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 05-30-14, 11:50 AM   #126
John Forester
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Bikes:
Posts: 4,071
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by jputnam View Post
A right-of-way large enough to land a 737 doesn't have room for a bicycle path with a design speed of 18 mph?

I don't know what the value of pi is in your world, but it must be phenomenally large.
Like I told you in the earlier post, put up or shut up. Go tell the responsible government to clear the Westlake area as if for a landing strip and see how far that gets you. You seem to have no conception of the realities of life.
John Forester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-30-14, 12:31 PM   #127
kickstart 
Senior Member
 
kickstart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Kent Wa.
Bikes: 2005 Gazelle Golfo, 1935 Raleigh Sport, 1970 Robin Hood sport, 1974 Schwinn Continental, 1984 Ross MTB/porteur, 2013 Flying Piegon path racer, 2014 Gazelle Toer Populair T8
Posts: 4,722
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but as I understand the issue isn't so much space or terrain, its the amount of vehicle and pedestrian cross traffic that needs to be accommodated. Businesses have the right of reasonable access, there are also access requirements for the disabled, the desires of cyclists who want to ride fast isn't the only concern or consideration in this location.
kickstart is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-30-14, 12:45 PM   #128
wphamilton
rugged individualist
 
wphamilton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Alpharetta, GA
Bikes: Nashbar Road
Posts: 10,037
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 272 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Forester View Post
Your attitude is equivalent to that of some Mid-Western legislatures who declared that in their state pi=3.0. No matter what the statute says, it cannot be carried out....
Quote:
Originally Posted by jputnam View Post
... I don't know what the value of pi is in your world, but it must be phenomenally large.
You guys got me thinking. Your fight about pi makes me think maybe we really do need to re-think our assumptions of bikeways right from the basic principles.

Forester is only partly right about pi, and you were facetious but perhaps closer to right? Let me explain ... you said "in your world". Well, when we draw circles on the world we're drawing on the surface, and the radius is also measured on the surface. How else are you gonna do it, drill a tunnel? So it hit me: a circle around the equator has pi=2, since in "2 pi R" the "R" is one quarter of the Earth's circumference. Visualize the radius drawn from the north pole down to the equator on the surface. On the other hand a small circle drawn at latitude 89.9999, where the surface is flat for all practical purposes, would have the familiar value for pi. So a circle around each Latitude will have a different value of Pi, ranging from 2.0 to 3.1415926 .... if you're measuring a circle around the earth at that latitude.

I don't know about you, but I couldn't rest until I figured out what Pi really is in Indiana (it was the Indiana legislature that tried to make pi=3), and if it wasn't 3 there, where in the world is it 3? So I broke out the rusty Trig, and less head-scratching than I expected, and I think that Pi in Indiana at Latitude 40 is 2.7577. Not 3. So they missed after all. From there it's easy to figure that Pi is exactly 3 at a latitude of 60, which is in Alaska, not Indiana. Had it been an Alaska legislature they might have gotten away with it.

btw, I get Pi(latitude L) is [180/(90-L)]cos(L)

So if Pi varies on where you draw the circle, then maybe the best cycling infrastructure will also vary.

Last edited by wphamilton; 05-30-14 at 12:50 PM.
wphamilton is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-30-14, 02:21 PM   #129
John Forester
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Bikes:
Posts: 4,071
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by wphamilton View Post
You guys got me thinking. Your fight about pi makes me think maybe we really do need to re-think our assumptions of bikeways right from the basic principles.
Much skipped that's not relevant to cycling.
That is exactly correct. We now have two sets of bikeway designs, AASHTO and NACTO. The AASHTO bikeways were designed specifically to make motoring more convenient by preventing cyclists from delaying motorists. The NACTO bikeways were designed in a kind of unconscious manner (nothing specific there) to try to accommodate bicyclists without any level of traffic skill, just, as stated by one of the nation's experts (former president of ITE) for people who can stay up while riding a bicycle. Given that these are what we have, it should be easy to understand that we "need to re-think our assumptions of bikeways right from the basic principles."
John Forester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-30-14, 05:49 PM   #130
B. Carfree
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Eugene, Oregon
Bikes:
Posts: 6,302
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 86 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Forester View Post
That is exactly correct. We now have two sets of bikeway designs, AASHTO and NACTO. The AASHTO bikeways were designed specifically to make motoring more convenient by preventing cyclists from delaying motorists. The NACTO bikeways were designed in a kind of unconscious manner (nothing specific there) to try to accommodate bicyclists without any level of traffic skill, just, as stated by one of the nation's experts (former president of ITE) for people who can stay up while riding a bicycle. Given that these are what we have, it should be easy to understand that we "need to re-think our assumptions of bikeways right from the basic principles."
This may well be the first JF posting that even the segregationists can agree on. Well said Mr. Forester.
B. Carfree is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-30-14, 10:14 PM   #131
kickstart 
Senior Member
 
kickstart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Kent Wa.
Bikes: 2005 Gazelle Golfo, 1935 Raleigh Sport, 1970 Robin Hood sport, 1974 Schwinn Continental, 1984 Ross MTB/porteur, 2013 Flying Piegon path racer, 2014 Gazelle Toer Populair T8
Posts: 4,722
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by B. Carfree View Post
This may well be the first JF posting that even the segregationists can agree on. Well said Mr. Forester.
Yet you still feel the need to use derogatory labels about those who desire and support having a bike infrastructure where practical to offer options to those who rather not, or are unable to ride in congested high speed traffic.
It seems a real shame a few elitists and theorists feel compelled to try to shame everyone else into their way of thinking while having no respect for the needs and desires of others.
kickstart is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-30-14, 10:26 PM   #132
daihard 
Senior Member
 
daihard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Seattle, WA
Bikes: Trek, Cannondale
Posts: 1,878
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Forester View Post
The trouble with the proposed Westlake Ave path is that it runs through a parking lot that serves many businesses. As I wrote some days ago, this gives the designers the choice between running across much turning and crossing motor traffic or running across much pedestrian traffic. Neither of these functions is compatible with what anyone would consider to be a "well-designed bike path", by anybody's definition, especially not your hypothetical one.

Consider the Burke-Gilman trail in Seattle, running along the roadbed of a waterfront railroad without significant cross traffic (only a few lakefront residences). Nothing could be more like your hypothetical wonderful bike path, yet cycling along it at normal road speed is acutely dangerous, so dangerous that there are speed limit signs along it. My normal road-speed cycling along the Burke-Gilman trail, so highly praised for safety, aroused the ire of the LAB's board of directors in 1971: "You should never ride so dangerously!" Their own command proved the dangerous nature of the Burke-Gilman trail for experienced cyclists.

So, considering America's cycling population, the best facility that can be practical for Westlake is a path for slow cyclists and the roadway for faster cyclists.
I don't consider much of the Burke-Gilman trail "wonderful" at all. It is narrow, crosses streets with yield signs, has lots of bumps created by tree roots, etc. Sammamish River Trail is a lot better - with smoother pavement, wider tracks, no crossings with the streets, etc.

What do you propose the SDOT do in order to create a safe environment on the Westlake Ave roadway for the faster cyclists?
__________________

The value of your life doesn't change based on the way you travel. - Dawn Schellenberg (SDOT)
daihard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-30-14, 10:32 PM   #133
daihard 
Senior Member
 
daihard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Seattle, WA
Bikes: Trek, Cannondale
Posts: 1,878
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Forester View Post
Posted by daihard:
Badly-behaved cyclists are usually just cyclists with inadequate infrastructure. Or none at all. - Mikael Colville-Anderson

That's exactly the attitude and policy of America's motordom, saying that we require bikeways to control unlawful cyclists. Which is exactly the design policy for the original AASHTO bikeway standards. I was there at the creation; I knew what was being done. But then, that policy of needing bikeways to control unlawful cyclists was the logical result of motordom's prior policy of prohibiting cyclists from operating lawfully through the use of Far-to-the-Right laws and Mandatory-Path-Laws. By prohibiting cyclists from operating safely and lawfully, America's motordom (and that means a substantial majority of Americans) made proper cycling unlawful, with the natural result of producing a cycling population that knowingly and willingly disobeys the laws. Those who believe that often write to this discussion group. But there were always some who had discovered the benefits of obeying the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles; their opposition was to the laws making proper cycling unlawful while advocating that the method by which cyclists disobey American society should be by obeying the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles. Ironic, isn't it, that disobedience to society involved obeying the rules by which society regulated its own traffic.
I don't know what the attitude and policy of the American motordom is, but I'm pretty sure Mr Andersen did not intend to support it by saying the quoted sentence. As I understand it, he means to emphasize the necessity of "adequate bike infrastructure" so that the cyclists will not be forced to break the rules in order to ride safely.
__________________

The value of your life doesn't change based on the way you travel. - Dawn Schellenberg (SDOT)
daihard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-30-14, 11:17 PM   #134
jputnam
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
jputnam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Pacific, WA
Bikes: Custom 531ST touring, Bilenky Viewpoint, Bianchi Milano, vintage Condor racer
Posts: 1,261
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Forester View Post
Like I told you in the earlier post, put up or shut up. Go tell the responsible government to clear the Westlake area as if for a landing strip and see how far that gets you. You seem to have no conception of the realities of life.
The reality is that government agencies can't ignore the law just by whining that it's hard to follow. As the law stands, SDOT has three choices:

1. Design a facility that meets adopted standards.
2. Admit that they cannot meet mandatory standards, and go build something else.
3. Admit that they cannot meet mandatory standards, and get the City Council to waive the requirement that SDOT meet those standards.
jputnam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-14, 11:02 AM   #135
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 kickstart View Post
Yet you still feel the need to use derogatory labels...
Meh.

Search for the word "vehicular cyclist" on this board and you will find far more invective than the converse.
spare_wheel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-14, 11:08 AM   #136
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 daihard View Post
As I understand it, he means to emphasize the necessity of "adequate bike infrastructure" so that the cyclists will not be forced to break the rules in order to ride safely.
The Netherlands has higher levels of cycling and the highest level of "rule breaking" by cyclists I have ever experienced.
spare_wheel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-14, 06:24 PM   #137
John Forester
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Bikes:
Posts: 4,071
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by daihard View Post
I don't consider much of the Burke-Gilman trail "wonderful" at all. It is narrow, crosses streets with yield signs, has lots of bumps created by tree roots, etc. Sammamish River Trail is a lot better - with smoother pavement, wider tracks, no crossings with the streets, etc.

What do you propose the SDOT do in order to create a safe environment on the Westlake Ave roadway for the faster cyclists?
Need anything be done to make Westlake Ave safe for the faster cyclists? I haven't seen any evidence that such is required, and it probably isn't. But, I have not had the opportunity to go over it to see any particular problems as specific locations; so far as I know, it is just a normal street.
John Forester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-14, 06:39 PM   #138
John Forester
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Bikes:
Posts: 4,071
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by kickstart View Post
Yet you still feel the need to use derogatory labels about those who desire and support having a bike infrastructure where practical to offer options to those who rather not, or are unable to ride in congested high speed traffic.
It seems a real shame a few elitists and theorists feel compelled to try to shame everyone else into their way of thinking while having no respect for the needs and desires of others.
So far as I can understand, there are some bicycle advocates who call for segregating bicycle traffic from motor traffic. I see no insult in applying to them the words that they use themselves for themselves.

Should there be any shame in this discussion, as kickstart asserts? Well, yes, but for the opposite reason. The discussion would have been much quieter had motordom and its ally government not implemented the "segregationists'" program by force of laws that force all cyclists to ride in the segregationist manner, purely for the convenience of motorists. That's where the shame ought to be, in cyclists advocating that all cyclists ride in the manner that motorists want them to ride, using bikeway and Far-to-the-Right laws, and similar.
John Forester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-14, 06:43 PM   #139
B. Carfree
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Eugene, Oregon
Bikes:
Posts: 6,302
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 86 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by kickstart View Post
Yet you still feel the need to use derogatory labels about those who desire and support having a bike infrastructure ...
If you find the descriptive "segregationist" for those who support separating cyclists from the general roadway derogatory, then what term would you find acceptable?

People with this rather extreme attitude were previously called Copenhagenistas, but some objected to that term while still pining for the infrastructure of that city, so I no longer use it. When I asked those folks the same question, none of them came forward with an alternative, which left it to others to fill the void.
B. Carfree is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-14, 07:29 PM   #140
kickstart 
Senior Member
 
kickstart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Kent Wa.
Bikes: 2005 Gazelle Golfo, 1935 Raleigh Sport, 1970 Robin Hood sport, 1974 Schwinn Continental, 1984 Ross MTB/porteur, 2013 Flying Piegon path racer, 2014 Gazelle Toer Populair T8
Posts: 4,722
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Forester View Post
Need anything be done to make Westlake Ave safe for the faster cyclists? I haven't seen any evidence that such is required, and it probably isn't. But, I have not had the opportunity to go over it to see any particular problems as specific locations; so far as I know, it is just a normal street.
It is one of the few arterial and truck routes to west Seattle, the lanes are narrow, there's absolutely no shoulder, and no center turn lane. There is heavy through traffic, and substantial business and retail turning traffic. Add to that higher than normal pedestrian, recreational, and tourist use.
I have cycled, ridden and driven the area countless times, but I would not ride a bike on this section of Westlake, don't like riding a motorcycle on it, and even dislike driving a semi truck there, its a lousy road for all users.

Dexter is the next road over and accommodates fast, experienced riders, the current bike route is marginal but adequate for the young, old, and slow, and there's nothing preventing brave, or thoughtless cyclists from using Westlake Ave. So no, nothing "needs" to be done.
The project is simply trying to improve the riding experience of the average person on a bicycle, but apparently some "advocates" feel nothing is better than something if it doesn't meet their desires.

IMO. this is a situation where common sense, rather than textbooks or agendas need to be used.
kickstart is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-14, 07:34 PM   #141
kickstart 
Senior Member
 
kickstart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Kent Wa.
Bikes: 2005 Gazelle Golfo, 1935 Raleigh Sport, 1970 Robin Hood sport, 1974 Schwinn Continental, 1984 Ross MTB/porteur, 2013 Flying Piegon path racer, 2014 Gazelle Toer Populair T8
Posts: 4,722
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by B. Carfree View Post
If you find the descriptive "segregationist" for those who support separating cyclists from the general roadway derogatory, then what term would you find acceptable?

People with this rather extreme attitude were previously called Copenhagenistas, but some objected to that term while still pining for the infrastructure of that city, so I no longer use it. When I asked those folks the same question, none of them came forward with an alternative, which left it to others to fill the void.
Since the overwhelming majority of people who ride bicycles want and use bike facilities, perhaps it would be more productive to label the small minority against them.
kickstart is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-14, 08:54 PM   #142
John Forester
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Bikes:
Posts: 4,071
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by kickstart View Post
It is one of the few arterial and truck routes to west Seattle, the lanes are narrow, there's absolutely no shoulder, and no center turn lane. There is heavy through traffic, and substantial business and retail turning traffic. Add to that higher than normal pedestrian, recreational, and tourist use.
I have cycled, ridden and driven the area countless times, but I would not ride a bike on this section of Westlake, don't like riding a motorcycle on it, and even dislike driving a semi truck there, its a lousy road for all users.

Dexter is the next road over and accommodates fast, experienced riders, the current bike route is marginal but adequate for the young, old, and slow, and there's nothing preventing brave, or thoughtless cyclists from using Westlake Ave. So no, nothing "needs" to be done.
The project is simply trying to improve the riding experience of the average person on a bicycle, but apparently some "advocates" feel nothing is better than something if it doesn't meet their desires.

IMO. this is a situation where common sense, rather than textbooks or agendas need to be used.
I have not written that the proposed Westlake path should not be built. I have only stated, although perhaps indirectly, that it cannot reasonably be built with a high design speed. Since there appear to be many who want such a path, then let it be built.
John Forester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-14, 08:57 PM   #143
John Forester
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Bikes:
Posts: 4,071
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by kickstart View Post
Since the overwhelming majority of people who ride bicycles want and use bike facilities, perhaps it would be more productive to label the small minority against them.
Both sides have their names, and such naming is necessary for speedy discussion. You cannot consider that the segregationists could be called the American cyclists, which appears to be your desire.
John Forester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-14, 11:09 PM   #144
kickstart 
Senior Member
 
kickstart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Kent Wa.
Bikes: 2005 Gazelle Golfo, 1935 Raleigh Sport, 1970 Robin Hood sport, 1974 Schwinn Continental, 1984 Ross MTB/porteur, 2013 Flying Piegon path racer, 2014 Gazelle Toer Populair T8
Posts: 4,722
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Forester View Post
I have not written that the proposed Westlake path should not be built. I have only stated, although perhaps indirectly, that it cannot reasonably be built with a high design speed. Since there appear to be many who want such a path, then let it be built.
I'm sure most would prefer that it be built to ideal specifications, but apparently that may not be possible, and seemingly some have chosen to ignore the fact that the desires of the cycling community are not the only legitimate consideration in this high use area.

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Forester View Post
Both sides have their names, and such naming is necessary for speedy discussion. You cannot consider that the segregationists could be called the American cyclists, which appears to be your desire.
Walking, cycling, and driving are 3 distinct forms of transportation with different advantages and limitations. All can use many roads in harmony with a little mutual cooperation, but on some roads well designed sidewalks and bike facilities make their use safer, more convenient, and enjoyable for all users in the real world, that's not something that deserves a derogatory label because its simply common sense.

Derogatory labels should be saved for those who make unreasonable or unrealistic demands, and offering the option of good bike facilities isn't unreasonable or unrealistic.
kickstart is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-14, 11:23 PM   #145
daihard 
Senior Member
 
daihard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Seattle, WA
Bikes: Trek, Cannondale
Posts: 1,878
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by kickstart View Post
I'm sure most would prefer that it be built to ideal specifications, but apparently that may not be possible, and seemingly some have chosen to ignore the fact that the desires of the cycling community are not the only legitimate consideration in this high use area.
As far as I know, the only group that is opposed to such a cycle track is that of the business owners in that area who say they rely on the public parking lot owned by Seattle to lure their customers. I personally don't see why it is legitimate to cater to their demands, which to me are unreasonable.
__________________

The value of your life doesn't change based on the way you travel. - Dawn Schellenberg (SDOT)
daihard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-14, 11:33 PM   #146
daihard 
Senior Member
 
daihard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Seattle, WA
Bikes: Trek, Cannondale
Posts: 1,878
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Forester View Post
Need anything be done to make Westlake Ave safe for the faster cyclists? I haven't seen any evidence that such is required, and it probably isn't. But, I have not had the opportunity to go over it to see any particular problems as specific locations; so far as I know, it is just a normal street.
Doesn't it qualify as evidence that a majority of the cyclists who take Westlake ride through the parking lot instead of the street itself? To me, it clearly shows that Westlake is considered by many, if not all, cyclists to be too dangerous to ride on. Faster or slower, people want to be able to cycle safely, and from what I know, Westlake doesn't let you do that in its current form.
__________________

The value of your life doesn't change based on the way you travel. - Dawn Schellenberg (SDOT)
daihard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-01-14, 09:18 AM   #147
John Forester
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Bikes:
Posts: 4,071
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by daihard View Post
Doesn't it qualify as evidence that a majority of the cyclists who take Westlake ride through the parking lot instead of the street itself? To me, it clearly shows that Westlake is considered by many, if not all, cyclists to be too dangerous to ride on. Faster or slower, people want to be able to cycle safely, and from what I know, Westlake doesn't let you do that in its current form.
I regard your statement as one more piece of evidence demonstrating the undeniable fact that the American public know nothing about cyclist traffic safety.
John Forester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-01-14, 09:56 AM   #148
daihard 
Senior Member
 
daihard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Seattle, WA
Bikes: Trek, Cannondale
Posts: 1,878
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Forester View Post
I regard your statement as one more piece of evidence demonstrating the undeniable fact that the American public know nothing about cyclist traffic safety.
Do you have any tips and information to share with regard to cyclist traffic safety, then? I get the impression that you talk about theories and politics but don't offer practical advice or solutions.
__________________

The value of your life doesn't change based on the way you travel. - Dawn Schellenberg (SDOT)
daihard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-01-14, 10:57 AM   #149
John Forester
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Bikes:
Posts: 4,071
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by daihard View Post
Do you have any tips and information to share with regard to cyclist traffic safety, then? I get the impression that you talk about theories and politics but don't offer practical advice or solutions.
The first edition of Effective Cycling came out in 1976. The seventh edition came out last year. See The MIT Press.
John Forester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-01-14, 12:18 PM   #150
CrankyOne
Senior Member
 
CrankyOne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Bikes:
Posts: 1,891
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 42 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Forester View Post
I don't know how serious you are. There has been much discussion of these issues, much of it in this group. And I think, though I have not mastered them, there are ways to search the records of this group for given subjects. But if all you want is a short answer about the initial Dutch experience with mass motoring, there is a video available under the title How the Dutch Got Their Bikeways.
John, can you please explain to me what the video and the Dutch experience with motoring has to do with why you believe we should all be vehicular cyclists? I'll reiterate, our roadways have 3 times the fatality rate as The Netherlands. The Dutch do not believe their roadways are safe enough for bicyclists, but you believe that ours, which are 3 times as dangerous, are?
CrankyOne 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 10:56 PM.