Advocacy & Safety - What does "bikes belong" mean?

Once again I'm trying to stimulate thought. Here I'm trying to bring attention to what I believe to be a key underlying difference between VC advocacy and PnP (paint 'n path) advocacy regarding cyclist rights. I'm curious to see how many explicitly hold one belief over the other, and how many feel there isn't a real significant difference.

(please standby, poll coming)

What is this going to accomplish besides first aggravating your detractors, then turning into a BL/VC debate?
Al

"Bikes belong"

This is something a really tall genie says as he waves his hand over a group of short bikes. :D

(sorry)

It means selling more bikes

What is this going to accomplish besides first aggravating your detractors, then turning into a BL/VC debate?
Al
Why would it aggravate anyone?
Why would it turn into a BL/VC debate?

For those who are still having trouble understanding what VC advocacy is about, and how it's different from the predominant philosophy currently driving cycling advocacy, my hope is this poll and related discussion will help make it more clear.

I voted other.

I believe it should mean: "Bikes belong on the road, with cyclists having the same rights and obligations as any other driver of a vehicle, including adhering to the principle that slower traffic should keep to the right of faster traffic, when safe, reasonable and practicable to do so."

But 'Bikes Belong' really means this "Bikes belong on the road, but out of the way of motorists as much as possible, preferably in their own space, usually off to the right. "

If there is any doubt look at: http://bikesbelong.org/page.cfm?PageID=310 and http://bikesbelong.oli.us/Misc_pdfs/Tempe_Bike_Ride.pdf
Look at the graphic of the bike tour (2nd page of pdf) and read the words describing the bridge at the east end of the lake "This busy bridge is an example of what not to do. Currently the only way across Town Lake, it has wide sidewalks, but no bike lane. Cyclists are forced to ride either in traffic or on the sidewalk. The planned [pedestrian/bicycle] bridge will provide an altenate route for cyclists."
Still doubt it, then look at the image in the bottom left showing a median sepearated bike lane/path that dumps into an intersection.

Al

What is this going to accomplish besides first aggravating your detractors, then turning into a BL/VC debate?

Stimulate "debate" for the amusement of the OP. Presumably the usual suspects/characters will continue to provide grist for the HH agenda mill.

I voted other.

I believe it should mean: "Bikes belong on the road, with cyclists having the same rights and obligations as any other driver of a vehicle, including adhering to the principle that slower traffic should keep to the right of faster traffic, when safe, reasonable and practicable to do so."

But 'Bikes Belong' really means this "Bikes belong on the road, but out of the way of motorists as much as possible, preferably in their own space, usually off to the right. "

If there is any doubt look at: http://bikesbelong.org/page.cfm?PageID=310 and http://bikesbelong.oli.us/Misc_pdfs/Tempe_Bike_Ride.pdf
Look at the graphic of the bike tour (2nd page of pdf) and read the words describing the bridge at the east end of the lake "This busy bridge is an example of what not to do. Currently the only way across Town Lake, it has wide sidewalks, but no bike lane. Cyclists are forced to ride either in traffic or on the sidewalk. The planned [pedestrian/bicycle] bridge will provide an altenate route for cyclists."
Still doubt it, then look at the image in the bottom left showing a median sepearated bike lane/path that dumps into an intersection.

Al
What "bikes belong" means to me has nothing to do with whatever meaning is implied by the Bikes Belong organization.

What "bikes belong" means to me has nothing to do with whatever meaning is implied by the Bikes Belong organization.
Sure, and what I wrote didn't say what it (small caps) means to me is the same as the (big caps) meaning. I called them out separately.
But I refered to the org. as the posting that likely prompted your poll came from this where you also refered to the org.
http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=2269715&postcount=123

Al

"Bikes belong"

This is something a really tall genie says as he waves his hand over a group of short bikes. :D

(sorry)

I thought it was what rastaman says when a bunch of tandems go by.

After a little practice, riding on the road -- where we belong -- is safe, easy, fun and the quickest way to get across the city on a bike. If you haven't yet tried it, I suggest you it a fair try. You might want to start with the "easier" streets and slower times of day, then work your way up to more difficult situations.

I happily depend on my bike for about 95% of my intracity travel. If I couldn't mix it up with other traffic, I don't believe this would be pracical.

In my basement, all twelve Bikes Belong to me :)

When an author of a poll is known to hold a strong opinion on the question at hand, and then chooses to label one view with his or her own predjudiced title, we get phrases such as pro-life, pro-choice or paint 'n path. The intent seems to be to make a response for or against, depending on the view of the author, reflect badly on the responder.

What does "bikes belong" mean?

Ask Mr. Natural..... he knows.

http://students.ou.edu/M/Richard.T.Marcy-1/Images/mr%20natural.JPG

Dogbait

When an author of a poll is known to hold a strong opinion on the question at hand, and then chooses to label one view with his or her own predjudiced title, we get phrases such as pro-life, pro-choice or paint 'n path. The intent seems to be to make a response for or against, depending on the view of the author, reflect badly on the responder.

I didn't know PnP had a negative connotation. Does it?

I know facilities advocates who are proud to admit they are "PnP types".

I think it means HH is getting testy again so it's time for a rousing round o' polls.

What does it all mean?
It means it's time to go for a ride and stop all this nonsense.

I'm surprised no one has voted for the first or third choice yet. Especially the third choice.
It seems to me that anyone who supported bike lanes of any type would have to avoid distinguishing between the first two choices.

Ask Mr. Natural..... he knows.


Dogbait

You are The MAN dogbait !!

I still have my original copy of that issue !
Zap Rules !!!! Great analogy......Mr. NAtural is a true visionary !
WWMND ?

Anyway....I picked the second choice.
Here in Vermont though, the drivers manual specifically says bikes
must give way to cars. What are thoughts when the law of a state
nullifies VC sensibilities in a way ?

I didn't know PnP had a negative connotation. Does it?

......

You tell me. You're the one who used it. I have no idea what you intended. I believe the original PnP is used to refer to "Plug and Play" from Microsoft. Some of the internet microsoft haters have changed it to "Plug and Pray" but they usually spell it out to get the full benefit of the negative message.... wouldn't work with PnP.

D

Here in Vermont though, the drivers manual specifically says bikes
must give way to cars.
Where does the law say this?

http://www.leg.state.vt.us/statutes/fullsection.cfm?Title=23&Chapter=013&Section=01139

As far as I can tell you can only not impede traffic if you are riding two abreast.

Interestingly, in VT shoulders are considered Bike Lanes:
http://www.leg.state.vt.us/statutes/fullsection.cfm?Title=19&Chapter=023&Section=02301

Al

What are thoughts when the law of a state nullifies VC sensibilities in a way ?
This question is essentialy the topic of the "should 21202 be repealed?" thread.

^^^^ I will check again, Al.
I might be worng but when we went to DMV to register my Wife's
car I read an actual paper copy of the manual and I remember
saying a little 'Hmmmmmm' to myself when I was reading the bicycle
part. I am almost positive I am remembering correctly but what you
pulled up shows me to be incorrect. For my own edification I will pick
up a hard copy of the manual and re-check my facts. Thank you for
calling that to my attention.

=-=£em in Pa For my own edification I will pick
up a hard copy of the manual and re-check my facts.
No need to wait. The pdf. is here:
http://www.aot.state.vt.us/dmv/documents/Manuals/DriverLicense/2004DriverManual.pdf

Page 62 specifically calls out that cyclist may be using center of lane because of debris or making turns. It also says that if road is to narrow to share side by side to wait until safe to pass and not force cyclist to side.

Al

The Vermont manual is available here:
http://www.aot.state.vt.us/DMV/documents/Manuals/DriverLicense/2004DriverManual.pdf

I don't see anything about bikes yielding to cars. The section on bikes seems pretty good and endorses VC-like techniques, including "commanding the lane."

Keep in mind that the driver's manual is not the law, it's some bureaucrat's interpretation of it.

Congratulations to royalflash for stepping up and voting for the principle that forms the basis for his views, that "bikes belong on the road, but out of the way of motorists as much as possible, preferably in their own space, usually off to the right."

I respectfully disagree, of course, but I can certainly understand why he, along with the majority of our culture, and probably the majority of cyclists, perhaps even the majority of cycling advocates, believe this way.

I urge the rest of you, who believe as I do, that "bikes belong on the road, with cyclists having the same rights and obligations as any other driver of a vehicle, including adhering to the principle that between intersections, slower traffic should keep to the right of faster traffic, but only when safe, reasonable and practicable to do so." (I added the "between intersections" and "but only" clarifications; too late to change the wording in the poll), to consider the difference of these two views, the serious ramifications to cyclists, and how much of a priority it should be to promote our view over theirs.



For my own edification I will pick up a hard copy of the manual and re-check my facts. Thank you for calling that to my attention.
Do not confuse the condensed, biased and anti-cycling prejudiced views expressed in a driver's manual to be the law of your state. Though a manual is supposed to be based on the law, they are written by editors, who choose what to mention, and what to leave out... Their anti-cyclist rights biases and prejudices are often reflected in those decisions.

Do not confuse the condensed, biased and anti-cycling prejudiced views expressed in a driver's manual to be the law of your state. Though a manual is supposed to be based on the law, they are written by editors, who choose what to mention, and what to leave out... Their anti-cyclist rights biases and prejudices are often reflected in those decisions.
I searched the VT laws and the only reference to impeeding I could find was if riding two abreast -see above (http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=2270713&postcount=20). The manual says to motorist to give cyclist who are riding two abreast time to move into single file before attempting pass.

Do not assume that manuals will always be anti-cyclist. The VT manual is more pro-cyclist than the law actually. (example: the law only says cyclist must ride as far right as practicable with no exceptions given, the manual says cyclist may command the lane for debris, turns and not to squeeze cyclists in narrow lanes.)

Al

Do not assume that manuals will always be anti-cyclist.
Do not assume that my statements are based on the assumption that manuals will always be anti-cyclist.

Just because anti-cyclist rights biases and prejudices are often reflected in those decisions does not mean that biased pro-cyclist opinions are also not reflected in those decisions.

Do not assume that my statements are based on the assumption that manuals will always be anti-cyclist.

Just because anti-cyclist rights biases and prejudices are often reflected in those decisions does not mean that biased pro-cyclist opinions are also not reflected in those decisions.
Sure, whatever, of course. But wouldn't it have been easier to check the laws and manuals (links posted to both before you chimed in) or otherwise keep quiet? There was a reason for me posting the link to the laws to Lem first, then later the manual.

Al

^^^I didnt mean to cause trouble with my VT post :eek:
Coincidentaly, I have a job interview about 8/10 of a mile
from the DMV building. Ill pick up the manual if for nothing more
than to see why that abdication stuff stuck in my mind !

^^^I didnt mean to cause trouble with my VT post :eek:

You caused no trouble at all. Us others are just being a little silly and nitpicky - its our comfort zone.

Al

What on earth purpose does this poll serve other than to further HH's self-aggrandizement?

What on earth purpose does this poll serve ...?
The purpose was stated in the OP: provoke thought. Apparently, this thread has touched a nerve with you. Mission accomplished? I noticed you haven't voted yet. Do you you know where you stand on this issue, or are you still thinking about it?

Once again I'm trying to stimulate thought. Here I'm trying to bring attention to what I believe to be a key underlying difference between VC advocacy and PnP (paint 'n path) advocacy regarding cyclist rights. I'm curious to see how many explicitly hold one belief over the other, and how many feel there isn't a real significant difference.

You crack me up. You set up a strawman (bikes belong (paint 'n path)) so you can knock it down and portray VC anti-facilities politics as God's gift to cycling advocacy. You even imply that it PnP is the only alternative to VC advocacy. What a load of horse manure!

The OP is pure flame bait, even more than the average, run-of-the-mill, Helemet Head "VC is the answer to all the world's problems" propaganda post. You make me laugh. Sometimes I think you're trying to make VC look ridiculous.

The "vehicular" riding style is good. VC-ists shoving VC politics down everybody's throats as the only correct answer sucks. It's annoying and it's insulting. Backlash is predictable.

I'm an advocate of the "vehicular" riding style and I hope that your incessant VC propaganizing and cheap stunts like your polls won't turn people against the riding style (but I fear it is doing exactly that). If all VC advocates think like you (which, thankfully, I suspect that they don't) then, as far as I'm concerned, it's time to get VC politics out of cycling advocacy.

I have said it before: VC know-it-all anti-facilities "everybody else is incompetent, has been misled or is being bought" politics is one of the worst things that has happened to cycling in my lifetime. John Forester has created a monster.



I didn't know PnP had a negative connotation.
Sure, in the same way that each time you've mentioned "segregated drinking fountains" you didn't know some people might be offended. How many times are you going to use the "I didn't know" gambit?



I know facilities advocates who are proud to admit they are "PnP types".Yea, either that or they have a sense of humor about it.



Once again I'm trying to stimulate thought.Yea, right, stimulate thought.

It looks like the same old Helmet Head BS to me.

You post flame bait and then act surprised and/or misunderstood / unfairly treated when you get flamed. Here's a hint: That kind of thing only works the first several hundred times you do it.

I haven't voted in your stupid poll, either. Are you going to bait me with a rhetorical question? That seems to be another one of your favorite tactics. Bait people so you can whine if they respond. I'm usually pretty good about ignoring your bait but you got me this time.



Apparently, this thread has touched a nerve with you. Mission accomplished?
Yep. You got the response you wanted. Now you can whine about how you were attacked unfairly. I'm sure some people will buy it.

As I said, you crack me up.

What is this going to accomplish besides first aggravating your detractors, then turning into a BL/VC debate?
Al

I think it means HH is getting testy again so it's time for a rousing round o' polls.

What on earth purpose does this poll serve other than to further HH's self-aggrandizement?

You crack me up. You set up a strawman (bikes belong (paint 'n path)) so you can knock it down and portray VC anti-facilities politics as God's gift to cycling advocacy. You even imply that it PnP is the only alternative to VC advocacy. What a load of horse manure!

Can someone buy me a beer?

Al

Can someone buy me a beer?

Al
:beer: :beer:

Have a couple of pints on me!

I think this poll/topic is one of the most blantantly self-aggrandizing of them all. The smarmy way he has spoken to the people who fell for his trap, and those he expected to:

I'm surprised no one has voted for the first or third choice yet. Especially the third choice.
It seems to me that anyone who supported bike lanes of any type would have to avoid distinguishing between the first two choices.

Congratulations to royalflash for stepping up and voting for the principle that forms the basis for his views, that "bikes belong on the road, but out of the way of motorists as much as possible, preferably in their own space, usually off to the right." (in other words, "Hooray! Finally somebody fell for my trap so I can expound on my soapbox."

JRA, you made a lot of strong assertions without much explanation. You claim I setup a strawman, yet you don't say what it is. The only hint is "(bikes belong (paint 'n path))". A strawman is a misrepresentation of someone else's argument. Whose argument did I present, much less misrepresent, in order for it to qualify as a strawman?

And if you're saying the first choice in the poll is a strawman - a misrepresentation of the opinion of whom? - how do you explain royalflash voting for it as being representative of his views, if it's a strawman?

You claim the OP is flame bait, without explaining why, other than some vague strawman claim. I still don't understand what's so upsetting about it.

I've heard the executive director of the SD County Bike Coalition refer to herself as a "PnP" type. I admit I've assumed advocacy is basically split between the PnPers and the VC advocates. In CA, for example, we have two organizations, CABO (VC) and the CBC (PnP). At the national level, LAB was leaning so far towards the PnP side, LAB Reform was created.

In San Diego we have an issue involving a planned new bike bridge that parallels a freeway bridge over Lake Hodges. The issue is that the bike bridge goes through a river park that will be closed at night, and Caltrans is planning to contribute to the building of that bridge, but only on the condition that they no longer have to provide bike access on the freeway bridge. So we're left with the choice of giving up 7/24 transportational access across the lake (alternative detour is very long - 16 miles - and includes a steep climb) in order to get the bike bridge built, or give up the bike bridge. The PnPers favor the bike bridge. The VCers favor the access. At all levels, national, state and local, I see advocacy split along VC/PnP lines. Forgive for me assuming others see this too. I see it like Democrats vs Republicans. Nothing inherently negative about either side (though of course I favor mine, just like any Democrat favors his side). Sure there are other fringe choices, but basically the primary positions on most advocacy issues seem to be VC and PnP.

My intent was to stimulate discussion, but I can't be responsible for the flame posts you members of the "I'm against anything HH is for" provide for us.

I could start a thread advocating motherhood and apple pie, and you guys would call it flame bait (without explainiung how it's flame bait, of course).

Now reread the OP and poll, and pretend someone you never heard of wrote it. Is it still flame bait? Of course not. The only bait here is my moniker.

I think this poll/topic is one of the most blantantly self-aggrandizing of them all. The smarmy way he has spoken to the people who fell for his trap, and those he expected to:

Being surprised is self-aggrandizing?
Congratulating someone for making a stand is self-aggrandizing?
Is expressing a strong controversial opinion self-aggrandizing?

I don't get it.

Type define:self-aggrandizement into the google search. Maybe that will help you understand.

I don't get it.

We've been trying to tell you that since...... oh, never mind.



Can someone buy me a beer?

With pleasure! :beer:

I'll have one with you :beer:

Dogbait

"an act undertaken to increase your own power and influence or to draw attention to your own importance "

How does starting this thread increase my power or influence, or draw attention to my importance?

The purpose of this thread, as is of all of my threads, is to bring attention to a cycling advocacy issue, not to me.

Can someone buy me a beer?

You gotta earn it. You earn a brew when you learn to stop providing stuff for Head(case) to convert to manure and spread with M. Hatter Rhetoric and endless "explanations" and reshuffling of his sophist trick cards. Recommend that you think twice about your participation in transforming A&S to HH's tea party/Wonderland.

Why can't the solution involve both VC and PnP? Why does it have to be either / or? IMO, VC appeals to a lot less people than PnP, and the only way to get more people cycling is through mass appeal.

This situation would seem to parallel certain disparities between bike and ped advocates, when roads for MVs get all the money, and bicycle and pedestrian advocates end up fighting between themselves over the left-over crumbs, usually less than 1% of any given project budget. It's just as bad at the city / state transportation budget level.

One $USD17million bike and ped unfriendly highway interchange could pay for a whole lot of bike/ped improvements throughout the city or state, regardless of their design.

Or is HH's argument simply 'no new facilities'? :eek: :rolleyes: ;) :D

"an act undertaken to increase your own power and influence or to draw attention to your own importance "

How does starting this thread increase my power or influence, or draw attention to my importance?

The purpose of this thread, as is of all of my threads, is to bring attention to a cycling advocacy issue, not to me.
Oh come on. You can't tell me that the purpose of this thread is to bring up an advocacy issue. Like you really wanted to know the answer to your poll. As if! The whole thing is a fishing expedition. You're hoping to lure someone in so you can pontificate, dominate, and bicker your way into dominance, and once again have a platform to expound upon your center lane biasing technique.

Give it a rest already.

Diane, ironically, it's you guys who make these threads about me, rather than about the issues. Enough already.



Why can't the solution involve both VC and PnP?
Who said it couldn't? There is common ground beween the two factions, that's for sure: bike ed, opposing The Notion and promoting its opposite, road widening (without bike-specific striping), bike-sensitive traffic signals, smoother surfaces, fewer potholes, well designed bike paths, opposing anti-cycling laws and policies, etc.

Mostly I was just responding to someone's implication that even referring to PnPers as PnPers is some kind of sin, which surprised me. The factions exist, and there are significant differences. I agree most cyclists and advocates are of the PnP ilk, but I believe the ratio in our little corner over here has shifted towards the VC side. I like to think that's because some have seen the light, thanks to the reason and logic crammed down their throats, but it could be more of a result of the PnP types being disgusted and leaving. If that's the case, that's very unfortunate.

Both factions agree that we need to fight the notion that bikes don't belong, but we're working from two different incompatible paradigms. So a solution using the PnP paradigm is a problem using the VC advocacy paradigm. This is what I was trying to bring attention to in this thread. The PnP paradigm is based on the notion that bikes belong on the road, but out of the way of motorists as much as possible, preferably in their own space, usually off to the right, while the VC paradigm is that bikes belong on the road, with cyclists having the same rights and obligations as any other driver of a vehicle, including adhering to the principle that, between intersections, slower traffic should keep to the right of faster traffic, but only when safe, reasonable and practicable to do so.

As long as the PnP faction keeps promoting "solutions" that are problems in the VC advocacy paradigm, I don't see a solution out of this. Obviously, the VC advocacy paradigm makes much more sense to me, and what I would really like is for PnP types to stop using theirs. One of my main purposes here is to figure out how to effectively present the VC paradigm to PnP types so they can grasp, appreciate and evaluate the difference between the two paradigms. It's very, very difficult to even get others to see that there are two paradigms, much less see what they are. It reminds me of that picture where depending on how you look at it you see an old or young woman, and once you see one, it's difficult to see the other. Only that's visual, and this is conceptual... much more difficult.

Strawmen

HH, you misrepresent what the alternative to VC advocacy is. You make it clear in your second post what this thread is about:

Helmet Head: For those who are still having trouble understanding what VC advocacy is about, and how it's different from the predominant philosophy currently driving cycling advocacy, my hope is this poll and related discussion will help make it more clear.

So, in other words, this thread is about selling the VC philosophy.

You present the alternative to VC as being PnP. You put "bikes belong" in the thread title, an intersting choice since we know that bikes belong is about selling bikes.

So, to sell VC advocacy to us, you put up a weak alternative to it, a caricature of the alternative, if you will, and that is exactly what a strawman argument is. If you can't see that, I can't help you.



As long as the PnP faction keeps promoting "solutions" that are problems in the VC advocacy paradigm...Oh, the horror of it! A problem for radical anti-facilities dogma-spouting know it alls. Whatever shall we do?

Hey, I can have a strawman argument, too. At least I admit it.

Actually, that's probably a fairly accurate description of at least one VC advocate - for a stereotype, that is.

I guess I shouldn't have used the term "bikes belong". It's more loaded than I realized. This all started in another thread, where my assertion that the notion that bikes should be out of the way of cars was challenged. I think that the reason the Bikes Belong org used that name, and why it works, regardless of what their org's purpose is, is evidence that my assertion is true.

When someone used the phrase "bikes belong", that reminded me of that point, and I used it. With that in my mind, I started this thread. I wass not assuming that the org owned the phrase, and that my use of it in this thread somehow connected it to them. I thought that was pretty obvious from the implication that I myself endorsed the phrase with respect to one of the meaning options in the poll. In retrospect, I should have called it "what does 'share the road' mean to you?" Hopefully, "share the road" is not quite as loaded as "bikes belong".

Of course this thread is about selling VC. BUT, the reason I think selling VC is important is because I happen to believe that is the solution to many cycling advocacy and safety issues. If someone convinces me otherwise, I will cease advocating VC. If the interests of VC advocacy conflict with cycling advocacy or safety, I favor the latter. I've just never seen that happen.

It is also true that I believe the primary alternative to VC is PnP, and vice versa. I've explain why. No one has challenged this, though Randya questioned it.

But no one has presented a rebuttal to my argument that these are two paradigms in fundamental conflict, and that the PnP paradigm is predominant in bicycling advocacy circles.

HH: why did you put up a poll if you already know the "right" answer for bike lane advocates? You present only two alternatives (you brand of VC and something called paint 'n path) when there are really more than two alternatives. You wonder aloud why more bike lane advocates don't believe that bikes belong at the side of the road and you attribute this to a misrepresentation of the bike lane advocate's views by the bike lane advocates.

You are trying to discuss a position in this debate which nobody adheres to. You won't find many seasoned cyclists who want to relegate cyclists off to the side of the road. You will find seasoned cyclists who appreciate the advantage of having the option to use a space set aside for cyclists. Now, you have said before that this is the way you ride yourself. Presuming that you regard your own riding style as VC, then this position is in concurence with the VC frame of mind you talk so frequently of.

What this indicates is that there is no real argument over the value of vehicular cycling. Nearly everyone here practices it, or some form of it. What your problem is is that the argument isn't between VC and PnP (or something). The argument truly is between VC advocates on the subject of bike lanes. When you expressed your frustration (or wonderment) that few had picked the option that you thought, for sure, would be representative of the bike lane advocates, what you really expressed is your frustration that this is not a fight between VC and something that is not VC; but rather the fight is between VC advocates over the relevance of bike lanes to cycling.

VC advocates have been fighting ignorant cycling advocates for so long, they no longer know how to debate a topic amongst themselves. The most vocal and most extreme VC advocates have hardened their views to the point where they are marching in lockstep and can accept nothing other than the agreed upon positions. Now that VC style riding is generally accepted between people who ride their bikes a lot, and now that the VC mindset has permeated most of the major bicycling advocacy groups and is even accepted by the government (Oregon DMV driving manual even includes the VC way of making a left turn), the hard core of VC advocates no longer know what to do with their time. So they turn against their fellow advocates over truly minor differences in opinions.

To me, "Bikes Belong" means that cyclists have just as much right to use our roads as motorists, and should expect a similar level of safety and respect as motorists expect.

HH: why did you put up a poll if you already know the "right" answer for bike lane advocates?
LIke I said, to provoke thought. This thread is not about bike lanes, per se. There is no "right" answer. I was hoping to confirm that there is some correlation between those who support bike lanes and them believing #1 over #2.

In other words, I am trying to dig deeper, to better understand fundamental ideas, beliefs with regard to cycling and motor traffic. This is but one attempt. So far, it has been fruitful. If nothing else, I am truly astonished at the numbers. I know 3 years ago I would definitely have selected the first option, for that's what I believed. I remember the first time I heard, "same roads, same rights, same rules" and thinking that was unrealistic thinking.

I also find it curious that of all you guys who vigorously defend bike lanes on at least some roads where slow moving vehicles are not prohibited (you, Gene, Diane, JRA, Patc, ILTB, etc.), only one has voted in this poll (royalflash).

Is this because you don't want to reveal that you believe in option #1 over option #2? Or is it because you don't want to reveal that you don't think they are significantly different, so you don't have to defend that? What are you hiding? And if you have nothing to hide, why not vote? There is an "other" option, which commits you to nothing except confirming that neither #1 nor #2 is close to what you believe to be accurate. Or is it that you don't even want to defend that position? Is it because your position is not defensible? Seriously, why else would any of you not vote in this poll?

By the way,this poll and thread is inspired by a recent editorial in LAB's quarterly magazine American Bicyclist entitled, "What does 'Share the Road' mean to you?"

Seriously, why else would any of you not vote in this poll?
Seriously the track record is well established that such "polls" are only intended to dredge up more grist for HH's rantmill. Only a Forester acolyte and/or a gullible jack donkey would take the results of any HH "poll" seriously and perhaps even some of his favorite "partners" are finally wised up about the "debate" and the purpose of such polls.