In the old days, that was the way everyone rode. Almost no one rode on the streets, they crept along about 6 mph's and walked accross intersections. Then again life was simpler then. Traffic was more considerate and a pedestrian in a crossing zone had the right of way.
Heck. Not only would the driver stop for you. He would smile and wish you well. Now he smiles and offers you a middle finger.
Yeah, back in the day, the auto was a stately piece of machine that cruised down the lane with the windows rolled down and the owner enjoying the whole scene.
Today the auto is a performance race car equipped with seatbelts, air bags, fuel injection, entertainment systems and air conditioning. The driver often has no connection except visual to the environment they are in. The outside temp could drop 20-30 degrees and the driver might not even notice it... Sirens can go off and the driver could be totally oblivious... and perhaps even further distracted by a phone call...
Yup it's different today.
The BikeForums Team
-adv-
This is an archived thread, you can find the full version of this thread, with images, links and more content here.
In the old days, that was the way everyone rode. Almost no one rode on the streets, they crept along about 6 mph's and walked accross intersections.
Huh? In the old days, the streets were built for the bicycle.
powers2b
That's very gracious of you. Might I suggest you offer another service too? How about offer to teach her how to cycle properly on the roads and in traffic. Many people choose to ride on the sidewalk because they are afraid of the roads. I'm not saying she shouldn't be allowed to ride on the sidewalk but with all this talk of choice, perhaps it's best to make sure she knows she has a choice. She may choose to pass on your offer though and that would be okay too.
We have LCI's on staff at OCBC.
I'll let the pros handle the teaching.
I'm a bouncer not a teacher.
Enjoy
Rowan
Huh? In the old days, the streets were built for the bicycle.
Well, no. They were built for horses and carts and humans. Their upgrade later was at the behest of bicycle riders, except in Europe, but that's a whole other story.
khuon
Well, no. They were built for horses and carts and humans.
You're right. I should have said paved streets.
steel_is_real
This is stereotyping. There are many 75-plus riders out there fully competent and capable of riding with traffic... and TTs and road races.
I agree, but we're talking about people who are not fully competent
FotoTomas
Go Carol Go. Sidewalk is fine for her and her circumstance. :)
JohnBrooking
Carol is 58 years young and still riding a bike!
Send her to the Ohio City Bike Co-op.
I will personally give her a bike checkup.
I will also bounce anyone that hassles her for riding on the sidewalk.
I would do that, except I don't really want to tell her that I started a topic devoted exclusively to her with a bunch of strangers on an Internet discussion forum! :o
Well, strangers to her, at least... :love:
LittleBigMan
Forget all the warm-and-fuzzy feelings about Carol's sidewalk cycling. I don't support Carol's sidewalk cycling because I think it could get her injured.
She won't feel warm and fuzzy in the hospital. If you think that's harsh, it might be. But so is being hit by a car.
Rowan
LBM, I think Carol has been doing this for a long time. Perhaps longer than some of us who have been cycling (I may, however, have misread the thread).
Your assertion that it is not as safe on the sidewalk as on the street may well be disproved by her own safety record... maybe of no accidents or injuries at all on the sidewalk.
Your's is sounding like a fundamentalist argument. There are no absolutes here.
One of the anomolies of all this is that we approve of children riding on footpaths up to a certain age, yet disapprove of adults doing the same (provided they behave as wheeled pedestrians, of course).
We use an excuse for children their inexperience and inability to make what we consider appropriate judgements in traffic. If this woman has an intellectual disability, as suggested, what puts her apart from children in this case?
LittleBigMan
LBM, I think Carol has been doing this for a long time. Perhaps longer than some of us who have been cycling (I may, however, have misread the thread).
Your assertion that it is not as safe on the sidewalk as on the street may well be disproved by her own safety record... maybe of no accidents or injuries at all on the sidewalk.
George Burns, the famous comedian, smoked cigars fairly heavily all his life. He lived to be 100.
Therefore, should we claim that he has proven that smoking cigars is safe?
1 in 10 smokers will die of lung cancer. But on the other hand, 90% of smokers will not. Does this mean smoking is safe?
Carol, and many other sidewalk cyclists, may very well ride safely the rest of their lives. But what about those who will not? Should we use Carol as an example to the rest of them?
Rowan
George Burns, the famous comedian, smoked cigars fairly heavily all his life. He lived to be 100.
Therefore, should we claim that he has proven that smoking cigars is safe?
1 in 10 smokers will die of lung cancer. But on the other hand, 90% of smokers will not. Does this mean smoking is safe?
Carol, and many other sidewalk cyclists, may very well ride safely the rest of their lives. But what about those who will not? Should we use Carol as an example to the rest of them?
Therefore, do we get the kids off the sidewalks and on to the roads to stop them from being harmed?
Using smoking is a spurious argument. Did George Burns inhale? Maybe he didn't, and *that* is why he lived to a ripe old age. Maybe Carol doesn't ride fast and that is why she has also lived to a ripening old age.
LittleBigMan
Rowan, the fact that most sidewalk cyclists will be just fine does not prove its overall safety. We are talking about the margin of cyclists who will be injured, not about the majority who get by with it.
randya
Who cares where people ride, as long as they're on bikes and not in cars? That's one of the beauties of bikes, they can go places that cars can't.
Rowan
Rowan, the fact that most sidewalk cyclists will be just fine does not prove its overall safety. We are talking about the margin of cyclists who will be injured, not about the majority who get by with it.
I'm sure I could think of some smart argument, but I won't. Simply, there are going to be people who hurt themselves in any activity, and there are going to be many who never will. The seriousness of those injuries may be vastly different according to the situation. I have to admit that I recall reading of only a small number of sidewalk cyclists being killed, and those have usually been the result of head impact with the ground. I have read of pedestrians being killed by cyclists, too. But in comparison, I have read of *many* cyclists being killed in collisions with cars on the road.
However, in the absence of adequately structured and promoted training courses in many areas of the *world* let alone the US and Australia, we can continue to piss in the wind about whether an individual is entitled (legally or otherwise) to ride on a sidewalk, or should be forced by fundamentalist vehicular cyclists to ride on the road where she neither wishes to, nor feels comfortable doing so.
Really, so what? Is she harming you, or likely to harm any of the other posters, or the other people around here? I don't think so. Legally it may be a different matter. But that essentially is her problem to deal with.
Helmet Head
I have to admit that I recall reading of only a small number of sidewalk cyclists being killed, and those have usually been the result of head impact with the ground. I have read of pedestrians being killed by cyclists, too. But in comparison, I have read of *many* cyclists being killed in collisions with cars on the road.
Do you think that sidewalk cyclists are safer from being hit by cars per mile traveled than are road cyclists who ride in accordance to the vehicular rules of the road?
Rowan
No Serge, I am not going to be drawn into debate on that. I find theory and statistics often are eclipsed by practice in so many areas of cycling. That's why the answers for California will differ from those in Tasmania. Your question also is dependent on the legal permission to ride on sidewalks or not.
What I do know is on that on this island in the past five years, two cyclists have been killed on the road -- both their fault, it would seem. One, a 15yo female, involved collision with a motor vehicle during a road race; the other was when a late 20s male road racer in training who came off at high speed on a steep downhill and hit a roadside control box for a traffic sign. One pedestrian was killed when hit by a cyclist. I don't recall a report of a cyclist death here caused by riding on the footpath.
I don't have ready access to reports on cyclist-specific hospital admissions right now. But those I did have access to several years ago were more interesting for how they portrayed the type and severity of injury between road and non-road riders*, and even more interestingly, the representation of injuries caused by riding MTBs on trails.
It is accepted that the reporting of injuries caused by conflict with motor vehicles is under-represented, and may in fact be somewhat higher than published.
Further to the discussion, a simple and non-scientific survey of a large urban area we conducted last year indicated that an overwhelming majority of respondents who rode bikes had injured themselves at one time or another on a bike, whether on road or off.
Severity was irrelevant. The strong suggestion is that riding a bicycle at any time and in any location presented a real injury risk over the lifetime of the respondents.
That same survey also indicated a significant demand for off-road shared paths and bike lanes on road because of the perception (reasonable or otherwise) that riding on the road was unsafe.
There were various other trends that were indicated, too. But one of the more interesting ones, related to the injury one above, was an almost complete dismissal of adult rider training -- from a group that obviously and demonstrably already was at risk of injury. It's an interesting marketing job, of course, to change all those things around; but who can really be bothered when the cycling community has a huge gulf between its proponents.
Having said that, I do know that various obstacles exist when riding on footpaths, and that injuries have been caused by hitting those obstacles, or collisions with pedestrians, skaters, other bike riders, and motor vehicles.
But my feeling, from being involved directly with training of riders, is that a number of factors are involved in whether a person can be cited as "safe" on the footpath or on the road.
And I go back to that assertion, that this is in an environment when rider training is not appropriately structured, supported or promoted in many parts of the world, and evidently is not seen as a priority by the community anyway.
The factors that determine whether a rider may be safe in one situation or not are based on the outcomes of vehicular cycling principles -- skill, knowledge and confidence. Fitness might also be added.
The better you are at ALL of these intended outcomes, the better equipped you are to handle ALL traffic conditions -- on the road, on shared paths, and on sidewalks. It's no different from any other form of human endeavour -- if you are appropriately trained, you are a better, safer and more comfortable operator. Bike riders just don't see it like that.
Anyway, someone who is missing any of those three key outcomes -- and probably fitness, too -- may be a candidate not suited to riding in traffic. On sidewalks, maybe. Their timidity through lack of skill is more likely to encourage them to stop and/or dismount before getting themselves into an injury situation, anyway.
I gave up dismissing sidewalk riders as loonies some time ago, especially as I found myself (legally) using sidewalks as a useful tool on segments of some of my journeys to either improve my trip efficiency by bypassing one-way street or cul de sack situations, or to improve my cycling amenity.
But then I believe I have the judgment, as a reasonably equipped vehicular cyclist, to handle the situation on sidewalks -- and that this judgment involves becoming a low-speed wheeled pedestrian. And yes, I have the skill to dismount and walk the bike (by holding only on to the saddle, no less!)
As a by-the-by, cycling amenity is another key word that is often overlooked by fundamentalists.
* I use the term non-road riders, as they included children riding around in back yards or on driveways and hitting things like closed garage doors and suffering head injury (!).
glowingrod
Pedestrian speed is 3-4 mph. That's very slow for a bicyclist, actually requires more balance and skill than does faster cycling, and is virtually unheard of (except kids with training wheels!). Sure you can do it for a short stretch, but consistently riding that slow? Theoretically, it's of course not impossible, but, practically speaking, I just don't believe it.
4/18 edit: what I don't believe is that the woman described has the balance and skill required to ride at true pedestrian speeds.
peds are up to 5 mph depending on pace, length of stride etc. joggers and such even faster.
Some bikes are very very easy to ride at that pace
http://www.torkerusa.com/images/05_bikes/Bermuda-StpTru.jpg
This was made to ride at that pace. My gf has a cruiser with an even lower ratio. It's TOP speed is 12 mph even with good spin. It's easy with the right ride anyone that can ride a bike can do it without effort especially dismounting at intersections. If she really does dismount at intersections (and I believe it since I always, without fail, never ever run any form of stop sign, so it can be done regardless of what 95% of the cyclists out there think) then she is in no more danger than a pedestrian at a crossing because she becomes one.
I wouldn't put an old woman that rides at that pace out in the streets of a suburb. Hell there probably aren't any pedestrians beyond joggers for her to contend with anyway. Who the hell walks in a suburb? Very very few that's who.
Some people here that think she should ride in the street as the law sez regardless of her circumstance also believe that helmet laws are a major onfringement on their freedom as individuals Hahahaha. That's hilarious, they'll push an old lady into traffic but won't require a helmet for her :D
Besides, many ordinances on bicycle riding say it's ok to ride the sidewalk if conditions on the road are too dangerous for the rider providing the rider behaves as and with respect to peds. It usually sez that right after saying you're required to ride in the street.
I can picture myself putting along at 5mph when I'm 75, I'll be in the street but I'll be damned if I'd require it of anyone who takes the care to ride like a ped walks.
glowingrod
an "inner ring" suburb is likely an actual part of cleveland right? So if she's properly slow and careful, dismounting at intersections and such why then she's also perfectly within her rights as long as she does not do it in a business district.
Why don't yall go push some children into the road :D
(c) Whenever a person is riding a bicycle, skateboard or rollerskates upon a sidewalk within the City or paved area within a public park owned by the City, such person shall yield the right-of-way to any pedestrian and give an audible signal before attempting to overtake and pass such pedestrian. :D
I-Like-To-Bike
As a by-the-by, cycling amenity is another key word that is often overlooked by fundamentalists.
Presumably because the fundamentalists do not regard comfort or others' level of tolerance for unpleasant conditions as relevant in the quest to maximize speed and "efficiency."
Rowan
Presumably because the fundamentalists do not regard comfort or others' level of tolerance for unpleasant conditions as relevant in the quest to maximize speed and "efficiency."
Well, no, that's not quite the intention of what I say.
It does not seem to be adequately emphasised in discussion of vehicular cycling, that trip planning means choosing the route that provides the best amenity for a *particular* cyclist.
The way vehicular cycling is portrayed -- in many instances -- every cyclist must be able to cope with 60, 70 or 80km/h traffic on roads that don't allow shared lanes, passing lanes or have adequately wide sealed shoulders/bike lanes.
This patently is not be the case. The choice of route is dependent on the cyclist's tolerance of noise, close passing, maybe driver abuse, and risk. Equally, it's dependent on the cyclist's skill, knowledge and confidence, and to a large extent fitness (ability to accelerate and travel at speed). So I circle back to cycling education/training.
For many cyclists, this level of tolerance is beyond what they desire. They then can choose a maybe more circuitous route that provides a higher level of amenity, but it may even be more efficient... to that particular cyclist. The rider might use shared paths, footpaths and roads as components of their route mix. I do. They may change that mix entirely when riding after peak hours and when traffic density on the more direct route is lighter. I do.
For fundamentalist vehicular cyclists to *insist* that open road riding is appropriate in all cases is errant in the least, and at most a serious impediment to realistic promotion of cycing as a viable alternative transport (and recreational) option.
Nevertheless I still return to training in the principles of vehicular cycling as I believe Forester essentially established them. By giving riders skill, confidence and knowledge (and fitness), they have the ability to achieve higher tolerance levels, as well as the ability to plan trips with greater cycling amenity.
Bringing this back to the original topic, it is evident that vehicular cycling principles might not necessarily apply to Carol because of the nature of her trips, her outlook and requirements, and the likelihood that training in vehicular cycling principles will not advance her knowledge of bike riding to permit her to ride on the road full-time.
FotoTomas
Well, no, that's not quite the intention of what I say.
...snip ...
For many cyclists, this level of tolerance is beyond what they desire. They then can choose a maybe more circuitous route that provides a higher level of amenity, but it may even be more efficient... to that particular cyclist. The rider might use shared paths, footpaths and roads as components of their route mix. I do. They may change that mix entirely when riding after peak hours and when traffic density on the more direct route is lighter. I do. ...snip ...
This quote nails my personal experience on the head! Vehicular cycling is the way to go but not always the best choice due to time, circumstance and other variables. The ability to be able to modify you behavior and training to better adapt to the circumstances is key and Carol seems to have done that to a "T"!
I-Like-To-Bike
Well, no, that's not quite the intention of what I say.
It does not seem to be adequately emphasised in discussion of vehicular cycling, that trip planning means choosing the route that provides the best amenity for a *particular* cyclist.
The way vehicular cycling is portrayed -- in many instances -- every cyclist must be able to cope with 60, 70 or 80km/h traffic on roads that don't allow shared lanes, passing lanes or have adequately wide sealed shoulders/bike lanes.
This patently is not be the case. The choice of route is dependent on the cyclist's tolerance of noise, close passing, maybe driver abuse, and risk. Equally, it's dependent on the cyclist's skill, knowledge and confidence, and to a large extent fitness (ability to accelerate and travel at speed). So I circle back to cycling education/training.
I understood and understand your intention - and agree wholeheartedly with the above. Rowan and I probably do disagree on the effectiveness of cycling education/training in improving the cycling experience for the general public in the absence of a major change in motorist attitudes, but that is a different subject for a different time; or maybe never.
For the present, Rowan and I can sing Kumbaya together in the face of the fundamentalist zealots.
noisebeam
I have read of pedestrians being killed by cyclists, too. But in comparison, I have read of *many* cyclists being killed in collisions with cars on the road.
I read/hear about monthly about a ped killed or seriously injured around here. It is perhaps every 1yr or more I hear about a cyclist being killed in the same metro area. Of course as a percentage things stack up differently, but not as total numbers.
I'd suspect you hear about cyclist deaths as you read this forum and are probably hyper aware of every cyclist incident round the world.
Al
JohnBrooking
Carol, and many other sidewalk cyclists, may very well ride safely the rest of their lives. But what about those who will not? Should we use Carol as an example to the rest of them?
Keep in mind that the main question of this thread is, is sidewalk riding okay for Carol? Like, was cigar smoking okay for George Burns? In both cases, I would say that the evidence seems to indicate the affirmative.
But, like the smoking analogy, I would also agree that this does not necessarily extend to the general cycling population, and in fact I don't believe it does. I hardly ever ride a sidewalk, and I agree that, in general, it is a bad idea. There is, perhaps, even some merit to the position that Carol should not be on the sidewalk simply because doing so is setting a bad example to current and potential cyclists who see her there.
But Carol's decades-long safety record in using the sidewalk (about 40 years actually; she didn't even learn to ride a bike at all until she was 17, an interesting fact in itself), her low speed (whether exactly the same as peds or maybe slightly faster), her dismounting at intersections (yes, probably excluding private residential driveways), and her difficulty handling new situations are such that I do not feel she is in sufficient danger to herself to try to convince her to change her behavior at this stage of her life. If any of these conditions were otherwise, I would probably think differently.
Rowan
I read/hear about monthly about a ped killed or seriously injured around here. It is perhaps every 1yr or more I hear about a cyclist being killed in the same metro area. Of course as a percentage things stack up differently, but not as total numbers.
I'd suspect you hear about cyclist deaths as you read this forum and are probably hyper aware of every cyclist incident round the world.
Al
I wrote about pedestrians being killed by cyclists, NOT by motor vehicles. Are you suggesting that pedestrians are being killed in collisions with cyclists more often than cyclists are being killed in collisions with motor vehicles?
LittleBigMan
However, in the absence of adequately structured and promoted training courses in many areas of the *world* let alone the US and Australia, we can continue to piss in the wind about whether an individual is entitled (legally or otherwise) to ride on a sidewalk, or should be forced by fundamentalist vehicular cyclists to ride on the road where she neither wishes to, nor feels comfortable doing so.
The issue was never, "is Carol entitled to ride on the sidewalk?" Of course, she is.
Rowan, with lots of respect I ask you, where did you get the idea that "fundamentalist vehicular cyclists" were going to force people to ride in the street?
If I read the law right, many cyclists are being forced to ride on bike facilities instead of the street, where they choose to ride. That sort of flip-flops the whole issue.
Black Bud
Carol--at 58--can ride anywhere she wants to ...as long as it is legal for her to do so!
Her speed...5 miles an hour or less...is rarely fast enough to cause anyone serious injury if the "worst" (a collision) should happen. She can also stop in double-quick time if she needs to...with almost any braking system (no disc brakes needed!), and almost any weather she'd want to ride in!
As for the "VC fundamentalists", Carol IS obeying the traffic law by dismounting and walking across the road at intersections...a habit few "sidewalk riders" ever consistently follow!! I see all too many "sidewalkies" that do not...THEY are the dangerous ones!!
In fact, I'd rather see Carol ride on the sidewalk, and be comfortable about doing so, than trying to ride in the road scared as a rabbit! A tentative rider is dangerous ... totally unpredictable !! Bad for everyone involved!
BTW: There is no mean amount of skill involved in being able to ride slowly...keeping one's balance is much more difficult than "at speed"...just ask the "extremists" at "slow riding"--trackstanders!!
In fact, I consider the ability to ride really slowly in almost any style of riding, short of "flat-out" racing, one of the most useful skills one can have--more so, in fact, than going "real fast"!!
Rowan
The issue was never, "is Carol entitled to ride on the sidewalk?" Of course, she is.
Rowan, with lots of respect I ask you, where did you get the idea that "fundamentalist vehicular cyclists" were going to force people to ride in the street?
If I read the law right, many cyclists are being forced to ride on bike facilities instead of the street, where they choose to ride. That sort of flip-flops the whole issue.
I have been a subscriber and lurker on several forums apart from this one. There is a multitude of evidence that I *could* assemble if I had the energy (which I don't) when fundamentalist cyclists have decried and dismissed the concept of riding on
1. Bike lanes
2. Shared paths
3. Sidewalks
This process of decrying and dismissal often descends into making a rider feel inadequate or a non-cyclist, and in fact often goes rock bottom to abuse. The focus for these people is so narrow so that when they get on to public forums, they cannot comprehend there are other issues involved. "Force" may seem too strong a word in the legal sense, but it's appropriate in my mind in the persuasion sense.
As far as I am aware, Forester's main take on those three facilities is that -- in many cases -- they are poorly designed and therefore inherently less safe than riding on the road because of those design flaws. Unfortunately, the fundamentalists have taken this to mean *all* those facilities are unsafe. I can demonstrate in my community both safe *and* unsafe facilities.
The safe ones are brilliant to use, yet I've had one vehicular cyclist virtually refuse to use it, instead taking the less amenable parallel road with many junctions and high density traffic. Even worse, a cycling organisation deliberately avoided using this one facility, instead preferring to take its hundreds of riders (scattered out over a full day) up a main arterial highway to reach the same destination.
Yes, you are right. In some jurisdictions, cyclists are required by law to ride in certain facilities, mostly specifically bike lanes. Usually there are provisos allowing them outside those lanes in certain circumstances. I am not aware of specific laws or rules requiring cyclists in North America or Australia to ride on sidewalks; in fact in most jurisdictions of which I am aware, cyclists are required to ride on the road with only a few exceptions (children under 12 and an accompanying adult is the most common).
In Europe, and in particular that so-called nirvana of cycling, Holland, there is, I believe, a legal requirement to ride on a bike *path* and not on a parallel road. That's why I get annoyed when people attempt to compare the environment in Holland and places like North America and Australia -- the restrictions on using the road are actually harsher in Holland than they are elsewhere, and the facilities there, in my experience, are usually of low quality.
I'm am not attacking the principles of vehicular cycling. Forester was the first to articulate the principles. Maybe his ascerbic approach to his critics needs to be read in the context of the ambivalence of cycling advocates and government in North America to those principles. Unfortunately, that offhandedness verging on the insult seems to have been adopted by some others as a fundamental trait in discussing vehicular cycling.
Franklin and Allen both have had softer approach, and have been successful respectively in Britain and the US in selling vehicular cycling principles.
LittleBigMan
I have been a subscriber and lurker on several forums apart from this one. There is a multitude of evidence that I *could* assemble if I had the energy (which I don't) when fundamentalist cyclists have decried and dismissed the concept of riding on
1. Bike lanes
2. Shared paths
3. Sidewalks
This process of decrying and dismissal often descends into making a rider feel inadequate or a non-cyclist, and in fact often goes rock bottom to abuse.
Rowan--
Forgive me for not including more of your post, I did read it.
If anyone has articulated and balanced truth more accurately than you in your post, and so extensively (without causing boredom,) I take my hat off to them.
Jim-in-Kirkland
Hello John,
It is great that your sister-in-law can get around by bike & bus. I would suggest getting her a nice helmet with mirror for her birthday or holiday to improve her safety. You could also get her a nice Vistalite Nebula rear blinky....
Cheers,
Jim in Kirkland
noisebeam
I wrote about pedestrians being killed by cyclists, NOT by motor vehicles. Are you suggesting that pedestrians are being killed in collisions with cyclists more often than cyclists are being killed in collisions with motor vehicles?
My reading comprehension issue.
Al
Helmet Head
Rowan...if anyone has articulated and balanced truth more accurately than you in your post, ...
???
As far as I am aware, Forester's main take on those three facilities is that -- in many cases -- they are poorly designed and therefore inherently less safe than riding on the road because of those design flaws.
Let me guess... your awareness on Forester's take does not come from carefully reading Forester... :rolleyes:
Unfortunately, the fundamentalists have taken this to mean *all* those facilities are unsafe.
Apparently, you don't carefully read the "fundamentalists" either, whoever that is.
The safe ones are brilliant to use, yet I've had one vehicular cyclist virtually refuse to use it, instead taking the less amenable parallel road with many junctions and high density traffic. Even worse, a cycling organisation deliberately avoided using this one facility, instead preferring to take its hundreds of riders (scattered out over a full day) up a main arterial highway to reach the same destination.
This speaks volumes. Most cycling organisations are generally supportive of most reasonable cycling facilities and their usage. The fact that you apparently think that this particular organisation made an error in choosing a main arterial highway (which is probably great for cycling) over some "brilliant" path(?) is very revealing.
LittleBigMan
Serge, one thing I appreciate as much as someone who sticks to their guns when they believe they are right is someone who can see the merits of an opposing argument.
In Europe, and in particular that so-called nirvana of cycling, Holland, there is, I believe, a legal requirement to ride on a bike *path* and not on a parallel road. That's why I get annoyed when people attempt to compare the environment in Holland and places like North America and Australia -- the restrictions on using the road are actually harsher in Holland than they are elsewhere, and the facilities there, in my experience, are usually of low quality.
I'm am not attacking the principles of vehicular cycling. Forester was the first to articulate the principles. Maybe his ascerbic approach to his critics needs to be read in the context of the ambivalence of cycling advocates and government in North America to those principles. Unfortunately, that offhandedness verging on the insult seems to have been adopted by some others as a fundamental trait in discussing vehicular cycling.
Franklin and Allen both have had softer approach, and have been successful respectively in Britain and the US in selling vehicular cycling principles.
I think Rowan did a good job.
Rowan
???
Let me guess... your awareness on Forester's take does not come from carefully reading Forester... :rolleyes:
Apparently, you don't carefully read the "fundamentalists" either, whoever that is.
This speaks volumes. Most cycling organisations are generally supportive of most reasonable cycling facilities and their usage. The fact that you apparently think that this particular organisation made an error in choosing a main arterial highway (which is probably great for cycling) over some "brilliant" path(?) is very revealing.
I've read both of Forester's books in the course of establishing the competencies of cycling courses I designed. It is well recognised that his style is confrontational and aggressive. Effective Cycling, even in tis latest edition, is regarded as somewhat date. Nevertheless, his disciples wear confrontation and aggression as a badge of honour.
In addition, Serge, I've read enough of John Forster outside the two books, including his many ascerbic posts to the facilities-n-planning list. I've been a member of that for around 6 years. I don't think I've seen you participate on that list. Forester's "debates" with one Stanley Batt are legendary. Perhaps by extending your reading beyond the two books, to including those by Franklin and Allen, and other lists, you may understand me a bit more.
I disagree with your assertion that most cycling organsiations are supportive of reasonable cycling facllities and their usage. Most organisations, as far as I can see in Australia, are supportive of *any* facilities that they can call their own (as in the cycling community) irrespective of whether those facilities are poorly designed to actually be dangerous. In addition, the most outstanding facility cycling organisations could develop is a unified political lobby.
Anyway, just to toss a bit more into the mix is Forester's assertion that transportation dollars are being used (and therefore, in his opinion, wasted) to build recreation facilities (I am SURE you know that, Serge). But then, when does cycling cease to be recreational and suddenly become solely transportational. More grey that the black-and-white promoters don't understand.
You seem very dismissive Serge. This is typical of the vehicular cycling fundamentalists I am referring to. YOU might consider yourself to have a different tilt as a promoter of vehicular cycling than the one I have portrayed, but I have seen many posters in different forums over the years whom I classify as fundamentalist.
Fundamentalism to me is being slave to principle when practical reality may demand different approaches. To me, a balanced approach taking into account local condition can achieve much, much more.
Have a nice day, Serge.
LittleBigMan
Fundamentalism to me is being slave to principle when practical reality may demand different approaches. To me, a balanced approach taking into account local condition can achieve much, much more.
Again, I think Rowan's awareness is quite keen.
If I might "plow the other side of the field" for a moment, "fundamentalism," while a common cause of ignorance, can also provide a basis for understanding. Fundamentalism can be restrictive in the context of changing scenarios that demand fresh revelations. But fundamentalism can also be a touchstone for sanity in an environment of ever-changing beliefs.
What we need to do is keep the good and adapt to the new.
(Maybe I should have said, "Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater." :D )
Wulfheir
After reading her description, I view her like a toddler. Go ahead and surf the sidewalk.
Helmet Head
I've read both of Forester's books in the course of establishing the competencies of cycling courses I designed.
The issue is not whether you've read Forester, but how carefully you've read Forester (among other things).
I questioned this based on this statement: "As far as I am aware, Forester's main take on those three facilities is that -- in many cases -- they are poorly designed and therefore inherently less safe than riding on the road because of those design flaws." If you had read Forester carefully, then you would know his main take on these facilities is not design flaws (which would imply that if those "design flaws" were rectified then he would not have an issue with them, which is certainly not his position).
It is well recognised that his style is confrontational and aggressive.
Indeed. I certainly agree with that!
Effective Cycling, even in tis latest edition, is regarded as somewhat date.
Agreed, to an extent. His stuff on equipment, racing and many other topics is somewhat dated. But even Jeffrey Hiles has noted that, "The 85-page section of Effective Cycling that describes riding technique is arguably one of the most lucid and thorough guides to cycling in traffic in print." His descriptions apply to this day and are not dated at all, and this is his greatest contribution to cycling.
Nevertheless, his disciples wear confrontation and aggression as a badge of honour.
That's one perspective.
In addition, Serge, I've read enough of John Forster outside the two books, including his many ascerbic posts to the facilities-n-planning list. I've been a member of that for around 6 years.
If you've read "enough" of "Forster" (sic), then why do you continue to express misunderstanding of his views?
I don't think I've seen you participate on that list.
Sure I have. I guess you haven't read carefully there either... I believe my most recent post was on 1/3/2005 (it's a relatively quiet list). When was yours?
Forester's "debates" with one Stanley Batt are legendary.
Yes, so legendary, that when I read one post from one I-Like-To-Bike here, I knew immediately who it was. Did you?
Perhaps by extending your reading beyond the two books, to including those by Franklin and Allen, and other lists, you may understand me a bit more.
I've studied Franklin and Allen, both of which I strongly recommend. I've also studied Glowacz' "Tips and Tricks", which I do NOT recommend. And I'm still waiting for Hurt's book which I recently ordered. What is it that you think I don't understand and would be able to if I read these books?
I disagree with your assertion that most cycling organsiations are supportive of reasonable cycling facllities and their usage. Most organisations, as far as I can see in Australia, are supportive of *any* facilities that they can call their own (as in the cycling community) irrespective of whether those facilities are poorly designed to actually be dangerous.
Is that supposed to contradict my assertion? How?
In addition, the most outstanding facility cycling organisations could develop is a unified political lobby.
Perhaps. What's the relevance?
Anyway, just to toss a bit more into the mix is Forester's assertion that transportation dollars are being used (and therefore, in his opinion, wasted) to build recreation facilities (I am SURE you know that, Serge). But then, when does cycling cease to be recreational and suddenly become solely transportational. More grey that the black-and-white promoters don't understand.
Oh, I see. Thanks for pointing that out. And you call me dismissive, while at the same time labeling others as black-and-white and not understanding the "grey"?
Of course there are facilities that are both. Of course there are gray areas. But what Forester is talking about are facilities that are solely recreational - say a loop around a lake that goes no where else, and the use of transportational dollars for those.
You seem very dismissive Serge.
I'm sorry I seem that way to you. Sadly, you seem that way to me. I suggest we assume the best about the other and that we are actually different from how we seem.
This is typical of the vehicular cycling fundamentalists I am referring to.
And this is a typical example of how we are dismissed.
YOU might consider yourself to have a different tilt as a promoter of vehicular cycling than the one I have portrayed, but I have seen many posters in different forums over the years whom I classify as fundamentalist.
Or so they seemed to you.
Fundamentalism to me is being slave to principle when practical reality may demand different approaches.
You mean like riding on a sidewalk, for example, when it's more prudent to do so?
To me, a balanced approach taking into account local condition can achieve much, much more.
I agree. And the difference between you and me is that I can see that Forester and his "fundamentalist disciples" have this balanced approach that is guided by principle, but not adhered to religiously and beyond practicality, which you seem to not recognize (presumably, from not reading Forester carefully, but there may be other reasons... I don't know).
Have a nice day, Serge.
You too, Rowan.
Helmet Head
Again, I think Rowan's awareness is quite keen.
I agree he's keen about describing fundamentalism in general. However, his vision appears blurred in how he implies it applies to Forester, his "disciples", or VC.
What we need to do is keep the good and adapt to the new.
(Maybe I should have said, "Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater." :D )
That sounds great until I ask what specifically do you mean by "the good" and "the new".
Or what exactly is the baby, and what is the bathwater, in what Rowan is talking about?
LittleBigMan
...what specifically do you mean by "the good" and "the new".
Or what exactly is the baby, and what is the bathwater, in what Rowan is talking about?
Serge, I've spent enough time on these forums, long before you came, expressing my dislike, distrust, and despising of "bicycle facilities." I've fought over the issue for years. I still dislike, distrust, and often despise the ones I see. I don't need to plow that field over and over.
What I'm trying to do here is build bridges. When you hold puritan values to the degree that you cease communicating with people of different mindsets, you limit your world. That's "throwing the baby out with the bathwater."
One thing you might know about me is that although I honestly believe strongly about these issues, and even am willing to argue them, I value the importance of the personal relationships I can build with those who disagree with me. At least, I hope this is who I am. If I am not always, I will try to be.
So please don't try to pin me down on some point of argument. It's a lesser thing to me at the moment.
Helmet Head
You're a wise man, LittleBigMan.
Although you and others don't seem to see it, I too value the personal relationships.
LittleBigMan
Although you and others don't seem to see it, I too value the personal relationships.
What would these forums be without people like you and me to pi$$ people off?