I care nothing one way or the other about bike boxes or any other specific bicycling facility, no matter what its provenance, but am disgusted by hysterical rhetoric about cyclist blood flowing in the streets from take-the-lane ideologues.
I not really sure a "truce" is what is exactly called for here. After all, if it is or ever was strict VC vs Bike lanes, VC has clearly lost. The momentum towards infrastructure is undeniable and the effectiveness of the added infrastructure in terms of increasing the numbers of people cycling and their relative safety is undeniable as well.
What seems to have emerged from the aftermath of the struggling between cyclists who were pro and con infrastructure is a new breed of "infrastructure contrarians". This new breed tends to inhabit areas with a high cyclist ratio, a fairly well established bike infrastructure and a thriving bike culture. And while those us who may not be blessed with such biking bounty would be happy with an occasional stripe of white paint or some sign that bikes belong these contrarians are disatisfied with the imperfections of what to the rest of the country would be a superior situation for cycling.
Now don't get me wrong, I have no issue with critiques of bike infrastructure that may lead to improvements but it is the whining pitch of the infrastructure contrarians. I agree with ILTB about the hysterical rhetoric and hyperbole that seems to surround every issue. The constant labeling and cries of "Copenhagenistas!" is exhausting and shuts down dialogue.
And frankly so much of it sounds like the trendy, hipster Starbucks crowd who throw a hissy fit when their latte isn't just so in world where half the human population would be happy with a clean drink of water once in a while.
There's no bicycle infrastructure here. (One 'window dressing' bike path. Rarely goes my way. Doesn't get a lot of other use) There's very few bicyclists at all. Some come and go. Most don't look like they're doing it by choice.
I don't need to worry about what improvements there might or might not be in our cycle infrastructure, because it ain't gonna happen. I'd give my right arm....No, wait..I've got plans for that...I'd give my neighbor's little barking rat-dog to have enough cyclists around here that we need to argue over this matter.
Didn't really mean to rant. Sorry. But for those of you who are in places where this actually is a concern, you're livin' the dream.
Since I live in a community where infrastructure decisions affect my transportation options as well as the options of my friends and family I have every right to be passionately engaged in this debate. Moreover, I think that labeling people you do not agree with as a "trendy, hipster Starbucks crowd who throw a hissy fit" is insulting and a very ironic example of pot calling kettle black.
Accusations of being a VCer (hi bekologist) or a "take the lane idealogue" (hi ILTB) are no different. I will continue to use the term copenhagenista since I believe its a succinct way to describe a particular point of view espoused by MC-A and his many fans.The constant labeling and cries of "Copenhagenistas!" is exhausting and shuts down dialogue.
So those who advocate for physically separated infrastructure are reasonable while those who advocate for conventional (DZfree) bike lanes are "contrarians"? Clearly buzzman is an unbiased participant...these contrarians are disatisfied with the imperfections of what to the rest of the country would be a superior situation for cycling
I personally view those who want VC to predominate and those who want physical separation to predominate as flip sides of the same coin. in my view, both points of view are anti-cycling and are grounded in an acceptance of our car-centric status quo.VC has clearly lost
Last edited by spare_wheel; 05-19-13 at 01:29 PM.
Last edited by Bekologist; 05-19-13 at 01:42 PM.
"Evidence, anecdote and methodology all support planning for roadway bike traffic."
I also don't think we have a real dispute between vc and bike lane proponents. I think the dispute is between a group of people who think all, or almost all, separated infrastructure is good and another, generally more experienced, group of people who support well-implemented infrastructure, separated or not, but would rather have nothing than use what they consider to be poorly done infrastructure.
By the way, what would you have us call copenhagenistas? That seemed to be a reasonably accurate and descriptive term that doesn't strike me as derogatory. While on the subject of labels, I kind of liked the one that John Forester placed on folks like genec and myself: traditional club cyclists. That would be folks who ride for fitness, recreation, events and maybe a bit of racing who add in commuting, utilitarian and touring because those are good excuses to ride. Of course, one can be a traditional club cyclist and a copenhagenista simultaneously, so maybe we need a different term.
Wow, neither do I.
Just as folks who drink lots of designer coffee develop strong opinions about what kind of coffee they prefer. I just think some perspective might occasionally be called for. After all, the thread is about a "truce". As I said in a previous post, I'm not sure a "truce" is exactly what's needed but certainly a toning down of the rhetoric and the name calling might be constructive to the dialogue. The finer points of designing infrastructure are undoubtedly important but the objective of more safe places for cyclists to ride seems to me a shared objective. Some attempt to accommodate cyclists with infrastructure is a welcome starting point as opposed to the complete lack of awareness and willingness to address cyclists' safety we see in some communities. This complete disregard of the needs of cyclists by some urban planners, traffic engineers and politicians seems worth a unified and passionate response by cycling "advocates" but the arm flapping histrionics and in-fighting among cyclists over cycling infrastructure, once its been accepted by a community, seems unnecessarily high pitched and counter productive to the overall objective.
Yeah, me too.Originally Posted by B.Carfree
Read some of my previous posts in BF regarding my long and on-going relationship with riding "vehicularly", something I have done on an almost daily basis for 43 years of adult cycling and will more than likely continue to do throughout my cycling life. My point was that "strict" VC, in other words- "we don't need no stinking bike lanes" has obviously lost the debate since bike infrastructure is being added and popularized in the US with some zeal.
The old argument of "if every one rides vehicularly then every road is a bike lane" is out dated and doesn't work. That does not preclude the effectiveness of riding vehicularly when necessary but hopefully, the polarization that attitude/philosophy contributed to in the cycling community could be put to rest. In the meantime, maybe we could tone down the rhetoric and the hyperbole around infrastructure design, implementation and maintenance and have open discussions allowing for diverse points of view so that the facilities serve as broad a range of the cycling community as possible while contributing to the overall improvement of the general transportation landscape.
Last edited by buzzman; 05-21-13 at 11:32 AM.