state of mind. I like the book, and refer to it a lot both in my personal riding as well as the LAB classes.

The book Lisa mentioned but declined to name is Dave Glowacs' Urban Bikers' Tips & Tricks: Low Tech & No Tech Ways to Find, Ride, and Keep a Bicycle. It's been around for about ten years, last updated in 2004. Oddly enough from the book's content, Dave is an LCI in Chicago, IL. As Lisa mentioned, Dave covers a lot of the Road I and Commuting course material in here from the LAB curriculum, but he also adds in a lot of the alley cat/impatient bike messenger tricks that can quickly turn a cyclist into road kill or somebody's hood ornament. I like this book too, but I'll quickly admit and admonish that there's a whole lot of stuff in this book that I don't recommend, or do (at least when there are witnesses around...)

Tom

PsyclePath, I was hoping you'd weigh in on this thread cause I knew you'd read at least one of these.

I dunno, I just got to Hurst's chapter on sidewalks and nearly had a visceral reaction. I know exactly who to blame for that...

But again, as soon as he says something I am completely opposed to (like riding on sidewalks or running stop signs), he proceeds to explain how to do these sins (ride as slow as a walk, slow to an almost stop). It's like a teacher trying to be cool by making a show of not following the rules, while actually following the spirit of the law while breaking the letter of the law.

I'm a fast reader but it is taking me a long time to get through this book because I get so mad I have to put it down every few pages. I have to keep reminding myself that I think his overall message is good and I shouldn't get too hung up on the details. At least not on the first read.

Ok, I'm nearly done with the book, and though I kept getting mad the entire time I was reading it, I'd have to say now I am completely sold on it. It was the helmet section that sold me. That, and this one section in the discussion on night riding.

His opinion of helmets is spot-on with mine. They are way overrated for bicyclist safety. They aren't at all like seatbelts but that is how they are treated. In fact the reason and the only reason I wear my helmet is because when I get hit I don't want everyone say "Tsk tsk, she wasn't wearing a helmet" as if that makes it all my fault...as if a broken arm would have been prevented by a helmet...

The night riding he goes into this thing about invisible cyclists saying don't ride like this but let's tie our knees down (so as to prevent our knee jerk reactions) and consider how we can learn from them...I don't actually remember what his point was but it made me slightly ashamed of my constant knee-jerk reactions throughout the book. I guess you could say after that I tied my knees down and at the end of each section I was able to say "Well, I thought he was going down a wrong path here at first, but then he explained..."

So now I am a big fan of this book and I'm going to write an amazon review on it, and it'll probably show up in a christmas stocking or two over the next few years.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Melalvai

I dunno, I just got to Hurst's chapter on sidewalks and nearly had a visceral reaction. I know exactly who to blame for that...

But again, as soon as he says something I am completely opposed to (like riding on sidewalks or running stop signs), he proceeds to explain how to do these sins (ride as slow as a walk, slow to an almost stop). It's like a teacher trying to be cool by making a show of not following the rules, while actually following the spirit of the law while breaking the letter of the law.

---

My partner and I have been having a very civil disagreement on sidewalks. And the conclusion I've come to is we're *both* right. (keep in mind that in most of the US, some form of sidewalk riding is legal... and we're in an area where it is legal)

I don't like sidewalk riding. It's dangerous for pedestrians, and it's rude to them. It's dangerous for *me* if drivers don't see me, and I've had a few issues with that on the local bike paths. Drivers never want to hurt me, but some are careless and don't look, even if there's a great big flashing sign over the intersection. I can't see how a sidewalk would be better.

He points out that you're always at more risk if you don't know how to use a particular technique. Refusing to learn something new is a good way to end up in more dangerous situations. And... he's right. The technique is useful, and has some carry-over for normal road riding. For starters, I'm better at spotting sidewalk bike ninjas... it also makes some railroad crossings easier. The aiming tricks one uses for sidewalk ruts carries over to badly maintained railroad tracks.

Hey everyone. I'm new to the boards and this seemed like a good spot to jump right in.

I have not read Hurst's novel on urban cycling but judging by the responses, I think I might have an idea of what he's selling. I've been a messenger in Chicago for a few years now and in this time, I have naturally implemented an aggressive style of riding because yes, I am virtually invisible... I am the one that is vulnerable so I must always be on the look out for something that is going to impeded on my "line". Wether my line is in the street, the side walk, the streeet to the sidewalk, the alley to the sidewalk then to the street...you get it. It's a constant mental checklist of possible scenarios. Fortunate(?) for me, I get to practice everyday. And maybe that's another point I'm trying to make, if that's even what I am doing, I don't think "urban cycling" is something you can learn by opening a book. With everything, practice will serve you best. Better yet, chat/barter up a messenger next time you see one and ask them for an hour run-through over the weekend.


There was a comment made, excuse my ignorance on the author, about, "messenger...hanging on to cars..."...um ya, I guess we all get a bit of an adrenaline rush from things that just really push us to our limits mentally and physically. I have bus wiped and trolly-totted. It is thrilling. What you will never find me doing is downhill mtbiking! Now that * is crazy! Can we swear on here?

+1 to everything MsT said. I ride in three different areas with three completely different bike lane/trail networks, and every one of them is at best a slow, marginally maintained way to get from Point A to someplace where one can comfortably ride on the street (albeit a good way for the kiddies to get to school), and at worst literally unrideable (think, an inch deep with debris from the road and riddled with potholes).

Melalvai, how in the world can you feel that way about helmets after being on this board for this long?! :confused::confused: never mind, I really don't want to get into that debate, I just don't understand it on a board with so many "saved by the helmet" stories.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OakLeaf

Melalvai, how in the world can you feel that way about helmets after being on this board for this long?! :confused::confused: never mind, I really don't want to get into that debate, I just don't understand it on a board with so many "saved by the helmet" stories.

---

I don't get into that debate either, but I'll point out a couple things... First, I have a handy "excuse" to wear the helmet anyway, because it's so ingrained in me that a helmet is like a seatbelt, vital to my safety, that I honestly would feel very uncomfortable and unsafe without it, even though I'm convinced otherwise. I know it in my head, not in my heart...

Second, there is a difference between anecdotes and data. Admittedly the helmet data isn't rock solid, as is the case with most clinical & epidemiological data, but I am more confident of it than I am of anecdotal evidence.