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 06-02-14, 09:53 PM   #176
daihard 
Senior Member
 
daihard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Seattle, WA
Bikes: Trek, Cannondale
Posts: 1,899
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Forester View Post
I am curious as to why you chose to phrase the above statement as you did. American policy about bicycle facilities is to design them to suit the popular taste; it is the dedicated enthusiasts who don't like bikeways.
What is your definition of the "dedicated enthusiasts"?
__________________

The value of your life doesn't change based on the way you travel. - Dawn Schellenberg (SDOT)
daihard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-14, 10:15 PM   #177
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: 4,724
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Forester View Post
I am curious as to why you chose to phrase the above statement as you did. American policy about bicycle facilities is to design them to suit the popular taste; it is the dedicated enthusiasts who don't like bikeways.
Because in my daily observations, virtually all cyclists I see across the whole spectrum of skill levels use bike facilities when present. Typically public facilities are built to best serve the majority with consideration for the the whole community. Motorsport enthusiasts, and runners don't like public roads either, its not a unique concept, all public projects are exercises in compromise.

So, can you share some constructive, realistic suggestions that would be beneficial to the project making it useful for the greatest number of users, and make transportation cycling more attractive to the non enthusiast, instead of pontificating the rhetoric of your philosophies?

The topic of the thread is the Westlake cycle track project.
kickstart is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-14, 11:02 PM   #178
genec
genec
 
genec's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: West Coast
Bikes: custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2
Posts: 24,967
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 852 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Forester View Post
This is not so. NYC, Boston, Philadelphia, San Francisco, Chicago, Oakland, Los Angeles, all were streetcar (rail) cities before 1900. It is correct that these cities, some more than others, rebuilt parts of themselves to accommodate automobile traffic. Genec thinks that I say that urban changes cannot be made; that's his ideological problem. I do say that significant urban change requires large economic forces to drive it. The economic effects of mass motoring plus significant urban growth were sufficient to cause these inner-city changes and to ensure that the newer areas got built to suit mass motoring. What I also say is that the puny efforts of bicycle activists are entirely too small to accomplish anything as significant as done by these other changes in transportation mode.
John, why were the substantial changes made to La Jolla Blvd in the Bird Rock area near San Diego... do you really think "significant urban changes with large economic forces" were the driving factor?

Why are buffered bike lanes now being installed all over San Diego on high speed roads... again what forces do you believe are driving those changes?

What about the 56 bike path? Again what drove the substantial investment to create that path?

These are all changes that happened in your local area... to serve those "puny cyclists." And those are just a few examples of changes that can be observed just minutes from your home.
genec is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-03-14, 11:31 AM   #179
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
What is your definition of the "dedicated enthusiasts"?
I was replying to kickstart's statement that bikeways should be built for all users not just the "dedicated enthusiasts". Certainly, that is an ambiguous phrase; I really don't know to which group kickstart was referring. I have presume, from the logic of his statement, that he meant bikeway advocates, but that doesn't make much sense. For me, dedicated cycling enthusiasts refers to those who enjoy cycling in all of its phases and who care for the welfare of such persons. These are the people I have cycled with all my cycling life.
John Forester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-03-14, 11:34 AM   #180
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
Because in my daily observations, virtually all cyclists I see across the whole spectrum of skill levels use bike facilities when present. Typically public facilities are built to best serve the majority with consideration for the the whole community. Motorsport enthusiasts, and runners don't like public roads either, its not a unique concept, all public projects are exercises in compromise.

So, can you share some constructive, realistic suggestions that would be beneficial to the project making it useful for the greatest number of users, and make transportation cycling more attractive to the non enthusiast, instead of pontificating the rhetoric of your philosophies?

The topic of the thread is the Westlake cycle track project.
I repeat what I have written before. The proposed facility is what the public wants, so build it. I suppose that it is better to ride among the parking lot traffic than among the pedestrians, which appear to be the two options available.
John Forester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-03-14, 12:00 PM   #181
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 genec View Post
John, why were the substantial changes made to La Jolla Blvd in the Bird Rock area near San Diego... do you really think "significant urban changes with large economic forces" were the driving factor?

Why are buffered bike lanes now being installed all over San Diego on high speed roads... again what forces do you believe are driving those changes?

What about the 56 bike path? Again what drove the substantial investment to create that path?

These are all changes that happened in your local area... to serve those "puny cyclists." And those are just a few examples of changes that can be observed just minutes from your home.
I had just described the changes in urban form produced by the changes from walking to streetcar to automotive cities, to which I added: " What I also say is that the puny efforts of bicycle activists are entirely too small to accomplish anything as significant as done by these other changes in transportation mode."

Apparently Genec claims that his three examples demonstrate such significant urban change as, for example, the change from streetcar to automotive cities.

1: The work along La Jolla Blvd was a general traffic improvement project, changing from orthogonal intersections to roundabouts. That did not change the urban form to any extent, because it was done within the existing street pattern and size, and this kind of change is desired by both motorists and some cyclists (some cyclists are opposed to roundabouts).

2: Buffered bike lanes: Buffered bike lanes are just an attempt to correct some errors in the bike-lane concept. Certainly, they are advocated by bicycle advocates, but they involve little cost (the most being, sometimes, loss of a motor vehicle lane) and make no change in the urban pattern.

3: The bike path alongside Freeway Cal 56: This bike path keeps cyclists off the new 56 freeway, and everybody knows that both motorists and government want to keep cyclists off freeways. The cost was minimal, being inside the freeway right-of-way in undeveloped territory.

None of these examples demonstrates even an tendency to amplify bicycle transportation in the way that the streetcar and automobile amplified personal transportation and thereby changed urban form.
John Forester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-03-14, 12:46 PM   #182
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: 4,724
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Forester View Post
I was replying to kickstart's statement that bikeways should be built for all users not just the "dedicated enthusiasts". Certainly, that is an ambiguous phrase; I really don't know to which group kickstart was referring. I have presume, from the logic of his statement, that he meant bikeway advocates, but that doesn't make much sense. For me, dedicated cycling enthusiasts refers to those who enjoy cycling in all of its phases and who care for the welfare of such persons. These are the people I have cycled with all my cycling life.
When I say "dedicated enthusiast", that would be someone who is focused on cycling, has a high level of riding skills and athletic ability, rather than those who simply ride for transportation, exercise, or recreation, and cycling isn't a primary interest.
kickstart is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-03-14, 02:08 PM   #183
genec
genec
 
genec's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: West Coast
Bikes: custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2
Posts: 24,967
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 852 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Forester View Post
I had just described the changes in urban form produced by the changes from walking to streetcar to automotive cities, to which I added: " What I also say is that the puny efforts of bicycle activists are entirely too small to accomplish anything as significant as done by these other changes in transportation mode."

Apparently Genec claims that his three examples demonstrate such significant urban change as, for example, the change from streetcar to automotive cities.

1: The work along La Jolla Blvd was a general traffic improvement project, changing from orthogonal intersections to roundabouts. That did not change the urban form to any extent, because it was done within the existing street pattern and size, and this kind of change is desired by both motorists and some cyclists (some cyclists are opposed to roundabouts).

2: Buffered bike lanes: Buffered bike lanes are just an attempt to correct some errors in the bike-lane concept. Certainly, they are advocated by bicycle advocates, but they involve little cost (the most being, sometimes, loss of a motor vehicle lane) and make no change in the urban pattern.

3: The bike path alongside Freeway Cal 56: This bike path keeps cyclists off the new 56 freeway, and everybody knows that both motorists and government want to keep cyclists off freeways. The cost was minimal, being inside the freeway right-of-way in undeveloped territory.

None of these examples demonstrates even an tendency to amplify bicycle transportation in the way that the streetcar and automobile amplified personal transportation and thereby changed urban form.
Guess John missed the part where I said that "these are just a few examples..." Oh well. Back to sleep John.
genec is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-03-14, 02:33 PM   #184
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: 4,724
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by genec View Post
Guess John missed the part where I said that "these are just a few examples..." Oh well. Back to sleep John.
It seems to be like debating evolution with a creationists, if something doesn't fit their theology they ignore it or say its the work of the devil.
kickstart is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-03-14, 03:07 PM   #185
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 genec View Post
Guess John missed the part where I said that "these are just a few examples..." Oh well. Back to sleep John.
Genec claims that there is lots of A going on, and offers three examples to demonstrate it. However, none of his examples are examples of A. Therefore, there has been no presentation of any evidence that lots of A is going on. That's simple logic.
John Forester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-03-14, 06:14 PM   #186
genec
genec
 
genec's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: West Coast
Bikes: custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2
Posts: 24,967
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 852 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by kickstart View Post
It seems to be like debating evolution with a creationists, if something doesn't fit their theology they ignore it or say its the work of the devil.
Amen.

I think John expects me to list all the somewhat recent changes in town and how and why they improve life for cyclists...

But if he would just get out there and ride, he might even see for himself such items as the complete Bayshore Bikeway, the bike parking corrals in North Park, the Mike Gotch Memorial Bridge in Mission Bay, the Lake Hodges Bridge... and others, just to name but a few more examples.
genec is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-04-14, 05:18 PM   #187
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 genec View Post
Amen.

I think John expects me to list all the somewhat recent changes in town and how and why they improve life for cyclists...

But if he would just get out there and ride, he might even see for himself such items as the complete Bayshore Bikeway, the bike parking corrals in North Park, the Mike Gotch Memorial Bridge in Mission Bay, the Lake Hodges Bridge... and others, just to name but a few more examples.
The discussion started with my statement that the streetcar and automotive revolutions each made enormous changes to the urban form. Each of these changes occurred because the change in transportation unleashed enormous economic forces. I then remarked that I thought that it is entirely unlikely that the puny forces available to bicycle advocates would be able to produce an equivalent change. The change from walking to streetcar city increased the power of downtown by bringing in customers and employees through the radial arms of the rail system. The change from streetcar city to automotive city greatly reduced the power of downtown, filled in the areas between the radial rail arms, decentralized economic activity, and greatly enlarged the area. I repeat, I don't expect that any probable bicycle revolution will make such significant changes, such as, for example, a great increase in central urban density because of the short-distance nature of bicycle transportation.

Genec ignores the discussion and writes that I am ignoring all the "recent changes in town and how and why they improve life for cyclists". I simply point out that none of these examples shows that it is on the road to producing such massive changes in urban form. I Genec thinks otherwise, then it is up to him to demonstrate his case.
John Forester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-04-14, 07:40 PM   #188
daihard 
Senior Member
 
daihard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Seattle, WA
Bikes: Trek, Cannondale
Posts: 1,899
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by kickstart View Post
When I say "dedicated enthusiast", that would be someone who is focused on cycling, has a high level of riding skills and athletic ability, rather than those who simply ride for transportation, exercise, or recreation, and cycling isn't a primary interest.
Thanks. If that's the case, those "dedicated enthusiasts" do not, and IMO should not, represent the general cycling population. Now, going back on topic - the Westlake cycle track, the issue I have with the proposal is that it wouldn't even cater to the general cycling population, many of whom are capable of riding safely above 10 MPH (at least in my opinion). That would prevent many of the "general" cyclists from using the track, which would beat the purpose of the project.

The dedicated enthusiasts may not need bike infrastructure to ride safely, but they are a very small minority just like highly-skilled and passionate drivers are a very small minority of the entire motorist population. The vast majority of cyclists - commuters, recreational/fitness riders, tourers, etc - would benefit from well-designed bike infrastructure.
__________________

The value of your life doesn't change based on the way you travel. - Dawn Schellenberg (SDOT)
daihard 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 09:01 PM.