Originally Posted by
Bekologist
i can't believe you're even trying to formulate an argument that the whole of the federal guidelines for planning for bikes in the transportation mix is flawed, that FHWA planning strategies to support and increase ridership while enhancing safety don't add up.
it's hilarious you think AASHTO best practices are somehow countraindicated by your narrow minded interpretations of a few data points contained within a broad set of strategy measures recommended as planning 'best practices' for american roadway infrastructure.
unless YOU'VE got data proving AASHTO guidelines for the development of bicycle facilities aren't vetted and accepted american 'best practices' i suggest you suck up your groundless complaints and get back to the actual discussion, if you can come up with anything relevant.
The AASHTO Guide started out as a means of shoving cyclists aside for the convenience of motorists, getting political acceptance through the excuse that doing so made cycling safe. This is history, Bek. I was the principal cyclist all through this, I reported it at the time to the cyclists of California, and no one has presented personal or documentary evidence to the contrary. The Guide has not changed much since then. The Human Car is one of those, like yourself, who chooses to believe that the bikeways specified in the Guide do good for bicyclists, which is why he chooses to believe that the bikeways now act differently than they did then. They act in exactly the same way; the only difference is that Human Car, and others like yourself, believe that it is good for cyclists to be cast as incompetent and second-class road users. That, I suppose, is a legitimate difference of opinion. Some cyclists desire the feeling of being inferior victims who need the illusion of being protected, while others recognize that the advantages lie with the cyclist who operates according to the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles.
As for the latest NCHRP 500 Vol 18, guide for reducing car-bike collisions, you and Randya have expressed support for it, Randya because it was written by the highway establishment (which is, of course, the very worst recommendation), and you, who claim to have read it, for reasons which you have not chosen to disclose. I have reviewed it, unfavorably, and published my conclusions, which neither of you have answered.