Advocacy & Safety - What will the future bring for cycling and advocacy?

I started wondering about what changes will come in the next five or ten years. You are a pretty smart bunch of riders, so I wanted to get your analysis of future trends in cycling and advocacy. Not what the future should be like, but your ideas of what it will be like. Here are some questions to consider, but don't feel limited by these questions. Put on your thinking hats and have a little fun with this one!

It looks like gas prices will stay up, maybe rise even higher. Will this cause a significant increase in cycling? If so, what will some of the effects of this increase be?

Will motorists and governments put the pressure on to regulate cycling more? How will cyclists respond to these pressures?

Will there (not "Should there") be big additions to cycling facilities like bike paths, bike lanes and bike freeways? Will we dream up other facilities for bicycles and bicyclists?

What changes will we see in different forms of cycling? Road? Mountain? Utility and Commuting?


This is a non-VC and non-anti-VC thread, please.




Extra credit: Who will be the first czar of cycling? Lance Armstrong or Helmet Head?

Great questions. I hope everyone gives it a lot of thought. I'll answer later.

Well based on some recent trends... the focus on greenbelts in new communities and traffic calming in older communities... perhaps cycling will be friendlier off of the main roads... which is good, because the trends on the main arterial roads are for higher speeds within walled off arterials, which is bad.

...perhaps cycling will be friendlier off of the main roads... which is good, because the trends on the main arterial roads are for higher speeds within walled off arterials, which is bad.
But this could be bad too, if arterials are the only practical way to get from A->B

Al

But this could be bad too, if arterials are the only practical way to get from A->B

Al

Yeah, that is the negative side... and road and development designers are not looking at through our eyes... Oddly enough the statements I have seen from the developers is something along the lines of "well inside the community, cycling is a wonderful experience." Meaning of course, who would ride 10 miles outside their little planned piece of heaven?

It is this lack of overall planning that probably needs the most advocacy... before we end up with nothing but 55 MPH "connectors" between isolated islands of housing/work campuses.

This is where the city/planning departments need to maintain the overall vision... which sadly they often do not, depending instead on the developer.

It looks like gas prices will stay up, maybe rise even higher. Will this cause a significant increase in cycling? If so, what will some of the effects of this increase be?

No it will not. Nothing will get Americans out of their cars. That would take a law against cars. People would water down their baby formula before they stop driving their cars.


Will motorists and governments put the pressure on to regulate cycling more? How will cyclists respond to these pressures?

No it won't be more regulated. There will be more cars as the population rises and less bicyclists. Less because more cars will make it look more scary to ride so nobody will want to risk it. The only place most people will ride is on bike trails and those need no regulation.


Will there (not "Should there") be big additions to cycling facilities like bike paths, bike lanes and bike freeways? Will we dream up other facilities for bicycles and bicyclists?

There might be more recreational bike paths but those will be built by developers when they put in new housing projects. But money put into public road facilities from public funds will likely not result in more cycling-specific attributes to public roads. It will more likely result in designs to move more cars. They'll keep drinking that move more cars kool-aid until the traffic siezes up like an old VW bus throwing a rod.


What changes will we see in different forms of cycling? Road? Mountain? Utility and Commuting?

More recumbents. But you won't see them unless you use the bike paths.

I think many of the places we used to think of as the outer suburbs will become friendlier places for cycling. This will happen mostly because of infill development that puts more of the necessities of life into local neighborhoods. Suburban bike advocacy will have enough occasional successes to make a difference over time. The successes will probably be in the form of bike lanes.

I predict there will be no progress in dealing with the problem of uncrossable major arterials, difficult bike access from one suburban development to another, and the intentional traffic congestion created by cul-de-sac street plans.

It looks like gas prices will stay up, maybe rise even higher. Will this cause a significant increase in cycling? If so, what will some of the effects of this increase be?

I'm with Diane on this one -- they will be watering down their baby formula first.

Will motorists and governments put the pressure on to regulate cycling more? How will cyclists respond to these pressures?

When I first started commuting, eight years ago, I was one of only a few. Every year, I see more cyclists on the road. I would expect that more cyclists will mean more pressure. I hope the response is better traffic enforcement for both cyclists and motorists, rather than a "off the road and onto the path" mentality.

Will there (not "Should there") be big additions to cycling facilities like bike paths, bike lanes and bike freeways? Will we dream up other facilities for bicycles and bicyclists?

Here in the DC area, we have some of the worst traffic congestion in the country. Look at us if you want to see the future. There is quite an extensive network of bike paths, and more are coming. Given that a lot of the local driving is on interstates (segregated, car-only facilities) the paths actually provide needed access. Most parking garages are underground and have free bike racks.

What changes will we see in different forms of cycling? Road? Mountain? Utility and Commuting?

I think that the biggest relative growth will be in utility/commuting cycling. Since this sector is very small right now, I think this is a reasonable expectation. The only things that will put people on bikes are gridlock and scarce parking spaces. They may keep riding because it is the only regular exercise they will do, or because they enjoy riding, but its convenience that will get them started. Where it is more convenient to drive, people will always drive.

Mountain biking seems to involve driving out into the woods, something that will not get easier as suburbs continue to sprawl. I keep thinking this sector has peaked. Actually, I've never seen people mountain biking, as opposed to riding mountain bikes on the road.

However, given increasing awareness of cycling as a sport, thanks to Lance, there might be some growth in road riding as well. Americans, particularly urban ones, are increasingly following "world sports" like soccer. I think that bodes well for road cycling.


Paul

It looks like gas prices will stay up, maybe rise even higher. Will this cause a significant increase in cycling? If so, what will some of the effects of this increase be?

There will be large increases in fuel prices. I think it will promote cycling after it reaches some tipping point.


Will motorists and governments put the pressure on to regulate cycling more? How will cyclists respond to these pressures?

There may be pressure, but there will be much larger issues for the nation to deal with, like how will we grow our food without the cheap oil we are used to.


Will there (not "Should there") be big additions to cycling facilities like bike paths, bike lanes and bike freeways? Will we dream up other facilities for bicycles and bicyclists?
The roads will be mostly empty of cars and funds will not be available, so the existing roadway system will be used by bikes, maybe some more lanes will be made bike only.

I think it's likely that the idea that bikes and cars don't mix will continue to pick up steam and cyclists will be less and less welcome on roads with cars in general, eventually leading to more and more prohibitions of cycling, first on "freeway-like" arterials, but eventually on all 35+ mph roads.

I believe the first priority of cycling advocates should be to do what we can to prevent that chain of events from occuring, starting with not supporting more and more facilities that reinforce the already too-widely-held notion that cyclists have an obligation to stay out of the way of cars.

I'd hate to dig up this post in 10, 20 or 30 years just so I could say, "I told you so".

...more and more prohibitions of cycling, first on "freeway-like" arterials, but eventually on all 35+ mph roads.

...do what we can to prevent that chain of events from occuring, starting with not supporting more and more facilities
I do understand your position and think it has some validity.
But here is a thought - if there are facilities on freeway like arterials, won't that make it harder, not easier to ban bicycles?

Perhaps respond in an exisiting facility debate thread to keep this one clean?

Al

I do understand your position and think it has some validity.
But here is a thought - if there are facilities on freeway like arterials, won't that make it harder, not easier to ban bicycles?

Perhaps respond in an exisiting facility debate thread to keep this one clean?

Al
By discussing what might happen in the future, I think we're within the scope of the OP.

You're right. On roads with facilities, there might be more strict restrictions regarding their use, rather than outright bans. The bans are more likely to happen on roads without sufficient space for segregated facilities for cyclists. "You can't have bikes on this road... there are no bike lanes! Where are they suppose to ride???" (stated by a council member of your city in 2012, if not 2006).

Nothing will get Americans out of their cars.

Last fall saw a noticable increase in commute cycling when gasoline *gasp* surpassed $2 and stayed there. Locally, transit ridership shot up 40% from the previous year.

Gasoline is creeping toward the $3 mark and we'll surpass that this summer. The new "low point" is probably going to be in the high $2 range after this summer. I think there will be increased interest and some of that interest will even translate into occasional bike commuting.

I'm in Colorado where we already have a high level of interest in recreational bicycling. Nationally, I predict counterproductive schemes to try to control gas prices through tax and other regulations.

Bike paths: The trend is to increase installation of facilities. I don't see this slowing down at all.

Bike regulation: This is difficult to tell. There's some motorist backlash at the high number of cyclists in Portland and I've seen the same thing in Boulder Colorado. In my city, we've had an unusually high number of pedestrian deaths over the past year; the city's response? "Police officers may return to their citation pads if pedestrians aren’t more careful. (http://www.longmontfyi.com/Local-Story.asp?ID=5854)" :mad:

Changes in types of cycling: Mountain biking has been waning for a few years and that trend will continue. The bike industry is predicting that road bike sales will be strong in 2006, though it will slack off a little from last year. I think commuter/utility bikes will be huge in 2006, especially if the manufacturers and bike shops can get their marketing act together and let consumers know what kind of product they have.

I'll respond to a couple of my own questions. I think that cycling will increase dramatically as gas prices rise. This will happen most among lower income people. These folks won't have a clue about safe cycling, so they will both inconvenience motorists and have a lot of accidents. In many areas, there will be talk about regulating, segregating or restricting bikes as an initial kneejerk response. Cycling advocacy will have to respond to these threats, since they will have failed to make much effort to educate these new cyclists about safe riding techniques.

Personally, I don't see much changing at all without some significant event as a catalyst. Even as gas prices increase, which they will, until they reach the $5 a gallon level in the US, the current trend of cutting back on other things to finance driving will continue. Recreational cycling facilities will continue to get the majority of the funding, while little will be done in the name of utility cycling or commuting. The roads will continue to become more dangerous for everyone and enforcement of traffic laws will still be driven more by revenue opportunities than any organized effort towards improving safety. The number of people using bicycles will increase, but the percentage using the roadways will remain constant at best, or maybe decrease, while the majority opt for the 'safety' of ever increasing non-roadway facilities. IMO, cycling advocates must focus more effort on joining with traffic safety advocates to push for better enforcement of traffic laws to at least give the perception that road safety is improving if they ever want to have more cyclists using the roadways. Based on what I see from current advocacy groups and how splintered they are among their priorities, I'm not optimistic that they will have any impact, rather they will be simply reacting rather than proactively effecting change, and continuing to fight among themselves on the issue of cycling facilities.

I honestly beleive nothing will change in the next 10 years outside of the current trends.

We as a society will still be addicted to the motorcar, but the trend will be towards more fuel efficient/hybrid vehichles. Cycling as a means of transport may see an upswing at the very bottom end of the socio-economic scale but not enugh to register on the social radar. More countries with oil underneath them will be invaded by the US, it's just a matter of cooking up an excuse - looks like Iran is next.

In 10 years we well still be talking about how to promote cycling as a means of transport right here at BF, as cyclists we will still be a fringe minority, we will still be shaking our heads in disgust every time we read a new post about the cyclist killed by an unlicensed drunk driver speeding while talking on the cellphone which was not charged, we will still have to fight tooth and nail for the tiniest scraps of respect & funding we get from out governments.... and we'll still be bickering amongst ourselves over the most pathetic things that mean absolutely nothing to the rest of the world (helmet laws, dynamic lane positioning, campag Vs shimano, did Lance dope?, etc. etc.)

The roads will continue to become more dangerous for everyone...
The implication here is that roads are already getting more dangerous, that they were safer in the past than they are now. Is that true? Anyone have any data to support or refute this?

Is the average insured driver, for example, getting into more crashes per year now than he did 10, 20 or 30 years ago? Seems like that information should be readily available.

The implication here is that roads are already getting more dangerous, that they were safer in the past than they are now. Is that true? Anyone have any data to support or refute this?

Is the average insured driver, for example, getting into more crashes per year now than he did 10, 20 or 30 years ago? Seems like that information should be readily available.

Facts are not the issue, perception is. Today we have more traffic, in more places, moving faster than ever...the mothers of America perceive it as more dangerous, and their perception is fact, despite what the facts may be.

A couple people have expressed that it is on the lower end of the economic scale that utility cycling will increase once gas prices reach the "tipping point" (if there is one). I actually doubt it will be the case.

Utility cycling currently (aka commuting) is primarily practiced among two communities: the young and unattached, and the well off. As gas prices rise, among the population in general, there will be increases in hybrids among the upper middle class and the upper class, and these two groups will start commuting more. The poor and lower middle class with families will still drive - and regular cars, not hybrids. They will simply give up other things. For the nation as a whole, rising gas prices will increase useage of alternative forms of transportation, but the poor and lower middle class will be hit the very hardest.

As for facilities, in the next 10 years, I predict that there will still be no standards for on-road bicycle facilities. Places where cycling is emphasised, such as Portland and Seattle (amongst many), the state of the art in on-road facilities will be developed and implimented and the number of cyclists will increase. It will be the increase in the number of cyclists, more than anything, which will allow cycling to become more practical and popular.

In more backward places such as much of southern California, I think that the power struggle between the VC'ists and the rest of the cycling advocacy community will result in chaos for a good long while. Since cyclists are of split mind, the government is not going to know what to do, so progress will be somewhat random and simpleminded, going forward or backward in equal amounts. Because of the lack of progress on any front, the number of cyclists will stay roughly the same.

As far as trends in cycling go, I think that the number of low cost road bikes will dramatically increase. It used to be that a low end mountain bike was in the $300-$400 range while an entry level road bike was over $700. This price difference was simply because there was no market for entry level road bikes. Now that trends are swinging back toward road bikes, you will see more road bikes for under $500 in the near future.

Oh. I agree that in general most Americans perceive cycling in traffic to be more dangerous today than it was in the past. I also see no reason for this trend to stop or reverse - cycling in traffic will probably be perceived to be even more dangerous in 10 years than it is today.

One of the reasons I don't see this trend changing is that cycling advocacy is contributing to it, by supporting facilities that get cyclists out of the way of all that "more and more dangerous" traffic, rather than trying to stifle it which we could do by getting the message out that cycling in traffic is 1), relatively safe, 2) pretty much just as safe today as it ever has been.

Of course, that's what I'm doing here and in my local advocacy. Is anyone else?

I think it's likely that the idea that bikes and cars don't mix will continue to pick up steam and cyclists will be less and less welcome on roads with cars in general, eventually leading to more and more prohibitions of cycling, first on "freeway-like" arterials, but eventually on all 35+ mph roads.

I believe the first priority of cycling advocates should be to do what we can to prevent that chain of events from occuring, starting with not supporting more and more facilities that reinforce the already too-widely-held notion that cyclists have an obligation to stay out of the way of cars.

I'd hate to dig up this post in 10, 20 or 30 years just so I could say, "I told you so".

I think this will only happen in certain areas. In the pacific NW, the trend is going in quite to opposite direction. In just the 5 year span since I first bike commuted in the Portland area, the cycling facilities laws have been clarified in the cyclists' favor, the drivers' manual has emphasised bicycles to a greater extent (even outlining destination lane positioning for cyclists), bike lanes have been added to nearly all new surface streets (not just <35mph streets), more bicycle recreation paths have been opened, more cyclists can be seen on the streets (even in the dead of winter), and I don't get yelled at nearly as much.

Oh. I agree that in general most Americans perceive cycling in traffic to be more dangerous today than it was in the past. I also see no reason for this trend to stop or reverse - cycling in traffic will probably be perceived to be even more dangerous in 10 years than it is today.

One of the reasons I don't see this trend changing is that cycling advocacy is contributing to it, by supporting facilities that get cyclists out of the way of all that "more and more dangerous" traffic, rather than trying to stifle it which we could do by getting the message out that cycling in traffic is 1), relatively safe, 2) pretty much just as safe today as it ever has been.

Of course, that's what I'm doing here and in my local advocacy. Is anyone else?

So you disagree that there are more motorists using the roads now than 10 years ago? Meaning that there should be no more traffic congestion than 10 years ago, nor any need for the Governor to spend 223billion over the next 10 years to relieve 18% of that congestion. Further, you must also believe that there has been no housing increase or population increase over the last 10 years...

I think this will only happen in certain areas. In the pacific NW, the trend is going in quite to opposite direction. In just the 5 year span since I first bike commuted in the Portland area, the cycling facilities laws have been clarified in the cyclists' favor, the drivers' manual has emphasised bicycles to a greater extent (even outlining destination lane positioning for cyclists), bike lanes have been added to nearly all new surface streets (not just <35mph streets), more bicycle recreation paths have been opened, more cyclists can be seen on the streets (even in the dead of winter), and I don't get yelled at nearly as much.
Why don't you reread all the anti-cyclist comments about the incident where the Portland bus driver allowed the passenger to get off the bus and assault the cyclist, get back on, and drive away. Reread all the comments from the Portland cyclists expressing support for the notion that cyclists don't belong outside of bike lanes. If that's your idea of things going in the right direction for cycling, we have very different destinations in mind.



So you disagree that there are more motorists using the roads now than 10 years ago? Meaning that there should be no more traffic congestion than 10 years ago, nor any need for the Governor to spend 223billion over the next 10 years to relieve 18% of that congestion. Further, you must also believe that there has been no housing increase or population increase over the last 10 years...
Of course. I acknowledge there are more motorists, more traffic congestion, more housing and more population, etc, (I disagree there is a "need" for more roads to relieve all that congestion - that's a Band-aid that just exacerbates the problem - I believe the solution is toll roads with dynamic tolls that increase and decrease with demand, but that's a different topic), but I don't believe that all that increase makes cycling in traffic significantly more dangerous. On any given road, the hazards are just about the same. In fact, with higher congestion, it is arguable that you have more of your "predictable traffic", and less of your "unpredicatable individual drivers". I first start road riding as a youngster on the sleepy Monterey Peninsula. Whatever dangers I encountered today there, or here, or anywhere else, pretty much existed back then too.

I just don't buy the argument that traffic is significantly more dangerous today. That just smacks of old guys sitting on a porch reminiscing about their idealized perception of the "good ol' days". It might make the concept of aging and dying more palatable, which provides a powerful motivation to look back in time through rose tinted glasses, but it doesn't make it true.

Oh. I agree that in general most Americans perceive cycling in traffic to be more dangerous today than it was in the past. I also see no reason for this trend to stop or reverse - cycling in traffic will probably be perceived to be even more dangerous in 10 years than it is today.

One of the reasons I don't see this trend changing is that cycling advocacy is contributing to it, by supporting facilities that get cyclists out of the way of all that "more and more dangerous" traffic, rather than trying to stifle it which we could do by getting the message out that cycling in traffic is 1), relatively safe, 2) pretty much just as safe today as it ever has been.

Of course, that's what I'm doing here and in my local advocacy. Is anyone else?

It's a chicken and egg thing - seperate facilities are popular because the roads are perceived as too dangerous, so until you change the perception about the roads, you are pretty much peeing in the wind opposing seperate facilities. Why? MOA - Mothers Of America. MOA is a generic term, not limited to mothers, females or even Americans - I picked it up on the drill field. They are the same people who made military boot camp into wussie summer camps, made bike helmets almost mandatory, made drunk driving a crime, made smoking taboo, etc., etc. Opposing them is political suicide for any advocacy group. If you want to change the perception that cycling on the roads is dangerous, you gotta convince the MOA that is the case. Opposing them on seperate facilities isn't going to accomplish that.

Edit: look at it this way - seperate facilities are a symptom of the root problem - the perception that the roadways are dangerous. Address the root problem, not the symptoms.

It's a chicken and egg thing - seperate facilities are popular because the roads are perceived as too dangerous, so until you change the perception about the roads, you are pretty much peeing in the wind opposing seperate facilities. Why? MOA - Mothers Of America. MOA is a generic term, not limited to mothers, females or even Americans - I picked it up on the drill field. They are the same people who made military boot camp into wussie summer camps, made bike helmets almost mandatory, made drunk driving a crime, made smoking taboo, etc., etc. Opposing them is political suicide for any advocacy group. If you want to change the perception that cycling on the roads is dangerous, you gotta convince the MOA that is the case. Opposing them on seperate facilities isn't going to accomplish that.
Fair enough. I think I probably over-emphasize the anti-facilities aspect of my overall agenda here because that's what gets the most attention. What gets lost in all the noise is my main message: cycling in traffic is generally safer than most people realize (700 deaths/year considering all the cycling going on is not great, but, frankly, it's not that bad, especially considering the role of blatantly dangerous cyclist behavior in much of that number), and can be significantly safer when executed with prudence and vigilance.

I like the MOA concept. How to convince them? Maybe going after facilities is throwing fuel into the fire, but, besides doing whatever else we can do (education, PR), I think not being proactive about creating more and more facilities is important, but I get a lot of flack for saying essentially just that around here.

I just don't buy the argument that traffic is significantly more dangerous today. That just smacks of old guys sitting on a porch reminiscing about their idealized perception of the "good ol' days". It might make the concept of aging and dying more palatable, which provides a powerful motivation to look back in time through rose tinted glasses, but it doesn't make it true.

How about the fact that the term "road rage" didn't even exist until about 1988 (http://www.bookrags.com/history/popculture/road-rage-sjpc-04/)... that alone tells me that the roads became more dangerous some time back then... that frustrated motorists started venting at anything they perceived to be in their way... including fellow motorists.

Nah, its more than "the old guys" sitting on the porch...

Speeds have gone up too... KVR is a prime example... when it was first put back into service after hiway 15 opened, it was marked at 45MPH... today, it is 65MPH.

Road rage and higher speeds plus more motorists on the road means it is a meaner place out there.

Now why haven't auto fatilities increased over the same period... how about mandatory seatbelt laws, DUI laws and airbags... just to name a few changes.

I do agree with you regarding the issues of building new roads, and the idea of a dynamic toll system sounds good too (I think they do that on that Irvine toll road)

I just don't buy the argument that traffic is significantly more dangerous today.

Not very perceptive of you.

What will the future bring? More cars, more road rage, more mad drivers.

Hopefully in my mind? More integrated bicycle accomodations that have effective intersection striping...here's a example of integrated bicycle accomodations at an intersection I rode thru today. Rural-suburban area with 40mph traffic. ....I'd like to see more stuff just like this.

It's a chicken and egg thing
...
Edit: look at it this way - seperate facilities are a symptom of the root problem - the perception that the roadways are dangerous. Address the root problem, not the symptoms.
I think we're in agreement!

Yes, the root problem is the perception of danger in cycling in traffic, but it IS a chicken-and-egg problem too. That is, the support of facilities reinforces the root problem, and, so, not doing that (supporting facilities) IS part of addressing the root problem, or is at least not making it worse.

Part of the problem is that that part of it, not supporting facilities, is easier to focus on. Also, I believe understanding the problem with supporting facilities comes with appreciation for the root problem. Before bicycling advocates can address the MOA, bicycling advocates have to understand and appreciate the root problem themselves. We're far from that.

Fair enough. I think I probably over-emphasize the anti-facilities aspect of my overall agenda here because that's what gets the most attention. What gets lost in all the noise is my main message: cycling in traffic is generally safe than most people realize (700 deaths a year considering all the cycling going on is not great, but, frankly, it's not that bad, especially considering the role of blatantly dangerous cyclist behavior in much of that number), and can be significantly safer when executed with prudence and vigilance.

I like the MOA concept. How to convince them? Maybe going after facilities is throwing fuel into the fire, but, besides doing whatever else we can do (education, PR), I think not being proactive about creating more and more facilities is a good start.

I do agree that cycling on the roadways is relatively safe, but I also realize that it isn't as safe as it used to be and that it is not perceived as safe by most. How do you change the perception of the MOA? There is only one way, they have to see it, and believe it, with their own eyes. THAT is why I think tackling the root issue by lobbying for better enforcement of existing traffic laws needs to be a priority. If results can be achieved there, combined with a very positive and educational media campaign, driver education and cyclist education, you might have a shot at getting integration of cyclists and motorists on the same roadways for transportation purposes taken seriously, or at least on equal footing with seperate facilities for recreational purposes.

I think we're in agreement!

Yes, the root problem is the perception of danger in cycling in traffic, but it IS a chicken-and-egg problem too. That is, the support of facilities reinforces the root problem, and, so, not doing that (supporting facilities) IS part of addressing the root problem, or is at least not making it worse.

Part of the problem is that that part of it, not supporting facilities, is easier to focus on. Also, I believe understanding the problem with supporting facilities comes with appreciation for the root problem. Before bicycling advocates can address the MOA, bicycling advocates have to understand and appreciate the root problem themselves. We're far from that.

That is where we disagree - the symptoms don't reinforce or perpetuate the root problem. The symptoms are just symptoms. Separate facilities are a fact of life and will not go away. Instead of opposing them, you need to make it clear that you consider them nice enhancements for recreational cycling, but not an answer for transportation uses, unless we want to build a network of cycling facilities that rivals our current highway system, which pretty much anyone would easily realize is way too expensive, if not unrealistic.

That is where we disagree - the symptoms don't reinforce or perpetuate the root problem. The symptoms are just symptoms. Separate facilities are a fact of life and will not go away. Instead of opposing them, you need to make it clear that you consider them nice enhancements for recreational cycling, but not an answer for transportation uses, unless we want to build a network of cycling facilities that rivals our current highway system, which pretty much anyone would easily realize is way too expensive, if not unrealistic.


More than that, rally against the facilities that are really poorly designed... the ones that do not use dashed lines at intersections, or put cyclists to the right of right turning motorists... or are placed right along parked cars. Remove facilities on low speed roads, which will then encourage motorists and cyclists to be cooperative.

More than that, rally against the facilities that are really poorly designed... the ones that do not use dashed lines at intersections, or put cyclists to the right of right turning motorists... or are placed right along parked cars. Remove facilities on low speed roads, which will then encourage motorists and cyclists to be cooperative.

I can buy that...as long as they are on-roadway facilities. There is no point in opposing or even getting involved in off-roadway facilities that are recreational in nature. I like Bek't term - Integrated Facilities - those facilities that are an integral part of the roadways, as opposed to Non-integrated or recreational facilities. I think making the distinction between Transportation and Recreation is a key concept we should embrace. Indeed, TC, Transportational Cycling ad RC, Recreational Cycling are terms that the general public and cyclists might understand, both what they stand for and their differences, much easier than VC and it's offshoots. Hmmm, this is a concept I could write a paper on myself. You heard it here first...I think. :eek:

OMFG, HH got me into the categorization thing...I best just go shoot myself.

OP here. Please, let's confine the discussion to what you think will happen in the future, not what you think should happen, A bike lane argument is even worse than a VC argument!

Okay, what will happen in the greater seattle area:

more well designed, integrated bicycling facilities.

more cars. more traffic. more people trying bike commuting as gas prices, traffic conjestion and sprawl escalates. more people biking, i think. there's a big economic correction due america, and i think it will affect how people get around.

but people will continue to sacrifice more and more for gasoline to drive their cars.

Gas prices will inevitably rise considerably in the next 5-10 years. Peak oil production in the oil producing nations has probably already been hit and the United States is little prepared for this eventuality. Unless some miracle of technological alternatives suddenly appears tomorrow this new reality of economics will have a major impact on automobiles, their use and their design. The negative effect of this reality on personal economics will mean more students and low income individuals and families will turn to bicycles for transportation purposes- the same people who use public transportation. But most Americans will continue to make all possible sacrifices to maintain the use of an automobile both for practical purposes and for status.

Since gasoline supply is inextricably linked to events in the Middle East the possibility of a catastrophic event there or in the form of domestic terrorism could profoundly impact our economy and our energy supply, in which case bicycles could prove to be an even greater and necessary alternative.

The large increase in transportation cyclists will outweigh the voice and advocacy of club riders, recreational cyclists and even the middle and upper middle class commuter cyclists who currently dominate cycling advocacy. Since this new wave of cyclists will have little disposable income and time to put into political advocacy more and more decisions will be made by politicians at the whim of public opinion. Public opinion will tend to be swayed by myth and misperception around cycling as opposed to practical realities and real life experience. The result will be some improvements to cycling facilities by pure chance and more than likely a lot of poorly designed facilities. The disunity within the ranks of the current cycling advocacy community will only serve to confuse and anger politicians, road and facility designers and those who continue to use automobiles as their primary means of transport and they will find themselves largely ignored.

The real leaders of the cycling community will more than likely come from the more radical fringes of the youthful cycling community. Within urban centers look to the SS/FG crowd for a hipper more rebellious form of advocacy to take hold that is far less politically correct, dogmatic and ultimately more unified and effective. There will undoubtedly be some major showdowns between that group and the powers that be.

Traffic has only gotten worse in the past 40 years of my existence. It will continue to do so. To think otherwise means you don't believe in uniformitarianism, which is a geological term. And geology operates in vast time scales.

People who have lived in Santa Barbara a while have a common lament. What happened to all the real Santa Barbarans? Who took the "laid back" out of Santa Barbara?

And from your descriptions of San Diego it's a whole lot more trafficky and treacherous-sounding than what I remember from 1988 when I was there.

I agree with the observation that you have to convince the MOA. When I was 4 years old I could wander the neighborhoods, travel blocks away, alone and unsupervised by adults. You would never see a 4 year old girl alone on the street these days. I walked to school unsupervised from the second day of kindergarden onward. You'd never seen kindergardener's walking to school alone. And some schools, even some high schools, forbid students from walking or riding bikes.

Traffic is going to get worse. People are going to demand better non-integrated cycling facilities. Perhaps it might be beneficial to insist that these non-integrated facilities are not designed strictly for recreation but for transportation instead? We have some good non-integrated facilities here that are intended as transportation. They don't have the negative characterisics of multi-user paths that you read about here on BF. They get you from here to there quickly, safely and comfortably with no pedestrians, dogs, tourists or whatever. It's not so bad, really.

So rather than fight that trend, why not try to shape it?

OP here. Please, let's confine the discussion to what you think will happen in the future, not what you think should happen, A bike lane argument is even worse than a VC argument!

Da guy wit da helmit made me do it!

I started wondering about what changes will come in the next five or ten years. --- Check out this thread dated 8-18-05 entitled "Your Predictions for 2010"
www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?p=1488698&highlight=2010#post1488698

I tend to see the future much as buzzman does.

If expensive energy becomes a permanent fact, as opposed to today's temporary crisis, we will see a vast restructuring of society, mostly done 'on the fly' -- and on the cheap. We'll experience harships few people alive today have had to deal with.

If gasoline prices reach $5 - $10+ a gallon and stay there, transportation costs will skyrocket, causing stagflation and soon after, widespread unemployment. Auto traffic will decrease significantly as fewer people will be able to afford to drive as much as most people do now.

With many people out of work, and less money available for discretionary spending, people will have fewer reasons to drive. Reduced demand for consumer goods will cause trucking to decrease dramatically.

Driving will be viewed more as an expensive necessity by those who can afford it, and as a wasteful luxury by those who cannot. Small, fuel-efficient 'econo-box' cars will dominate the remaining market, with only a few wealthy eccentrics driving anything larger. Carpooling will become more common, and demand for public transport will increase. Most cities will be too strapped for cash to respond adequately.

Compact urban centers with nearby agriculture will fare best, with fewer food shortages and less social unrest. Sprawling cities will fare much worse. Some suburbs will simply be abandoned, others will redefine themselves as small communities completely separate from the distant urban centers which spawned them.

Bicycling will become much more common for everyday transportation, with "Freds" the new model. Simple, inexpensive bikes will dominate the market. Lower car traffic, combined with higher bike traffic, will result in many existing street/road lanes being redesignated as bike-only lanes. With very little public money available, few (if any) additional facilities will be built. Perhaps portions of freeways will even be opened to cycling.

Recreational road cycling will still be popular among the wealthy, with emptier (if less-well-maintained) roadways creating a new Golden Age. Mountain biking will decline, although many of its innovations (especially front suspension) will be incorporated into utility bike design.

Bicycling will be recognized as vital, practical personal transportation. Cycling advocacy will become central to urban planning. Safety and convenience will be prime considerations, with issues such as adequate cycle parking and street maintenance prominent in most agendas.

***********************************************

Or maybe Peak Oil is a myth, in which case the status quo will continue, with the advocacy community divided, and cycling largely regarded by the general population as a fringe activity.

(earlier) It's a chicken and egg thing.
...
(later) the symptoms don't reinforce or perpetuate the root problem.
Then how is it a "chicken and egg" thing? What's the chicken and what's the egg?

To me, the chicken is "the notion that cycling in traffic is unsafe" which hatches the egg, "segregated cycle facilities". But as "segregated cycle facilities" mature, they reinforce and produce more of "the notion that cycling in traffic is unsafe".

Chicken = "the notion that cycling in traffic is unsafe"
Egg = "segregated cycle facilities"

If that's not the chicken and the egg, what do you think is?

There is no point in opposing or even getting involved in off-roadway facilities that are recreational in nature.
I certainly agree with that.
(oops, just saw Roody's appeal to stick to what we think will be in the future, okay, okay - chipcom, please answer the chicken/egg question somewhere else, perhaps in your non-vc thread?)

It's going to be like houses. I keep reading about with aging baby boomers and smaller families there will be a demand for smaller houses... yet new housing seems to get bigger and bigger every year. In ten years I'll be on my third "the world will run out of oil in 20 years" cycle. There will lots of talk about utilitarian cycling, but it won't amount to much action. Some how just talking about cycling and agreeing with it is the equivalent of actual pedaling.

So here's my prediction. In 10 years my eyes will be able to make the full 360 degree rotation in my sockets. And all helmuts will have cameras installed so I'll be able to upload a video clip to prove it.

Americans will be more lazy and fatter in 10 years than today, additionally, Americans will be in more of a hurry to 'get things done' ... there is no way they are going to give up their cars regardless the price of fuel. Because of the 'urgency' that people have of getting to McD's for lunch, and the false sense of security that their high performance cars provide, roads for cycling will be more dangerous than ever (not to mention that there will be more cars on the road than today).

The future is not good.

:(

jw

With help from the MOA's (nice phrase chipcom), there is a well-funded push to build more segregated facilities. Our local planning authority (MORPC for those from central Ohio) now requires all projects with federal funds to "accomodate" cyclist. And by "accomodate," they don't just mean building a road that cyclists can use. They mean special facilities.

There is a brewing problem in the advoacy groups. Members are getting less and less of a voice. The LAB has increased the number of its board members chosen by the board so that members have less of an ability to influence policy. My local group, following the advice of the national Thunderhead Alliance, prohibits membrs from doing anything but paying dues. The board picks itself.

Another trend that goes with the MOA idea is that bicyclists are being lumped with pedestrians in both planning and advocacy groups. That will result in an increase in the idea that cyclists don't belong in traffic.

I don't think the price of gas will help cycling that much. If you look at the other costs of auto commuting (depreciation, maintenance, insurance, and parking), gas is actually a small part of the cost except for the longest commuters.

And roody, I hoped I kept with the spirit of the OP--talking about where things were headed, not where I think they should be headed.

Then how is it a "chicken and egg" thing? What's the chicken and what's the egg?

To me, the chicken is "the notion that cycling in traffic is unsafe" which hatches the egg, "segregated cycle facilities". But as "segregated cycle facilities" mature, they reinforce and produce more of "the notion that cycling in traffic is unsafe".

Chicken = "the notion that cycling in traffic is unsafe"
Egg = "segregated cycle facilities"

If that's not the chicken and the egg, what do you think is?

A chicken - egg thing is a perpetual loop. What came first, the chicken or the egg? I believe in the case of cycling we actually do know what came first - what caused the demand for separate facilities? The perception that the roadways are not safe was the cause. So it's more accurate I suppose to look at it that way - root cause vs symptoms. Treat the root cause if you want a cure, treat the symptoms if you just want to feel good. As far as the future of advocacy, I see everyone continuing to treat the symptoms rather than the root cause. (Like how I diverted this back on topic?) :)

here's a example of 'good' integrated bicycle accomodations .... Rural-suburban area with 40mph traffic. ....I'd like to see more stuff just like this.
I moved my response to: http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=2092065&postcount=1521
Al

Why don't you reread all the anti-cyclist comments about the incident where the Portland bus driver allowed the passenger to get off the bus and assault the cyclist, get back on, and drive away. Reread all the comments from the Portland cyclists expressing support for the notion that cyclists don't belong outside of bike lanes. If that's your idea of things going in the right direction for cycling, we have very different destinations in mind.


Psychology (edit: I should say, pop psychology) is not my forte, so I prefer to stick with real measures of progress. I can see real progress on the streets, both with the way drivers treat me and with the way road markings make it easier for me to move around. I see nothing that indicates that the trend in real progress will reverse itself.

Letters in a paper are famously inaccurate as a measure of the population as a whole. Only people driven to respond, respond, so what you get is a measurement of the extremeties rather than a measure of the whole. Its like listening to Rush Limbaugh and the callers to his show to try to get a measure of the political sediments of the whole nation. People who have complaints, complain; people who don't, don't. There are many letters, all of which I read, but the numbers do not come close to the population of Portland, and do not even equal the population of cyclists. It cannot even be said that each cyclist is responsible for pissing off even one moterist more than momentarily, even if you employ the 5:1 ratio of silent sufferers to vocal.

chicken - egg ... egg - chicken...
Obviously you all don't understand that an Intelligent Designer created the chicken. I think his name is Forester or Helmet Head or something like that.

With very little public money available, few (if any) additional facilities will be built.

good point. It will more than likely, as you point out, be done through redesignation of existing facilities.
And I think your point about urban and suburban areas being redefined is accurate as well. Actually, many European cities fit this modality partly in response to the decimation of their infrastructure during the Second World War. In other words, those countries have already, to some degree, learned these lessons.

I'm sorry, but I would really like to understand something chipcom said back in #24. Here's is the relevant part of the exchange:






Oh. I agree that in general most Americans perceive cycling in traffic to be more dangerous today than it was in the past. I also see no reason for this trend to stop or reverse - cycling in traffic will probably be perceived to be even more dangerous in 10 years than it is today.

One of the reasons I don't see this trend changing is that cycling advocacy is contributing to it, by supporting facilities that get cyclists out of the way of all that "more and more dangerous" traffic, rather than trying to stifle it which we could do by getting the message out that cycling in traffic is 1), relatively safe, 2) pretty much just as safe today as it ever has been.
...

It's a chicken and egg thing - seperate facilities are popular because the roads are perceived as too dangerous...

In "It's a chicken and egg thing", what did you mean by "It". What were you thinking? Specifically, what was the chicken, and what was the egg?

Chicken = ???
Egg = ???



A chicken - egg thing is a perpetual loop.
I know that! So what is the perpetual loop you were referring to above?



I believe in the case of cycling we actually do know what came first.
If we do know what came first, then it's not a chicken - egg thing, by definition. Are you retracting your statement from #28? Or are you talking about something else now?

What you said was, essentially, that "seperate facilities are popular because the roads are perceived as too dangerous" is a "chicken - egg thing". What I took that to mean, and I believe reasonably so, was that you meant, "seperate facilities are popular because the roads are perceived as too dangerous; the roads are perceived as too dangerous because seperate facilities are popular; ..." What else could you have meant by "it's a chicken - egg thing"?

But when I said we agreed and clarified what I understood we agreed on, you seemed to contradict yourself by saying, "That is where we disagree - the symptoms don't reinforce or perpetuate the root problem." If one doesn't reinforce or perpetuate the other, then how is it a chicken - egg thing?

Can you solve this conundrum for me?