All of which is a long way of saying: "no, my previous statement is based on little more than my personal predjudice".

And they'll stay that way if you and your cohorts get their way.

That's part of the problem. Once you and your dystopian crew of infrastructurists get going competent cyclists are frequently denied the ability to take care of themselves. That can be both through legal means and through the social pressure from the ignorant motoring population who have been encouraged in their belief that it's dangerous to ride a bike in traffic by YOU. Thanks a buch feller.

But you don't have to be. That's just a bull**** belief based in fear and misinformation as you should well know if you're an experienced cyclist as you claim.

Your attitude is doing irreparable harm to bicycling in N.America. Look after yourself and stop trying to guess what gets people onto bicycles, especially if your proposed solution is one that ****s it up for those of us that actually cycle.

ok, I admit I used a bad turn of phrase, and also that what I wrote was mainly in response to the Bolded section of the quote. I maintain that the mindset that interacting with cars on a bicycle is "fun" Is not a common one, and you are going to have a very hard time convincing people that it is. It's not that I think its a bad mindset to have-until you start dissing on infrastucture from it. I don't think road riding is particularly dangerous and Encourage people to use it whenever its the best option. As an example, my boss at the bike store will tell customers that one particular street is bad and or scary to cycle on. I will tell them its fine as long as they take the lane where its appropriate and ride like traffic.

yeah, I get it. riding on the road is safe and fun and cyclists have been doing for years. I belive it too. But that's not everything when it comes to getting truly large numbers of people using bicycles for utility and commuting purposes, especially to and from existing urban and suburban areas.


Decent (and even sub-par) bike specific infrastructure has proven to increase ridership on bike trails. It has done nothing to increase ridership on the roads, where most of the world's cycling must be done if the word cycling is to have any meaning as a form of transportation and not just as a weekend recreational toy. I suspect, if anything, bike trails have reduced road cycling. As such, the increased ridership is not a step forward, unless your utopia is one in which road cycling is not done. Again, I don't see a world in which only trail cycling is done as being a legitimate goal for cycling advocates, because trails and bike paths will never be everywhere.[/QUOTE]


Where I live we have a trail called the galloping goose, an old rail corridor. it is used for recreational riding, but its primary purpose is as a commuter corridor between the city and the suburbs. its way more pleasant and convinient for most cyclists. Like you say though, these trails can't go everywhere, but that doesn't stop most cyclists from cycling on the roads once they have completed what would have been the most stressful portion of their commute.

[QUOTE=RazrSkutr;11594098]All of which is a long way of saying: "no, my previous statement is based on little more than my personal predjudice".

True nuff. No going to argue with you there. but It is experience, not prejudice, that I am basing my beliefs on. I would love it if everyone that might want to cycle was comfortable navigating a bicycle in traffic without need for BSI for major corridors. And that is urban, not rural, corridors, for the record. In more rural areas, there really is no need period for BSI cyclists are barely delaying drivers, and drivers need to get over it. More driver education about bicyclists right to the road-hell, more driver education period? heck yes.

The urban environment can be significantly more stressful for cyclists; Particularly in that "not quite downtown, not quite out of town" part of the city. Lots of cars, high speeds, few alternative routes. I favor some kind of BSF in these areas over many others where it is truly of dubious value.


They will stay that way whether "me and my cohorts" get our way or not. That is why I am for most BSI I belive the normalization of cycling-through improvements to infrastructure that benefit cyclists as well as driver education- benefits all cyclists



I do not have a fear of the erosion of cyclists rights based on the existence of infrastructure. Maybe I should, maybe yours is well founded, but I don't buy into it. You must live in florida or something. Sorry, but infrastructure fear mongering by those who are comfortable in traffic bugs me



You have a point. A good one. problem is, the fear isn't going anywhere even if we subtract the misinformation. Honestly, I love the idea of not needing BSI, the same way I love many other unrealistic ideals that don't take into account the steps necessary in between .

I'm extremely dubious that Portland politicians and engineers will ever actually grow the cojones to take lanes away from motorists like that, except where it won't really matter much, and even more dubious that large-scale parking removal will be used to create the space required.

According to the city of South Beach, CA, the green lane on 2nd Street has increased cycling in the travel lane, outside the door zone, by 300% since its installation. The green lane is essentially a paint and center-of-the-lane sharrow treatment that advertises the legitimacy of cyclists controlling the travel lane as drivers of vehicles. It doesn't "separate" or "protect" cyclists; it essentially just tells them "to get out there and mix with traffic" while at the same time telling the motorists to accept it. It seems to be working. 300% is nothing to sneeze at. I wish more cities had this kind of courage to endorse proper bicycle driving where drivers can't pass without changing lanes.

I like the green lane because it markets cycling, which cycling advocates including myself want, but it doesn't require cyclists to operate according to different rules than other drivers or force them to use a separate facility with greater conflicts with junction traffic, car doors, pedestrians, etc.

I am concerned about some other sharrow installations, however, that have been placed on the right edge of marginal width lanes. I believe that sharrows should be used to market the legitimacy of cycling anywhere in the lane, and not be placed where they could be misconstrued as directing cyclists to ride curbside or too close to parked cars.

Good thing they're wearing helmets! (couldn't resist...)

You've made some good points in this thread, but I think a few of your points fail for a variety of reasons.

1) I agree that poorly implemented side paths are bad. Most things that are poorly implemented are indeed bad, but let's not confuse and conflate poorly implemented with well implemented.

2) Cyclists have not mixed "happily" with traffic for 80 years. Over the last 80 years, the overwhelming vehicle of choice for personal transportation almost everywhere in North America has been the car and the entire network of transportation and the design of our communities has been driven by the use of the car. As to the question about how bicycling came along, it came along at a time when they shared roads with buggies and horses, not cars. If cyclists and cars got along so happily, there wouldn't be such a demand by cyclists to have better and safer bike routes.

3) The article at the beginning of this thread describes a system for bicycling that is not mandatory, yet one of your major criticisms of such systems is for mandatory use. No reason to argue about something that doesn't exist, and if your point is a general one, why not be more clear about it?

4) You seem to object to the creation and use of bike trails and these bike thoroughfares because they don't go everywhere. Point taken, but as others have repeatedly stated, they are not an effort to create a complete dual system of paths for bikes. Yes, some of them can at times be counterproductive, but in many cases, as in the article posted by the OP, they provide a safe passage through the most dangerous parts of a cyclist's commute. It seems that you would/should be in favor of keeping the good ones and modifying the bad ones.

I like that as well, but I can see how motorists might think they shouldn't drive in that lane.

Yes, well implemented trails are good, but where are they? You talk of them as if they're everywhere. They are not. The problem is, the vast majority of 'bicycle infrastructure' is poorly implemented because well implemented stuff costs big bucks, and it's easy to placate some cycling advocates by laying down a few hundred yards of cheap gravel that only really suffices for weekend mountain bike jaunts. My point is, for commuting (i.e. for the 80% or 90% of cyclists who are not merely in it to lose a few pounds on the odd weekend bike trip in what passes for nature in suburbs these days), the road already exists and is actually relatively safe. Why not simply make that even safer? Why lay down trails that merely run parallel with perfectly good roads? Why lay down concrete beside a lovely unspoiled brook when the resulting trail will serve only the odd family day trip to the state park. The thing is, these 'off road follies' as I call them waste tons of money because 1. they're usually in places that only a few weekend cyclists want to go, 2. they spoil natural trails by covering them in piles of gravel or ribbons of concrete 3. they're laid down in a half-baked manner so they need lots of upkeep, 4. they're more dangerous than a well-designed trail should be, so health care money is wasted on them, and 5. they fail to serve the vast majority of cyclists who simply need safe routes to work.

Erm... I never said 'the last 80 years'. I said they did mix happily for 80 years - the first 80 years cars and bikes mixed, before 'bicycle infrastructure' came along in any significant way. That's 1890 to 1970 to be more exact. To suggest I meant the last 80 years is a straw man. Of course cars haven't mixed happily for the last 80 years. But I never said that.

I don't accept the premise that we're only talking North America here. I'm speaking more generally. The original article asserted that all cyclists desired trails: "Separated bike lanes are every cyclist’s dream". Not just all North American cyclists. My experience is not limited to North America and I'm not advocating for cycling in North America only.

When I was growing up in the 70s there was virtually no one asking for 'bike routes' at all. Cyclists were asking for roads to be made safer. There's a difference. Until the '70s cyclists were happy to mix with traffic - we just wanted roads widening and traffic calmed. Traffic has never been the problem. The problem is traffic speed and (in England where I was at the time) the width of the roads.

As you should know, I was making a point about the article writer's assertion that I want bike trails. I did this by illustrating how I'd feel if I were to be forced to use them exclusively. I was never suggesting that the author was arguing for mandatory use. Kludgefudge did that when he effectively said that mandatory use was "equitable".

Then why do they argue as if they are? Why do they continue to argue for more and more trails while acting as if improvements to roads are irrelevant? Most cyclists cycle on roads. This is where we desperately need improvement if cycling is ever going to take off as more than a weekend diversion. Trails can only help new cyclists start cycling, but without improvements to roads, they will never graduate to the road.

I am in favour of keeping good ones. I'm also in favour of modifying bad ones to make them good, if they're in a place that makes sense. But often they aren't, yet cycling advocates seem more than willing to applaud bike trails to nowhere while being perfectly willing to sweep aside criticisms that there are no routes to work. Rails to Trails creates some very useful paths because they often go places where old railroads went (often between communities and business districts), but in order to be useful and safe, a trail that's in the right place has to be well designed too, with carefully thought-out entry points, markings and signs so that cyclists know who has the right of way, good sight-lines at intersections, signposts so that a bikeway doesn't become a labyrinth (see the Rock Creek Park trail in DC), etc.

The real problem with bike trails is that they take away resources that could be used to make 80% of cyclists' journeys better and safer, and they spend these resources on what amounts to weekend trips to the country for the privileged few. They also effectively divert the attention of cyclist advocates, making them think that government is doing something meaningful for them, when in fact it isn't. This is the crux of the problem.

yep. shared lanes are great in their limited applications.

In a discussion of the Vancouver cycleways I suspect the 'greater conflicts' concern is unfounded.

unfortunately, shared lane tactics for managing bikes with motor vehicle traffic becomes less effective as roadway speeds increase and the need to accommodate a diverse ridership across bridge decks and across the downtown of a major North American city. Shared roadway use and bicyclists mixing with traffic IS expected roadway behavior at the terminus of the cycletracks.




you're conflating all bikeways with rural trails. this thread is about cycletracks in a discussion about urban cycletracks in Vancouver, dude.

I'm quite busy right now (my daughter is getting married tomorrow) but I have skimmed the discussion here and I can add that as far as the safety of these recently installed (and soon to be installed) segregated lanes in downtown Vancouver is being studied. A report on any and all collisions and injuries in them as well as in or on other pathways or roadways will be due in the future.

Aside from the goal of increasing the safety of cyclists there is a goal of improving traffic flow by increasing use of transit, walking and cycling. So far this has been achieved, and AFAIK, there has not been any other city in North America that’s had a reduction in the number of cars (10% reduction entering the city and 7% reduction entering downtown) along with tremendous growth in pedestrian, cycling and transit trips that has taken place in Vancouver.

The City has exact figures on it's website but as I remember it, before the segregated lanes were installed on the BSB, a lot of cyclists were using it, but after detailed counts came in during the trial of the lanes, it showed cycling on the bridge increased by 30%. Before the SBL was installed on the Georgia viaduct, few cyclists used it (about 100 per day) but after it was installed, there were over 1000 trips per day. Before the SBL was put in on Dunsmuir, there were 500 trips per day, after it was in there were 2000 trips per day.

Now it may be true that cyclists are not increasing and simply changing their routes, but it also may be true that cycling has increased because of these routes. We're going to have to wait until a full assessment has been done but I think the important issue is that the city is giving this idea a try to see what happens.

we're not talking about trails here, so why are you?

Ian Cooper is right on track for becoming the new Helmet Head

:eek:

In many areas (esp. Midwest, where I lived for four years) bicycle infrastructure is pretty much unheard of. My, that place was like heaven on earth for cycling! There were so few cyclists, that almost nobody was killed whilst riding!

I've never seen anything quite like that before, But I really like it. I can think of a few roads around my area that could benefit from a similar treatment. This kind or road treatment goes a fair ways beyond just telling cyclists to get out there and mix with traffic though, as it is encouraging the practice through a pretty substantial application of paint. It may not be bike specific infrastructure but its an infrastructure upgrade that benefits cyclists specifically. (say that ten times fast ;) )

I've always been fine with the concept of bicycle specific infrastructure improvements, as long as they didn't direct (or require) cyclists to operate contrary to the normal rules of the road or contrary to safe, defensive bicycle driving practices. The green lane is conspicuous and bicycle-specific, but it encourages driving a bicycle according to the normal rules for drivers with the full rights and entitlement to the lane as other drivers.

I also like many off-road paths; it's the urban sidepaths and poor path/road junction designs that I dislike.

No, I did not. You are putting words in my mouth and then disagreeing with them.
It's not a strawman, it's a mistake. See above for a strawman. That being said, my point still stands that our transportation systems in the US and Canada were not developed out of some peaceful coexistence between bike and car. The only thing that was really peaceful about their coexistence is that as car driving skyrocketed, bike riding declined.
The article is about Vancouver and to take that line literally is petty, pedantic, and pointless.
Considering how you took the author literally above, am I to understand that you grew up in the 70s all over the world and speak for the collective cycling consciousness of the time?
Who is 'they'? Lots of inferring and undefined used of 'they.'
Class argument.

Looking at this statistic, and thinking about all the challenges that this sort of Infrastructure introduces for auto drivers, one can't help but come to the conclusion that the implementation of some of these lanes might not be only to encourage bicycle traffic, but to actively discourage automobile traffic by making the environment for drivers less inviting.

Looked at from this perspective, the segregated bike lanes might make good sense for the city of Vancouver, with its stated goal of a reduction of motor vehicle traffic in the city.

Thoughts?

a lot of US cities also have the stated goal of reducing SOV trips, but not so many are doing anything so radical about it.

One thought is that some people don't like the change in status quo and will set up a website to fight initiatives like the mayor has brought forth.

ROADJUSTICE.CA

ABOUT US
We are concerned citizens who have organized into a non-profit non-partisan coalition to have a fair voice for increased justice on our roads.
We feel that it`s time to end unmitigated taxpayer funded lobby organizations such as Vancouver Area Cycling Coalition who are receiving taxpayers dollars to lobby our elected officials causing removal of valuable road space from motor vehicle use.

OUR STATEMENT
We stand for Justice on Our Roads.
We support bike lanes, but not by taking away motor vehicle space of the road.
Motor Vehicle drivers pay insurance, licensing fees, air care, 35% parking tax, property tax, income tax, and gas tax and are getting no improvements in return. No new roads, no safer and more affordable parking spaces, no less time spent idling in traffic jams causing pollution.
Bike riders pay NO gas tax, pay NO insurance, pay NO license fees, and get new bike lanes, more parking spaces, get to block traffic with their Critical Mass protests, break traffic laws and hit other cars without licenses and insurance for mitigation.
Where is the justice in that?

I wonder if the individual or group responsible for this site is the same one(s) responsible for hacking into the VACCs site and shutting it down for a day just before the vote on the lane?

I've seen Gordon Price's presentation a couple of times in Portland, and he makes a very compelling case for not being able to build our way out of traffic congestion with new or wider roads.

Road Justice makes a persuasive argument, but it isn't supported factually because the taxes cited are only a very small amount of the funding for local roadways where the people they purport to represent mostly likely ride.

how about New York City? ;)

Groups like this make me very happy that bicycles are recognised by the UN, the Federal Gubbimint, and every State Gubbimint as "vehicles." And as such, bicycles are entitled to a full lane in every state in the Union. With all the rights, and all the prvileges, and all the responsibilites incumbent inherent. I can live with riding responsibly-- I do it every day, all the time. I don't see cagers doing the same. I DO see cagers acting like spoiled brats when they think their ascendence is going to be taken from them by Gubbimint fiat.

Guess California must not have a 'State Gubbimint' then since the Vehicle Code here specifically excludes human-powered conveyances from their definition of "vehicle."

And I think you'll find restrictions on that entitlement to a full lane in most jurisdictions.

Road Justice are a bunch of looney tunes that don't understand the hypocrisy of their position.

I'm sure they won't make much of an impact, but there are loonies in the world, so some will be drawn to it.