Cycling and bicycle discussion forums. 
   Click here to join our community Log in to access your Control Panel  


Go Back   > >

Advocacy & Safety Cyclists should expect and demand safe accommodation on every public road, just as do all other users. Discuss your bicycle advocacy and safety concerns here.

User Tag List

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 05-18-13, 03:15 PM   #26
spare_wheel
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: NA
Bikes: NA
Posts: 4,281
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by FBinNY View Post
Yo! Chill! The title of this thread is "Truce in the ‘bike lanes vs vehicular cycling’ fight?"
You are right. I am dropping my outrage meter down 4 notches...
spare_wheel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-18-13, 03:35 PM   #27
spare_wheel
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: NA
Bikes: NA
Posts: 4,281
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bekologist View Post
we've both pretty moderate about facilities, that's why i'm so amazed spare wheel has to scathe about 'separation' so much.
I think we really do disagree about the details. That being said, this argument has got to be weird to those in parts of the USA where cycling mode share is 0.5%. Sort of like a "first world problem".
spare_wheel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-18-13, 05:03 PM   #28
I-Like-To-Bike
Been Around Awhile
 
I-Like-To-Bike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Burlington Iowa
Bikes: Vaterland and Ragazzi
Posts: 23,715
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by spare_wheel View Post
evidently you will also not bother to "search for" the portland bureau of tranportation data i quoted above. well here it is again, ILTB: "there were a total of 16 bicycle-involved right-hook collisions at the 11 intersections."
You were ranting (using hysterical rhetoric) about cyclist deaths, Your quote refers to an increased number of "collisions", not deaths. There is a difference.

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-Like-To-Bike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-18-13, 05:22 PM   #29
spare_wheel
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: NA
Bikes: NA
Posts: 4,281
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by I-Like-To-Bike View Post
but am disgusted by hysterical rhetoric about cyclist blood flowing in the streets from take-the-lane ideologues.
*i am not a take the lane ideologue.
*cyclist blood did flow on the streets adjacent to a bike box on several occasions.
*even the city of portland came to the conclusion that there was a serious safety problem with bike boxes.
spare_wheel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-19-13, 10:38 AM   #30
buzzman
----
 
buzzman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Newton, MA
Bikes:
Posts: 4,570
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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.
buzzman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-19-13, 11:05 AM   #31
bluegoatwoods
Senior Member
 
bluegoatwoods's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Central Illinois
Bikes:
Posts: 686
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by spare_wheel View Post
I think we really do disagree about the details. That being said, this argument has got to be weird to those in parts of the USA where cycling mode share is 0.5%. Sort of like a "first world problem".
Count me in!

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.
bluegoatwoods is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-19-13, 01:12 PM   #32
spare_wheel
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: NA
Bikes: NA
Posts: 4,281
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by buzzman View Post
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.
So the reason that Germany decided to decommission cycle tracks and install bike lanes was due to a small number of trendy hipsters who drink Starbucks?


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.


Quote:
The constant labeling and cries of "Copenhagenistas!" is exhausting and shuts down dialogue.
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.


Quote:
these contrarians are disatisfied with the imperfections of what to the rest of the country would be a superior situation for cycling
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...


Quote:
VC has clearly lost
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.

Last edited by spare_wheel; 05-19-13 at 01:29 PM.
spare_wheel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-19-13, 01:38 PM   #33
Bekologist
totally louche
 
Bekologist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: A land that time forgot
Bikes: the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes
Posts: 18,025
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by buzzman View Post
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.
Great write up of the situation, buzzman. The infrastructure contrarians contribute a fair amount of the hyperbolic static around Bike Forums. It's funny, they do tend to live in places where there's a lot of people bicycling, that bike because their cities have taken great aims to encourage bicycling.

Last edited by Bekologist; 05-19-13 at 01:42 PM.
Bekologist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-19-13, 02:00 PM   #34
spare_wheel
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: NA
Bikes: NA
Posts: 4,281
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bekologist View Post
Great write up of the situation, buzzman. The infrastructure contrarians contribute a fair amount of the hyperbolic static around Bike Forums. It's funny, they do tend to live in places where there's a lot of people bicycling, that bike because their cities have taken great aims to encourage bicycling.
I don't think its at all surprising that people who are exposed to bike infrastructure would develop strong opinions about which types of infrastructure they prefer...
spare_wheel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-19-13, 08:16 PM   #35
B. Carfree
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Eugene, Oregon
Bikes:
Posts: 6,271
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 75 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by buzzman View Post
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...
If vehicular cycling is a lost cause, it does seem strange to me that I must employ vc techniques for the overwhelming majority of the many miles I ride, and likely will need to continue doing so for the remainder of my life. We're just not likely to build bike-specific infrastructure to everywhere, or even to a significant majority of places, in any of our lifetimes. Please note that it's not like I have been living in an infrastructure desert since I resided in Davis for over twenty years and then came to Eugene. Both cities have a fair amount of bike-specific infrastructure and some of it is well done.

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.
B. Carfree is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-21-13, 11:16 AM   #36
buzzman
----
 
buzzman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Newton, MA
Bikes:
Posts: 4,570
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by spare_wheel View Post
I don't think its at all surprising that people who are exposed to bike infrastructure would develop strong opinions about which types of infrastructure they prefer...

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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by B.Carfree
If vehicular cycling is a lost cause, it does seem strange to me that I must employ vc techniques for the overwhelming majority of the many miles I ride, and likely will need to continue doing so for the remainder of my life.
Yeah, me too.

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.
buzzman is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:41 AM.