Customer Reviews

The Cyclist's Manifesto: The Case for Riding on Two Wheels Instead of Four (Falcon Guide)

5 star:		(7)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

This was a fascinating book, but it wasn't what I expected. The book does a good job of reviewing the history of the bicycle and the automobile, and how decisions in the 20th Century led the U.S. to focus on the car instead of the bike. The history lesson is well-done and any cyclist would enjoy it. As an argument for more cycling infrastructure, though, it gets weighed down by this lengthy look back. It's a very good book--as a cyclist and a historian I couldn't stop reading it--but if you are looking for something to give to a local opinion leader to influence public spending I'd look elsewhere. Despite the cover blurb, it's not the Silent Spring of bicycling. Still, I'd rate it as one of the best books on bicycling I've read.

The Cyclist's Manifesto is the second Robert Hurst book I've read, which should tell you that I like what he has to say enough to continue to buy his books. That, combined with the fact that I've been an avid cyclist my entire life will reveal my bias towards bicycles as a mode of transportation. A bias that Mr. Hurst most definitely shares.

In general I'm against continuing to read things that support what you already believe (what's the point?). It tends to lead to narrow-mindedness and intolerance of foreign ideas. But I do recommend reading this book even if you already toe the party line. He has a way of articulating ideas that really resonates and invigorates. I found it inspirational enough that I've re-dedicated myself as a soldier in the revolution. I learned some new things along the way, but in general it performed the role of a great pep talk, which is exactly what I was looking for.

However many copies of this book get sold my bet is that almost to the reader he is preaching to the choir. This is a shame because I think this book has a lot to offer the bicycle-curious. Some of his rants seem to play a little fast and loose with the facts (while staying true in a general sense). Additionally his hard-line stance (even for a cyclist) may be repelling to some, but in the end his message is truly liberating.

The book begins with the history where cars and bicycles converge (if you didn't already know this, these histories are very much intertwined), continues on with the mess that we've created through political and personal cowardice, and ends with a bang that would likely convert even the hardened, gas guzzling SUV pilot.

Admittedly he provides no easy answers. He even claims that someone who doesn't own a car or even take the bus is still beholden to petroleum, like it or not. I'm left with the impression that if everyone went to bicycles tomorrow it would be an improvement, but still wouldn't solve the energy problem.

Anyone reading this book who converts to a bicycle way of life is unlikely to change the world, but will, however, change their own world. Dramatically. And that, comrades, is where this book truly shines.

I am a cyclist and a cycling advocate and I did not enjoy reading this book. First of all, it is not a manifesto. It is more like a collection of stories, mostly histories, some so completely off topic that I was wondering if I grabbed the wrong book by mistake. The stories are so disconnected that the whole thing reads more like a blog. And it is a rant. It is more about the problem of oil running out than about cycling. In addition, the author obviously has a problem with so many other cyclists, especially with what they wear, that at the end this book did not at all feel inspiring to get on a bike. For me, this book didn't make the case for riding on two wheels instead of four.

The author wandered aimlessly for 170 pages before even attempting to make his case for riding on two wheels instead of four. Just as I was finishing up with his final chapter "manifesto", I was struck with the realization that the author probably started with about 5-7 pages worth of good material and thought, "Now, how can I turn this into a book deal and make some money?"

Much of the early chapters read more like the real manifesto which appears to be Mr. Hurst's love of Hiram Maxim, an early tinkerer with internal combustion engines. However, if you're looking for an abridged version of Major Taylor's life, this might be just the book you're looking for.

To cap things off, the back cover manages to be misleading and disingenuous by featuring a quote about a different book Hurst wrote, drawing parallels between it and Rachel Carson's "Silent Spring."

Do yourself a favor: donate the money you would have spent on this book to a local cycling advocacy group and ask one of them why they ride their bike. You'll get a much better case for riding a bike, help out cycling advocacy, and save the environmental cost of printing another of these terrible books.

I enjoyed reading The Cyclist's Manifesto, and while there's a lot of interesting information about the history of the bicycle and a lot of encouragement about getting on the bike, I found the book veered a little too much into advocacy of dangerous and illegal riding styles for my taste. Mr. Hurst is an ex-bike messenger and he brings a lot of bike messenger practice to his philosophy of bicycle riding, advocating a style of cycling that is 'adaptive'. What that seems to mean is 'legal only as long as I feel it needs to be'. I get the feeling that Hurst sees a red light as being relevant to him only as long as it suits his temperament - if he feels that he'd be better-off if he ignored it, then the red light becomes a mere suggestion. This attitude is part of the reason cyclists have a bad name here in the US.

I find that [url=http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000722S42/ref=ord_cart_shr?ie=UTF8&m=AEHQ5VHN67LAQ]'Street Smarts: Bicycling's Traffic Survival Guide' by John S. Allen is a much more useful book.

For better or for worse, he has arrived at some conclusions that differ from the conventional wisdom. As such, much of the book could be viewed as highly objectionable."

These are the concluding sentences (in pompous third-person voice, no less) of Robert Hurst's "The Cyclist's Manifesto." If it were half as interesting as the author suspects, it would've been a great read. Alas, the only thing truly objectionable is the lack of a judicious editor. Instead, we have a mishmash of environmental jeremiads, personal experiences, and Prius bashing. Hurst wanders from camel importing to Ford and GM's propping of Hitler to name-dropping Milan Kundera and considering that a significant portion of today's cyclists are annoying jerks or elitist and racist toolbags. Duhhhh!

Instead of taking FDR to task for Guernica and Dresden, maybe Hurst could just write about BICYCLES? If it is the author's stated goal is to get more people riding two wheels instead of 4, it get lost in a poor signal to noise ratio. Eventually he wanders back into a discussion of petro state tyranny and oil shale but by that time I just wanted to put down the book and walk to the coffee shop. This thing is the "Practice Girl" of manifestos, falling somewhere between Ron Paul's "Revolution" and Jeffrey Lebowski's "Port Huron Statement."

Hurst provides an excellent overview of bike advocacy from a very realistic and honest perspective. This book isn't like Pedaling Revolution, where you're patted on the back over and over for riding.

While I don't always agree with the author, he supports his positions well and they're clearly well though out.

This book doesn't "Make a case for riding on two wheels instead of four". It gives a little time to "Global Warming" and "Urban Development", but the majority of the book gives a history of stuff like the League of American Cyclists and Major Taylor. Not in an inspiring sort of way. Rather, it reads like a dry history book. Avoid.

The author begins the book by telling us about the early days of cycling. We soon learn in many ways not a whole lot has changed in 100 years.

He then does a very good job of defining the various types of bicycle infrastructure including bike lanes, sharrows, bike paths, and plain old streets. He discusses the pros and cons of them and convinced me that a European-style bicycle network not only isn't practical for North America, but really is quite limiting and gave me more confidence to take to the streets on my bicycle. And speaking of confidence he dissects the auto-versus-bicycle crash data and shows it might not be quite as bad as we think out there.

Whether you're an experienced cyclist or someone considering spending less time in a car, this book is a must read.

Full disclosure, I am utility and recreational bicyclist - this book obviously supports what I already believe about the bicycle in America. What I didn't expect from this book was the wit and humor the writer uses. It is entertaining in a satirical, ironic, tongue in cheek sort of way. For example the writer leads into an essay on how utility bicyclists kill two birds with one stone with the following, "I don't like killing birds. I don't even like to think about people killing birds. So naturally, I regard the phrase kill two birds with one stone somewhat negatively. People say it as if it's a good thing. Hey, I eliminated two birds there, and used but one stone. What's with this bizarre hatred of birds? And are stones really that valuable?" The author then proceeds to make his argument the bicycling is good for you and good for the environment. This sort of language is peppered throughout the book, and I find it highly entertaining and makes the book more readable. Perhaps it might take away from the merit of the arguments made in some parts, but it's worth it. The content of the book is slightly dis-conjoined, but mostly goes together in a unique way. The format of the book feels like a blog that was converted into a book. Short essays are collected into longer sections which address a larger topic. The history in this book and the broad impact the bicycle boom of the 1890's had on the next 100 years in the US is beautifully documented. The author also addresses the different public policy approaches to bicycling, and the different (divisive) camps. There is also a section which comes off as a slight rant on global oil consumption and America's role in this ridiculous over-consumption of oil and gas. Overall, the book is entertaining and readable. The author makes great points without getting bogged down in minutia. The aggressively pragmatic and slightly militant point of view, that only a long-time bicycle messenger can bring, is the most valuable take-away from this book.