Advocacy & Safety - Vehicular Cycling Poll, who does it?

Because segregation is the purpose, changing the stripes from solid to dashed makes no sense - it defeats their purpose.The original purpose could be changed. Defeating the original purpose might be a good thing for cyclists.

They built a bike path here in St. Louis over a hundred years ago but interest in cycling waned and the original purpose of the path got changed. For years it was a bridle path. You know what it is now? It's a bike path.

The point is, stuff happens. Things don't always stay what they were originally intended to be. Sometimes things transcend their original intent. I'm not so sure that couldn't happen with bike lanes.

At least some of the opposition to bike lanes is knee-jerk negative reaction based on partyline thinking (all bike lanes are bad because their original purpose was bad and they don't fit into the 'expert' view of what competent cycling is - yada, yada, yada.) To a certain extent, that kind of thinking inhibits rational thought.

It's interesting how I'm now in the position of defending bike lanes, since I'm really not a big fan of bike lanes. But I'm even less a fan of some of the "politically correct" views (like the view that all bike lanes must be bad).

And another thing, since you like buzzwords so much - not all 'segregation' is bad. The center line 'segregates' traffic going in one direction from traffic going in the other direction. Are you opposed to that? Or do you call it a 'separation' instead?

The center line 'segregates' traffic going in one direction from traffic going in the other direction... Or do you call it a 'separation' instead?There's separation of people by class or group membership, and then there's separation of people by individual performance, merit or behavior. The former is segregation, and the latter is just separation (as per the dictionary definitions).

There's separation of people by class or group membership, and then there's separation of people by individual performance, merit or behavior. The former is segregation, and the latter is just separation (as per the dictionary definitions).
We can debate the difference between your dictionary definitions and what the dictionaries I've consulted say, and we can nit-pick about whether cyclists are a class or group, or whether bicycles are simply narrow vechicles with less power than other vehicles but, the bottom line is, "segregated" and "separated" are synonyms that mean essentially the same thing. To claim that "segregated" is somehow technically more correct than "separated" in reference to bike lanes is a bit disingenuous. Either term is technically correct.

The main difference between "segregated" and "separated", according to the dictionaries I consulted, is the association of the term "segregated" with racial segregation. The term "segregated" is used by bike lane opponents precisely because it is an emotionally-charged word with negative connotations. No one is likely to admit they favor a segregated facility.

The choice of words was, I'm sure, quite intentional.

I could say that those whose minds are made up regarding what they call "segregated facilities" are biased against bike lanes or, if I wanted to stoop to their level, I could use a pejorative, as they do, and say they are prejudiced. Either would be correct but the term "prejudiced" has a racial connotation that "biased" does not have, just as the term "segregated" has a racial connotation that "separated" does not have.

As long as the racial connotation of the term "segregated facilities" is simply implied, few are likely to be offended. When the racial connotation is made explicit, as it was in this thread, then some people, myself included, will be offended and the term "segregated facilities" will be exposed for the propaganda tool that it is.

The main difference between "segregated" and "separated", according to the dictionaries I consulted, is the association of the term "segregated" with racial segregation.That's currently the most well-known usage of the concept, but there are many others. For example:
Segregated Funds (http://www.specialinvestor.com/terms/2916.html)
These funds guarantee that, regardless how the fund performs, at least a minimum percentage (usually 75 per cent or more) of the investor's payments into the fund will be returned when the fund matures.

Here are some dictionary definitions that I just found.

segregation (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=segregation) the separation or isolation of a race, class, or ethnic group by enforced or voluntary residence in a restricted area, by barriers to social intercourse, by separate educational facilities, or by other discriminatory means
discriminate (http://www.yourdictionary.com/ahd/d/d0263000.html) To make distinctions on the basis of class or category without regard to individual merit; show preference or prejudice:
was accused of discriminating against women; discriminated in favor of his croniesvs.
separation (http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery;jsessionid=1jcvybzltz326?method=4&dsid=502&deid=1859752067&gwp=8&curtab=502_1&sbid=lc02a) Sorting one thing from others;
the separation of wheat from chaff; the separation of mail by postal zones
differentiate (http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_/differentiate.html) To see or show the differences between two or more things

The original purpose could be changed. Defeating the original purpose might be a good thing for cyclists.
My point is that you're going to have a very hard time convincing most "bicycle advocates" of this.


not all 'segregation' is bad.
Agreed. In particular, our culture approves of sexual segregation in some contexts (restrooms in particular), and segregation by age. For example, no matter how qualified a particular 14 year old may be to drive a car in CA, he will not be granted the privilege to do so.

So, there is justified segregation, and unjustified segregation.

The is no question that bike lanes constitute segregation of cyclists from vehicle drivers. The relevant questions are: is bike lane segregation justified, and, in particular, is this segregation a net benefit or disbenefit to cyclists?

The is no question that bike lanes constitute segregation of cyclists from vehicle drivers. The relevant questions are: is bike lane segregation justified ...The following quotes are from a USA Business Law/Legal Studies study outline (www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~albert/lstu130/als-outline/LCE-CH04.html):
Chapter 4 -- Constitutional Law
The U.S. Constitution is the fundamental law of the United States and takes precedence over any other source of law... it imposes limits on the power of government.
From section 4.4 of that same outline:

LIMITATIONS ON FEDERAL AND STATE POWERS
Judicial Scrutiny of Governmental Regulation.
The U.S. Supreme Court has developed three primary levels of scrutiny for determining whether governmental regulation (state or federal) is valid under the Constitution: strict scrutiny, intermediate scrutiny, and the rational relationship test...

1. Strict scrutiny. It is the most demanding of all. This test is sometimes referred to as the compelling interest test.
a. The strict scrutiny test is applied when legislation affects fundamental rights, e.g., voting, privacy, travel, free speech, and religion.
b. The test is also applied when legislation affects suspect classifications, e.g., classifications based on race or national origin.
c. Any legislation subject to strict scrutiny must be necessary to promote a compelling governmental interest.
1) "Necessary" implies that there are no less restrictive means than the challenged regulation available to protect or promote the interest.
2) EXAMPLE: If Kansas enacted legislation calling for segregation in its public school system, the Supreme Court would apply the strict scrutiny test because the legislation affects a suspect classification, i.e., one based on race. The Supreme Court would rule that such legislation does not promote a compelling governmental interest. The state statute should be held unconstitutional and invalid.

"The original purpose could be changed. Defeating the original purpose might be a good thing for cyclists."
My point is that you're going to have a very hard time convincing most "bicycle advocates" of this.Yea, I know that. That's the problem. Some "bicycle advocates" apparently can't think outside the box.