The Cyclist's Manifesto: The Case for Riding on Two Wheels Instead of Four

by Robert Hurst

The basic thesis of the manifesto is as The American aversion to bicycling for transportation is a unique historical-cultural absurdity that is based largely on false assumptions and bad information. As the nation's acute energy predicament intensifies, the most simple and elegant remedy available is the one that almost never gets mentioned. The avoidance of the bicycle in recent public discourse has been conspicuous, ridiculous, and downright strange. While bicycling, for a variety of reasons, will not be the best choice for everybody, it is realistic to think that we in the US could grow the mode share of the bicycle to around 5%. (This would represent a huge increase in the number of cyclists currently on the road, but would still be far below levels currently seen in many European countries.) Boosting the mode share of bicycling to this seemingly modest level would produce rather intense, far-reaching positive effects (and a few negative ones), at an extremely low cost. The latter half of the manifesto will be devoted to painting the undeniably tantalizing picture of just what those effects might be -- for instance, the health care savings would be astronomical -- and the different ways that individuals and governments can go about wresting back control over their energy destiny. The author's recommendations are surprising. It'll be easier than we think. It will even be fun. The roads are already bikeable, and there's an old bike waiting in the garage behind the wetvac.

Genres: Nonfiction, Cycling, Urban Studies, Transport, Bicycles

224 pages, Kindle Edition

First published January 1, 2009

Reviews

[Shannon Appelcline · Rating 1 out of 5]

For a manifesto, this book spends remarkably little time laying out a "case". Instead, it meanders through history and politics with little effort to link them into a larger narrative. Worse, the author doesn't seem to know how to argue a case. When he claims that bike lanes are obsolete, he doesn't support his point at all (and for good reason: it's a laughable assertion). Just a short time later, when he tries to argue for breaking laws while biking, the foundation of his claim is a No-True-Scotsman fallacy: "Experienced riders will read this and understand what I'm saying — the lesson will be absorbed eventually." Because I don't agree with his argument, I'm innately not an "experienced rider". As these examples would indicate, the author's scant arguments are also pretty badly misguided. His diatribe against Detroit bailouts just shows off some tunnel vision, but his argument against the Prius demonstrates a very dangerous ideological purism — the sort that actually stands in the way of progress.

Unfortunately, the quality of writing is also troublesome. The author interjects very casual speech, knocking you out of the narrative (and I say that being a casual writer). It's also poorly organized, sprawling all over the place with little rhyme or reason, sometimes mentioning people before introducing them and often going off onto weird tangents. There's just no good through line explaining why you'd care about all this disparate information. Even after finishing the book, I had no idea what it was about.

There are some good nuggets in here: some historical elements that are interesting. However, it probably wasn't worth digging through even this slim book to find them.

[Rachel · Rating 3 out of 5]

This had the potential to be so much more, unfortunately Hurst spent far too much time on lame history and discussion of negative associations with cyclists. My main issue, however, was his side argument that the safer European cycling infrastructure is inferior to the potential for thrill allowed in United States. I'm sick of reading books that are written by childless males for childless males. When is the cycling community going to branch out to families with discussions of how to make cycling safer and a more viable option?

[Katie Adamsky · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book has a lot going for it - I really liked the emphasis on cycling as a political statement as well as a personally beneficial activity. It had a lot of helpful perspectives for feeling comfortable on the road, like the discussion on how most bike accidents involve children or alcohol. I found the history of cycling interesting, if a bit meandering. Hearing the stories of Major Taylor and how bikes contributed to the women's suffrage movement added a lot of depth to my appreciation of the bicycle. Learning about Critical Mass was very personally valuable to me as well, since I've been able to start participating in those group rides.

However, I *strongly* disagree with Hurst's take on vehicular cycling and sharrows - Hurst claims that sharrows are the pinnacle of bike infrastructure, making it clear that bikes are welcome on this road. Unfortunately, studies have shown that roads sharrows have greater rates of cyclist injury than roads with no bike infrastructure at all.

Hurst enjoys the "thrill" of cycling in the US, and argues that this elevates cycling in the US above safer countries for cycling such as the Netherlands. There is an enormous contradiction in arguing that more people should be cycling, but also advocating for keeping cycling as scary as it currently is. The single most important thing to improve bike safety is getting people out of cars and onto bikes, and that won't happen if the majority of people are put off by the unsafe infrastructure.

[Sean · Rating 2 out of 5]

Not bad, but I didn’t get manifesto vibes. It’s more of a history about the linkage of bicycles and automobiles. A couple sections in a couple chapters actually make the case for bicycling over driving. Though, in all fairness, the case is, to me, so self-evident and obvious that I’m completely unsure how I could complete a whole novel on the premise.

I would have liked to read more of the studies that showed the benefits of biking for health. The author cites a study that puts the health benefits, despite the risk of a collision, at twenty-to-one. Noting the methodologies and not just the conclusion would have been interesting.

[Matt · Rating 2 out of 5]

Manifesto's are generally radical and change the way you see the world. This book fails to do that. It reads like a lycra-clad suburban dad who shows up to the city council meeting claiming to be "an avid cyclist" and then voicing discontent with proposed bike infrastructure. It fails to deliver any strong argument for why Americans should ditch the car and we should invest more in bike infrastructure and encourage two-wheel transportation. Any Twitter thread on bike commuting is more informative than this.

[Angie Smith · Rating 3 out of 5]

Drive Less- Live More
Nothing can approach the efficiency of the bicycle. It is above all other transportation modes. The bike Makes you stronger and happier and makes your soul smile and your spirit fly. People need to start riding bikes.

[James · Rating 4 out of 5]

Made a compelling case for a sense of proportion when it comes to the impact one feels when choosing a bicycle over other forms of transport rather than a full-throated endorsement of the choice. The assumption was entirely my fault, so it was fascinating to be led through the case by the author.

[Jeff Youngstrom · Rating 5 out of 5]

Hurst writes about bikes as they fit into mostly US history, and mostly as they pertain to transportation. I don't really have a head for history, but Hurst brings out those little ironic or amazing details that make history fun and memorable.

The "Manifesto" part of the title comes in when he debunks practically every article of faith on both sides of the car vs. bike debates. And I love him for it. He disses bike lanes and vehicular cyclists. Points out that cycling is a little more life-threatening than driving (per passenger mile) and ridicules the US helmet cult. The myths fall right and left. "The more cyclists there are the safer it gets," a recent clarion cry of us advocates, looks a lot less plausible after Hurst gets done with it.

You might get mad at someone so aggressively goring your sacred cows (if you'll pardon the mixed metaphor), but he also writes with such humility and humor that I, at least, found him more charming than annoying. I had to chuckle out loud every few pages, and I don't find that very often with books about transportation policy.

Finally, his recipe for fixing what's wrong with transportation is almost absurdly simple: "Drive less." But rather than just prescribe the diet, he makes a strong case for why you probably want to drive less anyway.

I read this from my local library, but I'll be buying a copy to refer back to and to share with my friends.

[Bart · Rating 4 out of 5]

It feels a bit odd to give only four stars to a book I so thoroughly enjoyed.

Hurst's discussion of bicycle accident statistics – what they mean, and what they don't mean – is the best I've seen anywhere, and I look forward to digging into his extensive footnotes on this subject. His discussion of the pros and cons of a cyclist's obedience to standard (i.e., automobile) traffic codes, and the tenuous connection between lawful riding and safety, is also the best I've seen. Likewise, his nuanced discussion of the divide between Vehicular Cycling advocates and the advocates of separate bicycle lanes is superb. He does a great job of communicating the joy and thrill of riding through dense traffic on a bicycle, provides at least a good intro to the environmental case for far greater use of bicycles, and sprinkles the whole book with sparkling and witty asides on many subjects.

So why only four stars? I found the book quite disjointed, especially in the first half. For example, the many tales about very early (pre-1900) bicycle racers are interesting and well told, but very loosely linked to the theme promised in the book's title. IMHO the book is well argued and well written, but not well edited.

[Michelle · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book was given to me in 2010 as a going away present from the executive director of my old job. I didn't pick it up for two years and I was disappointed that I let it sit on my shelf for so long. I found myself highlighting whole pages and dumbfounded by the amazing historical facts that Hurst found, especially about Major Taylor. " In one early race on the roads around Indianapolis, he reached the finish far in the lead, driven mainly by fear of physical attack his competitors had promised should he be caught."
Hurst clearly articulates the historical problem of cyclists self identifying as better than everyone else and the importance of wearing a funny costume as part of this identity. If cycling activists around the globe read one book, I hope that they read even a few chapters of this book to understand the great importance of getting off of their high horse and encouraging everyone to ride. And that means everyone. Not just your friends.
About a third of the book is dedicated to scary facts related to oil production around the world. We really need to get everybody on bicycles. Fast.

[Jtomassetti · Rating 4 out of 5]

THE CYCLIST’S MANIFESTO by Robert Hurst is not a how-to book, or a novel or a history. Robert Hurst is a experienced bicycle messenger who has completed over 80,000 deliveries in heavy city traffic. The book puts forth modern perspectives on American cycling. For example how American cyclist think, what the non-cycling public think about cyclists and how American cycling history got to where it is now.

Hurst supports sharrows instead of bike lanes. He points out that cyclists following the rules of the road often end up dead. The book was written at the end of 2008 so it has up-to-date information relating to cycling regarding the $4.00/gallon gas of 2008 and the approaching economic crisis. This book could be the starting point for many interesting on-line forum discussions.

All of Hurst’s details are well documented. The book moves along quickly. It is humorous. It is thought provoking. It is well written. I highly recommend The Cyclists Manifesto for all cyclists to read.

[Diane · Rating 2 out of 5]

A friend who is an avid bicyclist asked me to read this book. There is quite a bit of useful and interesting information hidden in it. For example, why are cars and cycles held to the same rules: Car and cycles became popular at about the same time and went about the same speed so seemed to just be manifestations of one form of transportation. Also an interesting bit of information on bicycle accidents - not as many as you would think if you take out childhood bike accidents. However, the style is just this side of awful - too folksy and too wordy and too lame jokey. I got totally bogged down in one long section on why cars are bad and finally just skipped it.

Why must there just be an either - or answer to every question? Cars or pedestrians? Why not three types of beings (or four or more): cars, bicycles and pedestrians. Why drive or do not drive - why not drive AND cycle AND take public transportation AND walk?

[Scott · Rating 2 out of 5]

This is clearly a manifesto in its worst form: the argument is completely unorganized, with little regard for the form and structure of a convincing piece of writing. Thankfully it doesn't wallow in passionate ideology as much as it could have, yet the author replaces it with a conversational style that was readable and adequate, but hardly makes the case it claims to in the title.

Despite this, I do agree with much of his argument, and the case is clear in my mind. The historical digression of the development of bicycles and automobiles is almost completely without context for the larger story - perhaps he needed a chapter to lay out the structure and purpose of his argument in more clear terms to be coherent. As a result, this is a hodge-podge of thoughts on the subject of energy and transportation.

The Goodreads two-star descriptor says it best: "it was ok".

[Mike · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very entertaining. It is written like a long editorial touching on the history of the bicycle, bicycle accident research, bicycle culture, and finally an argument for the bicycle as an answer (not "the" answer) to America's energy problems. I don't think the title is very appropriate, but I can't think of a better title that would sum up what its about. Reading this book is like taking a long meandering bike ride through varying themes and ideas.

If your a bicycle aficionado like myself you are going to really enjoy this book.

[Janet · Rating 3 out of 5]

Entertaining and unusual book. Opens with a brief history of cycling starting back in the 1890s, touching on the politics, women's suffrage, racism in bike racing, and the invention of the automobile. Who knew the bicycle was critical to the assault on Singapore in WWII? Touches on the oil supply, politics of energy, bike safety, bike lanes, and even a brief comment on Critical Mass. All this in less that 200 pages, in a very fresh voice.

[Philip · Rating 3 out of 5]

Very enjoyable and well-written book if you enjoy cycling, but the title had me expecting something else, i.e. advocacy for cycling. Instead, I found - and enjoyed - a majority of the book dedicated to the history and evolution of various uses of cycling; everyday transportation, racing and even warfare, for example.

[Leah · Rating 4 out of 5]

I really enjoyed this book. It is an easy and short read packed with lot's of cycling information and history. A definite for cycling commuters, but possibly not as enjoyable for the occasional cyclists.

[Mark Bodhi Hill · Rating 2 out of 5]

It was not what I was expecting but that obviously isn't the author's fault. The book is a capsule history of the bicycle, more or less, and it's popularity. Some advocacy issues are addressed, but my impression is that the author feels that most bike advocacy issues are misguided

[David · Rating 1 out of 5]

Not really a manifesto, and not really interesting, either. I'm sure this was just a book that Amazon bundled together with David Byrne's when the person who gave me both picked it out. Junk.

[Elaine Nelson · Rating 3 out of 5]

Not anything especially new to me, but a good read nonetheless.

[Kate · Rating 3 out of 5]

"It let me out into a new world, greater, more mellow, more god-like, and it did me no harm at all."

[Paul · Rating 5 out of 5]

Awesome! Hurst has eloquently put it out there. I'm already pretty much right there with him, but what will you do?

[Ann · Rating 2 out of 5]

A typical American vision on cycling as a means of transportation. No new elements came up in this book.

[Syahid Abdullah · Rating 3 out of 5]

why is bicycle the option? it consumes energy and it is ours directly. who would work their ass off and later pay for the gas and work and again. and that's not the proper cycle. meh.

[Mark · Rating 3 out of 5]

The organization of the book seemed kind of loose too me, as though the author wanted to take on too many facets of his subject. Individual sections, however, were interesting to read.

[Kurt · Rating 5 out of 5]

Great book! See what you're missing if you're not using pedal power.