(unnamed cyclist) is hiding behind the ambiguous phrase "continuous high-speed traffic." I will specify one particular level of "continuous high-speed traffic." I consider that a stream of several hundred vehicles traveling at 50 mph with headways of 2 seconds to be within unnamed cyclist's definition. Such streams of traffic frequently occur on freeways. And I will say that I know of no cyclist, riding on the level, who is capable of merging into such a stream. But I also say that such streams are almost non-existent on urban streets or normal rural highways. As long as there are gaps in the stream of urban traffic that are more than, say, 5 seconds or so, the cyclist may merge into such streams. He may even ride the lane line, as I have often done, with motor traffic overtaking on each side, until a gap comes along sufficient to negotiate a move across the lane. This does not require any extreme level of skill, no more skill than is required to qualify for driving a car, a level of skill that we expect of all normal adults. It is not particularly dangerous, either. Whether or not it requires courage is only a measure of the fearfulness of the cyclist, which is not within the proper province of traffic regulation or highway design.
John Forester, MS, PE
Bicycle Transportation Engineer
7585 Church St.
Lemon Grove, CA 91945-2306
619-644-5481 www.johnforester.com
The above was sent to a select group of cyclists on the local San Diego County Bike Coalition mail list.
What do you think of Forester's comments about riding in 50MPH traffic?
What about the aspect of riding on the lane line in streams of 50MPH traffic? Would you consider this "safe?"
Bekologist
12-05-06, 08:20 AM
that guy's a KOOK!
he's going to pontificate splitting lanes in 50MPH traffic, waiting for a gap, as sufficient accomodation for riders on high speed, high traffic roads?
someone needs to rebut that seriously delusional character. He still has credibility in the bicycling community? amazing....
I-Like-To-Bike
12-05-06, 08:35 AM
What do you think of Forester's comments about riding in 50MPH traffic?
Nothing. It has the same value and credibility as any other Forester comment about cycling and is worth considering in that light.
ghettocruiser
12-05-06, 08:36 AM
50mph (80kph) traffic is not at freeway speed. It is arterial road speed.
I ride in this type of traffic daily.
I'm not sure I understand the question.
Five seconds is a LONG gap in traffic, even at 90-100kph.
Edit: sorry, we're refering to the reverse lane splitting thing. I wouldn't try that.
John E
12-05-06, 08:48 AM
I am the "unnamed cyclist." My debates with Forester center on freeway-style high-speed freely-flowing merges and diverges, which I claim should be built only on freeways themselves, and never anywhere with bicycle, pedestrian, and/or mobility scooter traffic, such as across the mouths of freeway access ramps. I get tired to being told I don't belong on high-speed roads because I can't negotiate gaps, lane-split, etc.
rando
12-05-06, 08:54 AM
the only thing holding us back from cycling in 50 mph traffic is our fear! it's perfectly safe!
N_C
12-05-06, 09:00 AM
I see no problem with it. I ride on roadways that are 55 mph all the time in the spring & summer. There are areas where I ride on the shoulder if it is wide enough or in good enough shape. When I have to merge into the travel lane I check to see that it is safe, if vehicles are spaced far enough apart I merge into the lane. If I get the gut feeling or see that they are not I wait until they are.
galen_52657
12-05-06, 09:16 AM
I don't see Forester's maneuver as being difficult. Once you are out in the lane the traffic will slow down. I have been in situations where there was an off ramp and I was being overtaken by cars on both sides, but I did not split the lane by riding the lane dividing line. I moved left into the right wheel track of the strait lane. Cars passed on my right in their off-ramp lane and cars passed on my left after changing at least partially into the opposing lane of traffic.
ghettocruiser
12-05-06, 09:26 AM
Indeed, I have no issue letting cars pass on both sides when the right lane is exiting, but to try to work my way over to the left one lane at a time with cars passing on both sides is a different scenario. Motorists would most likley have no idea what I was doing even if they were in a good mood.
Dchiefransom
12-05-06, 09:27 AM
There are a lot of roads like that in northern San Jose. They have 45-50 mph speed limits, and are completely full most of the day, especially during commuting hours. It's hard to find a break in traffic, even one caused by a red light, because the drivers from the cross roads usually speed after their turn and catch up to the back of the pack. Most of these don't have an off ramp, but a dedicated right turn lane.
I got stuck between lanes before when a pickup forced me over. The cars were only going 25-30, but there's no way I ever want to do that again.
SingingSabre
12-05-06, 09:30 AM
Split lanes in 50MPH traffic?
No, thanks.
Forester is a nut and I feel sorry for those who idolize him.
genec
12-05-06, 09:31 AM
I am the "unnamed cyclist." My debates with Forester center on freeway-style high-speed freely-flowing merges and diverges, which I claim should be built only on freeways themselves, and never anywhere with bicycle, pedestrian, and/or mobility scooter traffic, such as across the mouths of freeway access ramps. I get tired to being told I don't belong on high-speed roads because I can't negotiate gaps, lane-split, etc.
John is the unnamed cyclist. I chose to remove his name as I had not discussed posting the comments from Forester with JohnE.
I have not discussed posting this with Forester either... but he is already a public figure.
Da Tinker
12-05-06, 09:35 AM
Ride roads like this all the time. I don't intentionaly lane split, but am occasionally passed on both sides when towards the left side of the right lane as I work my way to the left lane or left turn lane. Five seconds is a big gap, even in 50 mph traffic. The only real problem I have is the impatient folks who will come around me on the left, even as I signal a left lane change. Depending on my mood, I either let them go or back them or back 'em down with my steely-eyed, alpha road user stare.
I-Like-To-Bike
12-05-06, 09:48 AM
Depending on my mood, I either let them go or back them or back 'em down with my steely-eyed, alpha road user stare.
Did you forget to add the appropriate smilie?:rolleyes:
joejack951
12-05-06, 09:54 AM
Riding lane lines really depends on the width of the lanes. In a normal 9-11 foot lane, I've tried riding lane lines especially near right turn only lanes and found it not only put me in a more dangerous spot with possibly close passes on both sides but also confused the heck out of everybody resulting in me blocking two lanes of traffic instead of just one sometimes. With a 12-13 foot lane, riding lane lines becomes much easier and a lot less confusing as both lanes have plenty of room to pass.
A cyclist cannot merge into a 50mph steady stream of traffic but he can negotiate a gap and complete the merge. I do it on a daily basis with no riding on lane lines needed.
Cyclaholic
12-05-06, 09:57 AM
I'm starting to get the distinct feeling that this Forrester guy thinks this stuff up while driving his SUV at 50mph. Either that or he's nuttier than a fruit cake.
At least all doubt has been removed in my mind as to where I stand with Forrester.... about at the same place as ITLB
LCI_Brian
12-05-06, 09:59 AM
From Forester's other writings and seeing him in the "Effective Cycling" video, what he considers to be a shareable lane width is much narrower than what I consider to be shareable. When extended to the example above, it appears that he considers riding on the line to essentially be safely sharing with traffic on the left and traffic on the right. Personally, in this case, I would rather be in one lane or the other - even if it is just 6-12 inches on either side of the stripe. (Plus most of our lane lines here have raised pavement markers.)
NoRacer
12-05-06, 10:00 AM
The above was sent to a select group of cyclists on the local San Diego County Bike Coalition mail list.
What do you think of Forester's comments about riding in 50MPH traffic?
What about the aspect of riding on the lane line in streams of 50MPH traffic? Would you consider this "safe?"
That's the Route 24 / I-95 Interchange. I, and others, ride Route 24 (legal to bike) to get to Bel Air, Maryland from the eastside of Baltimore. Many of the right lanes are RTOL or acceleration/deceleration lanes. One could dodge in and out of the shoulder or if you're bold (some would say stupid) enough, ride the white lines left of the RTOLs w/55 +/- MPH traffic buzzing you on both sides (going straight or exiting/entering I-95).
I see either method as having the same potential hazard risk.
genec
12-05-06, 10:52 AM
From Forester's other writings and seeing him in the "Effective Cycling" video, what he considers to be a shareable lane width is much narrower than what I consider to be shareable. When extended to the example above, it appears that he considers riding on the line to essentially be safely sharing with traffic on the left and traffic on the right. Personally, in this case, I would rather be in one lane or the other - even if it is just 6-12 inches on either side of the stripe. (Plus most of our lane lines here have raised pavement markers.)
Good point about the raised pavement markers or Botts dots... hitting one of those can certainly cause a cyclist to veer off... pretty much the last thing you would want to do with streams of 50MPH traffic on either side of you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Botts_dots
Here's pic of Botts dots in action for those snowbound states that can't use the things as the plows will pop them right off the road.
That's the Route 24 / I-95 Interchange. I, and others, ride Route 24 (legal to bike) to get to Bel Air, Maryland from the eastside of Baltimore. Many of the right lanes are RTOL or acceleration/deceleration lanes. One could dodge in and out of the shoulder or if you're bold (some would say stupid) enough, ride the white lines left of the RTOLs w/55 +/- MPH traffic buzzing you on both sides (going straight or exiting/entering I-95).
I see either method as having the same potential hazard risk.
I get off at that exit to visit my sister in Bel Air. I believe the road is three lanes wide at that point so why not just take the right lane and get rid of the ambiguity (or is that what you mean by "dodge in and out of the shoulder")? With the length of those RTOL and merge lanes, I would not consider it a "dodge" but then again, I'm not even sure of the meaning of what you wrote yet :)
Also, I thought Maryland prohibited bikes on roads with speed limits over 50mph. Is Route 24 an exception? I've considered biking down from Wilmington sometime and I'll probably end up on that road for at least part of the ride.
§ 21-1205.1.
(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of this title, a person may not ride a bicycle or a motor scooter:
(1) On any roadway where the posted maximum speed limit is more than 50 miles an hour; or
But they do say "roadway" which I would assume then means you are allowed to still use the shoulder on those roads. But in the next section, they say you can leave the shoulder for certain reasons:
(b) (1) Where there is a bike lane paved to a smooth surface or a shoulder paved to a smooth surface, a person operating a bicycle or a motor scooter shall use the bike lane or shoulder and may not ride on the roadway, except in the following situations:
<snipped the other exceptions>
(iv) When reasonably necessary to leave the bike lane or shoulder because the bike lane or shoulder is overlaid with a right turn lane, merge lane, or other marking that breaks the continuity of the bike lane or shoulder.
So I guess it's a little ambiguous as to whether or not you can ride in the roadway on a 55mph road to avoid a RTOL in MD. Anyone care to comment?
ghettocruiser
12-05-06, 11:11 AM
Not to overdo this point, but "posted limit" and "speed of traffic" are NOT interchangeable terminology.
More typically, cars are CLOSING ON ME at a speed difference nearing the posted limit.
sggoodri
12-05-06, 11:15 AM
I ride on the rightmost edge of lanes of 45-55 mph traffic during my bike commute. Drivers usually slow down below that when they pass me. I am able to turn left on these roads by waiting for long gaps and moving to the centerline or left turn lane, or if the traffic is congested enough to be slow I can merge one lane at a time. Dense traffic at speed prevents me from turning left but usually that goes away if I wait a little while; a pedestrian-left is the last resort if I get to the intersection before I can get left.
What I dislike most about my rides on 55 mph surface streets built like freeways is the free-flowing entrance lanes. Drivers entering the road at high speed behind me from these lanes are looking sideways and backward a lot for traffic with which they must merge, and may be less likely to see me ahead of them at slow speed.
That would be a nice wide outside lane without the parked cars.
I-Like-To-Bike
12-05-06, 11:23 AM
So I guess it's a little ambiguous as to whether or not you can ride in the roadway on a 55mph road to avoid a RTOL in MD. Anyone care to comment?
Also it didn't sound as if Forester was talking about splitting lanes between a turning and a straight through lane, but rather between two lanes both going straight through. What makes anyone think that the passing cars in either lane will slow down or swerve into another lane (possibly non existant) to give the lane splitter any additional space? Or that following drivers will not be suddenly surprised to find a cyclist (relatively) poking along between moving lanes of 50+ mph traffic; AND with no time to react safely.
NoRacer
12-05-06, 11:25 AM
I get off at that exit to visit my sister in Bel Air. I believe the road is three lanes wide at that point so why not just take the right lane and get rid of the ambiguity (or is that what you mean by "dodge in and out of the shoulder")? With the length of those RTOL and merge lanes, I would not consider it a "dodge" but then again, I'm not even sure of the meaning of what you wrote yet :)
The road is three lanes on each side, plus a shoulder. The right lane is a long RTOL broken by I-95 entrances and exits. The shoulders are to the right of the RTOLs and acceleration/deceleration lanes. These acc/dec lanes become the RTOLs. What I'm saying is that I ride the white line to the left of the RTOLs until I get past the interchange. After the interchange, I'm riding the shoulder.
Also, I thought Maryland prohibited bikes on roads with speed limits over 50mph. Is Route 24 an exception? I've considered biking down from Wilmington sometime and I'll probably end up on that road for at least part of the ride.
§ 21-1205.1.
(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of this title, a person may not ride a bicycle or a motor scooter:
(1) On any roadway where the posted maximum speed limit is more than 50 miles an hour; or
But they do say "roadway" which I would assume then means you are allowed to still use the shoulder on those roads. But in the next section, they say you can leave the shoulder for certain reasons:
(b) (1) Where there is a bike lane paved to a smooth surface or a shoulder paved to a smooth surface, a person operating a bicycle or a motor scooter shall use the bike lane or shoulder and may not ride on the roadway, except in the following situations:
<snipped the other exceptions>
(iv) When reasonably necessary to leave the bike lane or shoulder because the bike lane or shoulder is overlaid with a right turn lane, merge lane, or other marking that breaks the continuity of the bike lane or shoulder.
So I guess it's a little ambiguous as to whether or not you can ride in the roadway on a 55mph road to avoid a RTOL in MD. Anyone care to comment?
Ambiguous, yes, until a cyclist gets run over, then you can be sure someone will say, "A bicycle shouldn't have been there anyway."
BTW, discussion about bike/ped access across this interchange has been discussed here:
I ride on the rightmost edge of lanes of 45-55 mph traffic during my bike commute. Drivers usually slow down below that when they pass me.
I ride in the right third/fourth of the right lane in 55mph hour traffic during my bike commute for 6 of the twelve miles, one way. Nobody slows down to pass unless they are unable to get into the passing lane at full speed due to the presence of other vehicles. Haven't seen it in over 4 years of year round cycling on this route.
LittleBigMan
12-05-06, 11:34 AM
What about the aspect of riding on the lane line in streams of 50MPH traffic? Would you consider this "safe?"
50 mph traffic is typical in 35 and 40 mph. zones here in Atlanta. When I venture out across multiple lanes like this, I stay away from the lines.
If I'm in either the leftmost or rightmost lane with same-direction traffic, I will allow for lane sharing, if prudent. But in any centerish lane, I instinctively hog the whole lane. I want to avoid exactly the scenario Forester is describing.
genec
12-05-06, 11:52 AM
I get off at that exit to visit my sister in Bel Air. I believe the road is three lanes wide at that point so why not just take the right lane and get rid of the ambiguity (or is that what you mean by "dodge in and out of the shoulder")? With the length of those RTOL and merge lanes, I would not consider it a "dodge" but then again, I'm not even sure of the meaning of what you wrote yet :)
Also, I thought Maryland prohibited bikes on roads with speed limits over 50mph. Is Route 24 an exception? I've considered biking down from Wilmington sometime and I'll probably end up on that road for at least part of the ride.
§ 21-1205.1.
(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of this title, a person may not ride a bicycle or a motor scooter:
(1) On any roadway where the posted maximum speed limit is more than 50 miles an hour; or
But they do say "roadway" which I would assume then means you are allowed to still use the shoulder on those roads. But in the next section, they say you can leave the shoulder for certain reasons:
(b) (1) Where there is a bike lane paved to a smooth surface or a shoulder paved to a smooth surface, a person operating a bicycle or a motor scooter shall use the bike lane or shoulder and may not ride on the roadway, except in the following situations:
<snipped the other exceptions>
(iv) When reasonably necessary to leave the bike lane or shoulder because the bike lane or shoulder is overlaid with a right turn lane, merge lane, or other marking that breaks the continuity of the bike lane or shoulder.
So I guess it's a little ambiguous as to whether or not you can ride in the roadway on a 55mph road to avoid a RTOL in MD. Anyone care to comment?
Those laws don't exist here in California, where surface streets have posted speed limits as high as 55 and 65MPH. These are not rural hiways, they are multilaned (6-8 lanes) arterial roads with sweeping curve intersections. Try to make a left turn across 4 lanes of 55MPH traffic at rush hour... it is hard to change lanes on these while driving.
Of course Forester is right, at non-rush hour times there are huge gaps... just like on the freeway... which you can walk across even at certain times during a 24 hour period. Too bad however if your boss expects you at work during the same hours as the rest of the employees... that means you ride at rush hour. I guess that doesn't figure into Forester's model.
genec
12-05-06, 11:54 AM
I want to avoid exactly the scenario Forester is describing.
:eek: But why... isn't that "Effective Cycling" at it's finest? :rolleyes:
wheel
12-05-06, 11:59 AM
He is not even worth being here, should be banned for supporting this.
http://americandreamcoalition.org/speakers.html
joejack951
12-05-06, 12:15 PM
Also it didn't sound as if Forester was talking about splitting lanes between a turning and a straight through lane, but rather between two lanes both going straight through. What makes anyone think that the passing cars in either lane will slow down or swerve into another lane (possibly non existant) to give the lane splitter any additional space? Or that following drivers will not be suddenly surprised to find a cyclist (relatively) poking along between moving lanes of 50+ mph traffic; AND with no time to react safely.
I agree with you here that splitting lanes with fast moving traffic on both sides is far from an ideal setup. Especially, if gaps are few and far between, I can't imagine a worse spot to get stuck than on the lane line. But again, I'm assuming typical lane widths that I see. With wider lanes, I could see Forester's strategy working but I still think you'd be better off just taking the lane or not bothering at all. I'd have to try it myself on the same road to really know.
joejack951
12-05-06, 12:21 PM
The road is three lanes on each side, plus a shoulder. The right lane has long RTOLs. The shoulders are to the right of the RTOLs and acceleration/deceleration lanes. These acc/dec lanes become RTOLs. What I'm saying is that I ride the white line to the left of the RTOLs until I get past the interchange. After the interchange, I'm riding the shoulder.
Have you tried taking the right lane in this area? I've had much worse experiences trying to ride the line but I believe the lanes on that road are a little wider than I'm used to.
Ambiguous, yes, until a cyclist gets run over, then you can be sure someone will say, "A bicycle shouldn't have been there anyway."
BTW, discussion about bike/ped access across this interchange has been discussed here:
Well, of course cyclists should be on bike paths, not on roads :) The brief section of that link that I read talked mostly about avoiding the area by detouring on some paths and side roads. It seems that interchange could benefit immensely from #1, a lower speed limit (why does traffic need to mix at 55mph on a surface street with red lights?) and possibly #2 sharrows indicating that cyclists should move left out of the shoulder/RTOL area to avoid right hooks. That road in general could use a lower speed limit. Every time I've ever been on it I've only been near the speed limit very briefly before I had to stop for another red light. I'm not full throttle off the line like most though :rolleyes:
NoRacer
12-05-06, 01:02 PM
Have you tried taking the right lane in this area? I've had much worse experiences trying to ride the line but I believe the lanes on that road are a little wider than I'm used to.
No, because the right lane is the RTOL, unless you mean the right straight-through lane, which is a possibility.
Well, of course cyclists should be on bike paths, not on roads :) The brief section of that link that I read talked mostly about avoiding the area by detouring on some paths and side roads. It seems that interchange could benefit immensely from #1, a lower speed limit (why does traffic need to mix at 55mph on a surface street with red lights?) and possibly #2 sharrows indicating that cyclists should move left out of the shoulder/RTOL area to avoid right hooks. That road in general could use a lower speed limit. Every time I've ever been on it I've only been near the speed limit very briefly before I had to stop for another red light. I'm not full throttle off the line like most though :rolleyes:
The same for the Route 43/40 Interchange. Why does that have to remain at 55 MPH?
joejack951
12-05-06, 01:19 PM
No, because the right lane is the RTOL, unless you mean the right straight-through lane, which is a possibility.
I do mean the right straight through lane.
We talk a lot about lower speed limits on this forum and it seems to be the one thing that the most cyclists can agree on (unlike bike lanes, lane position, helmets, etc.). Heck, even a few motorists might jump on. If only there was something like a gas crisis/war that could make the idea appealing to the government.
noisebeam
12-05-06, 01:28 PM
A toast to lower speed limits!
On non-freeways in urban/suburban areas it wouldn't even cause a meaningful difference in travel time.
Cyclists who use cyclocomputers know that what impacts ones average speed far more than top or crusiing speed is intersections, slowing, stopping and starting. A 10mph reduction in top speed between lights and turns probably only has a 1mph impact to average speed in suburban areas (stops every 1mi or so)
Al
LittleBigMan
12-05-06, 01:55 PM
I want to avoid exactly the scenario Forester is describing.
:eek: But why... isn't that "Effective Cycling" at it's finest? :rolleyes:
I believe most people have something to offer me from their experiences. In Forester's case, his dogmatic tone does not translate into automatic correctness for me, however it doesn't negate it, either. By the same token, I can learn from Forester without accepting everything he says.
This is why I disagree with people who think anyone who accepts something Forester practices is an automaton without the ability to think for themselves, just because he is so dogmatic.
SamHouston
12-05-06, 02:23 PM
Thank you for pointing out that John Forester supports the American Dream Coalition. While I've generally ignored Forester as divisive I was not aware that he openly promotes low density development aka sprawl and supports the expansion of automobile usage & the automobile industry.
genec
12-05-06, 02:52 PM
I believe most people have something to offer me from their experiences. In Forester's case, his dogmatic tone does not translate into automatic correctness for me, however it doesn't negate it, either. By the same token, I can learn from Forester without accepting everything he says.
This is why I disagree with people who think anyone who accepts something Forester practices is an automaton without the ability to think for themselves, just because he is so dogmatic.
Because many of his followers do use his dogmatic style, and do quote from him while assuming that Forester's data is both current and correct... and that the methods work for everyone.
I fully agree that vehicular cycling can work in most cases... and in particular where the roads are designed to have clear cut intersections and where the road speeds are at or below about 45MPH.
Beyond that, and with the further limitation that there are far too many motorists that flat out do not accept us on the road, cycling can be less than acceptable... or a PITA.
Having to chose to use an "alpha dog" steely glare doesn't work, nor should it have to even be used by all cyclists.
Yet the premise that is presented with Effective Cycling is that any one can do it, anywhere. And that is simply not true.... and now we know that Forester targeted Effective Cycling to a certain class of "voluntary high milage cyclists..." not the masses.
Oddly this means that China-like cycling workers do not fit his "perfect picture." And he readily admits it. So in fact "EC" is meant for a select elite. What does the rest of the cycing world do?
Brian Sorrell
12-05-06, 02:56 PM
He is not even worth being here, should be banned for supporting this.
http://americandreamcoalition.org/speakers.html
Wow, check out his bow tie. That's the sloppiest knot I've ever seen!
Roody
12-05-06, 03:22 PM
I am the "unnamed cyclist." My debates with Forester center on freeway-style high-speed freely-flowing merges and diverges, which I claim should be built only on freeways themselves, and never anywhere with bicycle, pedestrian, and/or mobility scooter traffic, such as across the mouths of freeway access ramps. I get tired to being told I don't belong on high-speed roads because I can't negotiate gaps, lane-split, etc.I agree with your overall point about this road design. I can handle these situations on my bike, if I have to, but I do try to find an alternate route when possible. But a worse deal is trying to cross these merges as a pedestrian. Talk about taking your life in your hands!
These "throats" are one of the most egregious examples of car-centric traffic features ever devised. Those of you who believe that traffic designers will EVER build something that works for pedestrians or cyclists are living in a dream world. American road builders are interested ONLY in facilitating automobile traffic, and that means pushing cyclists and pedestrians out of the way. What a shame that our taxes build such homicidal and idiotic road designs.
Roody
12-05-06, 03:27 PM
Because many of his followers do use his dogmatic style, and do quote from him while assuming that Forester's data is both current and correct... and that the methods work for everyone.
I fully agree that vehicular cycling can work in most cases... and in particular where the roads are designed to have clear cut intersections and where the road speeds are at or below about 45MPH.
Beyond that, and with the further limitation that there are far too many motorists that flat out do not accept us on the road, cycling can be less than acceptable... or a PITA.
Having to chose to use an "alpha dog" steely glare doesn't work, nor should it have to even be used by all cyclists.
Yet the premise that is presented with Effective Cycling is that any one can do it, anywhere. And that is simply not true.... and now we know that Forester targeted Effective Cycling to a certain class of "voluntary high milage cyclists..." not the masses.
Oddly this means that China-like cycling workers do not fit his "perfect picture." And he readily admits it. So in fact "EC" is meant for a select elite. What does the rest of the cycing world do?
Very well said, Gene. As I become more involved in the carfree thing, I'm coming to agree with you (and JohnE) more and more.
genec
12-05-06, 03:42 PM
Very well said, Gene. As I become more involved in the carfree thing, I'm coming to agree with you (and JohnE) more and more.
It really boils down a moderation thing... and I am pretty sure JohnE will agree with that too. As long as motorists are moving at a moderate speed, and have well defined intersections, cyclists fit into the picture fine. But at the extreme ends... one end being very slow roads, and the other end being fast roads designed only to serve motorists, there are conflicts. At the slow end, cars are a burden, one may as well park and walk. At the fast end, only autos are served.
But in the middle, all modes of traffic can "play" together. So traffic engineers either have to embrace that middle ground and stay away from "urban freeways" made up of high speed multilane roads with sweeping curves for "intersections," or they must design in suitable accommodations for pedestrians and cyclists... and I don't mean "stripes on the road."
So Forester dogmatics have to realize that all roads are not "Bike Roads" and they too must push for the middle ground... which may also mean accepting a parallel path for cyclists provided by some accommodations.
Good luck with your carfree lifestyle... I was car free for about 10 years, before, during, and just after college. And it was NOT for economical reasons.
Roody
12-05-06, 04:06 PM
It really boils down a moderation thing... and I am pretty sure JohnE will agree with that too. As long as motorists are moving at a moderate speed, and have well defined intersections, cyclists fit into the picture fine. But at the extreme ends... one end being very slow roads, and the other end being fast roads designed only to serve motorists, there are conflicts. At the slow end, cars are a burden, one may as well park and walk. At the fast end, only autos are served.
But in the middle, all modes of traffic can "play" together. So traffic engineers either have to embrace that middle ground and stay away from "urban freeways" made up of high speed multilane roads with sweeping curves for "intersections," or they must design in suitable accommodations for pedestrians and cyclists... and I don't mean "stripes on the road."
So Forester dogmatics have to realize that all roads are not "Bike Roads" and they too must push for the middle ground... which may also mean accepting a parallel path for cyclists provided by some accommodations.
Good luck with your carfree lifestyle... I was car free for about 10 years, before, during, and just after college. And it was NOT for economical reasons.
There are nearly twice as many cars on the road as there were 25 years ago, and only a very modest increase in the number of roads. To cope with congestion, traffic planners can choose from three strategies:
Build more roads, or wider roads.
Encourage people to use cars less, in favor of bikes, walking and public transit.
Redesign existing roads--especially intersections--so that they can handle more cars at higher speeds.
Obviously, we as a nation have opted for the third solution. That means that bikes and pedestrians will increasingly be pushed aside in order to accomodate more cars moving at higher speeds. This results in increasingly complex intersections, more merges and diverges, and striped off areas for bikes and walkers--over at the side of the roadway, in the least desirable real estate.
As Dr. Phil would say, "How's that working for you cyclists?" The amazing thing is that they've convinced cyclists that being pushed aside is working for us! The road designers think we're really stupid, and, unfortunately, they're absolutely right.
genec
12-05-06, 04:29 PM
The amazing thing is that they've convinced cyclists that being pushed aside is working for us! The road designers think we're really stupid, and, unfortunately, they're absolutely right.
I think that comes from a lack of a consistent voice in the advocacy groups that represent us.
One group says "we don't need nothing... just give us road."
One group says we need bike lanes... we don't care how you do it, paint stripes.
And finally one group says... paths... sidepaths, bike paths, even sidewalks work for us.
What we end up with is the least of all three. Most roads work just fine, but not all, and newer roads are faster and less accommodating.
Bike Lanes on 25MPH roads that go no where do us no good, but permit cities to get awards based on "most bike lanes." And politicians get photo ops... some cyclists feel good, until they try to go across town.
Paths satisfy Sunday park riders... and essentially motorists... while in effect giving us very little except in the rare case of shortcut paths that are really decent accommodations if well thought out.
Now all of these things in conjunction with a well thought out plan of how to move cyclists from the same points A to points B that motorists also need access, to is the ultimate solution... that type of planning is in fact only put into place in a few rare locations.
But this takes long term planning, not bandaid approaches, nor piecemeal picking of each group concept... which resultes in the worst of all worlds.
The forward kind of thinking means advocacy groups cannot be dogmatic in their approach to potential solutions, the solutions must match the need, and must work for the majority of cyclists, not isolated niche groups such as Sunday park riders or high speed club riders.
atbman
12-05-06, 04:50 PM
Have shared roads with motor traffic on 70mph routes - even time trialled on them.
Have also managed to right turn (UK) on them, tho' only at roundabouts - which slow traffic down to reasonable levels. However, I wouldn't recommend it to people I've trained in safe traffic riding, unless they have shown high levels of bike handling, traffic judgement and good speed. It is also easier in rush hour traffic, but does require very great care and judgement. outsied rush hour it can be more problematic because motor vehicle speed are higher.
I appreciate that conditions and driving standards may differ in many areas of the US and, from what I've read on this forum, average speeds seem to bear only a tenuous linkage with the posted limits. But I would have thought that 50mph traffic (assuming that it is moving at that speed) shouldn't present insuperable obstacles for the exprienced and reasonably quick rider. As long as you can avoid people downloading ringtones, of course.
genec
12-05-06, 05:11 PM
Have shared roads with motor traffic on 70mph routes - even time trialled on them.
Have also managed to right turn (UK) on them, tho' only at roundabouts - which slow traffic down to reasonable levels. However, I wouldn't recommend it to people I've trained in safe traffic riding, unless they have shown high levels of bike handling, traffic judgement and good speed. It is also easier in rush hour traffic, but does require very great care and judgement. outsied rush hour it can be more problematic because motor vehicle speed are higher.
I appreciate that conditions and driving standards may differ in many areas of the US and, from what I've read on this forum, average speeds seem to bear only a tenuous linkage with the posted limits. But I would have thought that 50mph traffic (assuming that it is moving at that speed) shouldn't present insuperable obstacles for the exprienced and reasonably quick rider. As long as you can avoid people downloading ringtones, of course.
So what.
I have toured across the US and toured in Mexico... and my commute includes about a 1/2 mile jaunt on an interstate and crossing an off ramp while making a gap in 65+MPH freeway traffic... does that mean everyone has to jump off that bridge?
The problem with your thinking (in line with Forester's) is that it requires an "experienced and reasonably quick rider" to accomplish, just as Effective Cycling was written for "voluntary high milage cyclists."
So now how do you accommodate everyone else who make up the vast majority of cyclists? Those who are not "experienced" nor "reasonably quick." I find that as I get older I am NOT so reasonably quick, nor do I suspect is Forester at his age... So are we now out of the pool of cyclists?
rando
12-05-06, 05:32 PM
I think that comes from a lack of a consistent voice in the advocacy groups that represent us.
One group says "we don't need nothing... just give us road."
One group says we need bike lanes... we don't care how you do it, paint stripes.
And finally one group says... paths... sidepaths, bike paths, even sidewalks work for us.
What we end up with is the least of all three. Most roads work just fine, but not all, and newer roads are faster and less accommodating.
Bike Lanes on 25MPH roads that go no where do us no good, but permit cities to get awards based on "most bike lanes." And politicians get photo ops... some cyclists feel good, until they try to go across town.
Paths satisfy Sunday park riders... and essentially motorists... while in effect giving us very little except in the rare case of shortcut paths that are really decent accommodations if well thought out.
Now all of these things in conjunction with a well thought out plan of how to move cyclists from the same points A to points B that motorists also need access, to is the ultimate solution... that type of planning is in fact only put into place in a few rare locations.
But this takes long term planning, not bandaid approaches, nor piecemeal picking of each group concept... which resultes in the worst of all worlds.
The forward kind of thinking means advocacy groups cannot be dogmatic in their approach to potential solutions, the solutions must match the need, and must work for the majority of cyclists, not isolated niche groups such as Sunday park riders or high speed club riders.
I think this is right. nicely put.
noisebeam
12-05-06, 05:42 PM
I think this is right. nicely put.
Maybe in theory or for some places, but locally where we live this is not the case. We live in a paths and bike lane stripe without thought place. There is no anti-bike lane voice that has resulted in implementation problems here. If anything we need a stronger voice from cyclists who know why bike lanes and paths can so often be implemented badly.
Al
SingingSabre
12-05-06, 05:43 PM
Split lanes with 50MPH traffic? Sounds great. I'd love to go, but I have to stay home and pluck my nose hairs.
Feldman
12-05-06, 05:47 PM
Give him credit where it's due; he wrote one excellent book but is seriously out of touch with the character of drivers and road conditions. My complaint with EC always was that he gives motorists far too much credit for intelligence and humanity.