Cyclosaurus

It's a lame point to argue that "cyclists got the roads paved". Really it just reinforces the idea that one group or another has primary claim to the roads. It is an interesting historical footnote (to whatever degree it's true), nothing more. That said, understanding that mankind throughout its entire history has had a radically different idea of what roads and streets were up until the 20th century is useful in that it can help inform a vision for what roads could be. It's helpful to understand the process of how we went from a society in which everyone had equal right and expectation to use the roads to one in which all users except motor vehicles are, at best, secondary (as kickstart himself puts it). It helps because most people think of the current state as the Natural Order Of Things (and therefore somehow immutable) and really it's just a choice that society made that can be changed.

kickstart

The only thing I'm ridiculing is the nonsense of fabricated "history" as a justification to "take back the roads" that some simple minded enthusiasts who proclaim to be advocates spew.

When the user split in most areas is 98% Vs. 2% its also ridicules to suggest that anything anything less than equal access is "tyranny", or "might over right". Real advocacy is about making roads safe, accessible, and efficient for all users, not some sort of pointless feel good parity that serves no purpose other than feed the vanity of enthusiast advocates.

"Primary" and "secondary" are simply an honest observation of statistical usage, not a description of the user. Its pretty sad that some quantify their character by their vehicle choice, and consider facts as a personal attack. If we don't want to be treated as needy children, we shouldn't act like one.

Cyclosaurus

User split doesn't matter. Even if only 2% of the users of the roads are not motor vehicles, those users should not be treated as if they are "in the way" of the 98%. If that were the case, we wouldn't need civil rights, ADA, etc. Our legal system recognizes that minorities have the same rights as the majority.

You can call primary and secondary as just an "observation", but I don't buy it one bit. Based on your posts, it appears you (like many people who don't know better) think of roads as "for" motor vehicles, with everyone else as an afterthought that can squeeze in wherever cars graciously leave them space to exist. Words like primary and secondary contribute to the mindset. Language is often the tip of the spear when it comes to cultural or political change, for good or bad.

daihard 

That's a good point. Unfortunately, I don't think @kickstart is an exception in thinking that the roads are mainly for the cars. Some argue that the "share the road" motto implies that the motorists share "their" roads with others as an act of kindness.

unterhausen

I don't think this is a fruitful argument as posed. However, one thing I have started to recognize is that we have, for no particularly good reason, gone to a system where everything is designed for cars. This is fine on an interstate, but we should be fairly careful where we put those. Every road doesn't have to be designed like an interstate, and if we do build a high-cost arterial, the other roads should give more emphasis on alternate uses.

kickstart

For those with poor cognitive skills, I do not believe "roads are for cars", please don't transfer your insecurities on to me. My point is simply that esoteric utopia ideologies serve no useful purpose in the real world where we are competing for limited space and resources.

Cyclosaurus

Please. You cast yourself as the adult in the room full of children, but it's not true. You just lack imagination, which apparently you confuse as immaturity in others.

daihard 

I honestly think it's more like your poor presentation skills. When you mentioned "primary" and "secondary" road users, it certainly gave me the impression that you considered roads to be mainly (i.e. "primarily") for cars. It may be true for the interstate/state highways and multi-lane arterial roads, but the non-arterial and residential roads should be mainly for those who use other modes of transport.

kickstart

I don't believe roads should be " mainly for cars", that's just how it has worked out. So should advocacy be about personal idologies, or practical solutions?

noglider 

Roads are for the people, in the vehicle of their choice.

Cyclosaurus

There, there, little one. It's just that you apparently can't see a practical solution other than what already exists. Some of us can make special "pictures in our mind" that let us think of possibilities that haven't happened yet. It's never too late to start trying though!

hotbike

I still have not read the book, but I'm guessing the author was reacting to those motorists who ride in the gutter, startle the cyclist, and then shout "Roads were built for cars!". Funny, every other motorist passes seven to ten feet to the left of my bike.
A rear view mirror seems to eliminate the chance of a driver "startling" a cyclist... And I question whether the motorist intends to match anger-for-anger, or if he is just play-acting anger, or if he is mistaking "being startled" for anger...
And 99% of motorists continue past, with two or three meters of clearance.

I still need to read the book , I was just letting everyone know about the press release announcing the book. Maybe it should be called "1001 witty comebacks to motorists who shout: 'I own the road!'" , Hmm?

daihard 

To me, practical solutions must follow the recognition of a problem, and the problem here is how "it has worked out." In other words, all roads are considered to be mainly for cars. That has to change.

Fortunately, the change has started to occur, albeit slowly. As you probably know, Seattle stared to implement "greenways" in its neighbourhoods. Parkade-like streets (such as Bell St in downtown) are another step forward. We should also push for lower speed limits (and strict enforcement) on residential streets. "Vision Zero" has those plans in its agenda.

RR3

Does this argument apply to all inanimate objects? Naturally I am thinking of the word we are not allowed to use.

Newly constructed road designs do not seem to consider cyclists from a design perspective in my limited experiences. They were designed for cars. Period. Right? Of course this varies state by state. The attitudes of the 98% are the problem. I only have a significant concern when "they" intentionally run me off the road and try to kill me, especially when they circle back for a mulligan.

I try to stay to the old horse and buggy roads to avoid confrontations.

I have contemplated commuting but the route would be so tortured and I would have to take too many risks with my life to justify it.

I-Like-To-Bike

Even if the actual/historic/preferred useage is 98%+ only one type of transport and not some "other mode"?

kickstart

What I do see is what intelligent, logical advocacy can achieve as shown by what is being done in Seattle. I simply don't understand why some feel compelled to derail proven success with foolishness.

I-Like-To-Bike

A raised middle finger and/or a shouted epithet would be just as "witty," equally applicable, equally well thought out, and most importantly have as little positive influence on anybody. Some kinda advocacy, eh?

daihard 

In my opinion, yes.

kickstart

If we could make some motorists and cyclists understand this simple truth we'd be doing great, but some feel compelled to twist the truth in an attempt to make that choice for others

I-Like-To-Bike

You are entitled to your opinion that streets and roads should be mainly for the less than 2% of the people who might use your preferred alternative transport mode.

Don't expect that brand of advocacy or setting of priorities to gain much traction except with imaginative ideologues.

daihard 

No worries. Seattle has already been on the bandwagon, building more greenways and parkade-like streets in neighbourhoods. Their "Vision Zero" initiative also plans to lower the speed limits on many of its streets, including the arterial roads, so people who choose to walk or bike can use them more safely. My advocacy is safety for all road users regardless of the mode of transport. Glad I live in the city that agrees with me.

I-Like-To-Bike

Will Seattle will reach the wonderful carfree days formerly experienced on the Lower East Side of NYC? Now this is a street mainly for the alternate transportation mode.

daihard 

Some streets are already mainly for people who walk or bike. I hope more streets will be like that in the near future.

kickstart

Seattle is doing a good job of accommodating all users without resorting to the nonsense referred to in this threads topic. Hopefully the wingnuts will continue to be ignored so real progress can be made.

spare_wheel

2%?
Risable.

Active transport and public transport users hugely subsidize the construction and maintenance of urban roads designed for and by fanatical proponents of low-occupancy motorized-vehicle use.