Understanding the bicycling environment

[Helmet Head]

I've got to say. Seeing these videos and having been to Phoenix once and driving around for a week on a business trip, I can see why Al (noisebeam) is so militant about vehicular cycling. This probably applies to the Cali people as well as they have similar environments. Seeing the video of NYC, and having lived in Seattle and various places in Oregon and having commuted for a summer into downtown Portland and for a couple years in rural Washington Co. and the Portland suburbs, I can see why the "pro-facilities" people and the "anti-facilities" people fail to even come to a common starting point when debating the relative merits of various cycling systems.

The environments are so different that there really is two systems which work in two very different environments. Despite the weather in Cali and Arizona, I seriously doubt that cycling will ever be a popular mode of transportation. Cyclists have to care about so much stuff in order to operate in that environment. You have to care about the mood of drivers behind, and around you, and develop methods that forces drivers to modify their actions or else hit you regardless of their state of mind (which is essentially what vehicular cycling is all about). You are constantly operating around vehicles going 45 mph and faster, and have to be wary of drivers who turn because they slam on the brakes to make their turn down from 45 mph. There are a ton of other things that all stem from this environment.

Cyclists from this region are probably more heavily represented here, per Diane's (sbhikes) complaint, because there is no real local system to turn to. 10 guys who drove to a bicycling advocacy meeting does not bicycling advocacy make (this is from HelmetHead's description at one point a while ago). These people are more shrill than the rest of us because their techniques, by necessity, must be more speciallized, and operating in an environment not being conductive to cycling means that cyclists who do bicycle in that environment must be more zealous than most cyclists.

Going back to Al's videos, I cringed when I watched it. Not because I lack the ability to bicycle there; neither the training nor the lack of understanding of the situation and what is required of a cyclist to operate there am I lacking. No, the reason I cringed is because I don't love cycling enough to put up with that environment for very long. There is no benefit I can see for myself. The overall health benefits of cycling are offset by the dangers of that environment and the stress of dealing with that environment. The one mile grid of arterials present in the Pheonix area is not suitable for serious exercise. There is no advantage in time because of the distances involved. There is nothing left.

Bicycling in the true urban city environment, on the other hand, is much more doable. The dangers are real, but they are different and more on a human scale, making them more easy to handle. Just moving from the rural and suburban environment of where I live and commute on a daily basis, SW of Beaverton, to the inner city of Portland is like jumping into a cool pool of water on a hot day. The whole environment, while more conjested and busier, is on a human scale. Speeds are limited to 15-20 mph. Bikes can keep up, whether in a segregated facility or not, the dangers are not overwhelming. It is a stark difference.

In the inner city, bicycling is an obvious economic choice amoungst people who live and work there. Most advocacy efforts focus on the inner city first because that is where the low-hanging fruit is. It is the only place besides a university campus where convolutions in the perpetual "why ride a bicycle" argument don't have to be made. It is a place where the primary and most effective reasoning coalesces around a simple economic argument. One doesn't have to be a "bicycle fanatic" to ride a bike. The only counter to the economics argument is the aspect of danger involving the direct exposure to car traffic. In this environment, facilities are a reasonable way for cycling advocates to offset the danger aspect.

This is the way I see the "divide" in the bicycling advocacy philosophies. Everything in the human experience is influenced strongly by our environment, including the strategies used when engaging in logical debates and reasoning exercises. It is wrong to conclude that VC advocates are "raving mad," just as it is wrong to conclude that other bicycling advocates are ninnies who don't know how to ride their bikes (both of these insults have been hurdled in the recent past by posters in this forum). There is a tendency in this forum to discount environment in favor of some catch all philosophy. We discount environment, not because it is intellectually honest (it's not), but simply because it is hard to take environment into account with people from so many different areas talking on the same forum. But we shouldn't shy away from things just because they are hard.
Just to apply my latest thoughts directly to the OP of this thread...

I disagree that the reason we "discount environment" is "because it is hard to take environment into account". The reason I, for one, discount environment is because what matters much more than the actual environment is the cyclist's perception of that environment.

If you see your environment as a place where you don't belong, where few cooperate with you, where those who do coooperate do so reluctantly, and where your safety is determined largely by the behavior of others, then you're probably not going to be comfortable in it.

If you see your environment as a place where you have the same rights as everyone else, where everyone else's attitude about you has little relevance to you, where most give you full cooperation, and where your safety is almost entirely within your control, which you feel you can handle, then you're probably going to be quite comfortable in it.

What matters is not the actual environment, but each individual cyclist's perception of that environment. It's the latter that needs to b eaddressed, not the former (which is excellent for cycling).

[Helmet Head]

You're right... only you know what is right for all of us.
Where did I say anything that implied that???

[I-Like-To-Bike]

Where did I say anything that implied that???
http://www.orangemane.com/BB/images/smilies/lolup.gif

[sbhikes]

Just so we're all on the same page here, HH's real name is ** and if you ever see his name on any ballots or boards of directors, now you'll know what you are voting for exactly (or against.)

[lotek]

I edited the above post.
posting a forum members personal information is grounds for either
a temp or permanent ban.

lotek

[galen_52657]

can we get a show of hands????

[LittleBigMan]

This is the way I see the "divide" in the bicycling advocacy philosophies. Everything in the human experience is influenced strongly by our environment... There is a tendency in this forum to discount environment in favor of some catch all philosophy.
The bottom line is that what's good for me might not be good for you, and visa-versa. Let's stop cramming our own views down each others' throats and help each other where we agree.

Mom used to tell me, "Convince a man against his will, he'll remain the same opinion still."

[Helmet Head]

The bottom line is that what's good for me might not be good for you, and visa-versa. Let's stop cramming our own views down each others' throats and help each other where we agree.

Mom used to tell me, "Convince a man against his will, he'll remain the same opinion still."
If your Mom is correct (and she probably is), it's not because "what's good for me might not be good for you" (though of course that is also true at least sometimes).

The point of your Mom's statement is that even if you convince a man (implying you're right), if it's against his will, he still won't change his opinion. That is, if he's dug in, he'll just dig in deeper.

But I have long stopped trying to convince Diane, Bek, or Chipcom (much less ILTB) of anything. They're so dug in they can't even see anymore. To them it's just a game, not a serious discussion. They obviously often don't even pay attention to what others write, and respond in non sequiturs repeating their irrelevant mantras. When I'm "debating" with them, I'm not trying to convince them of anything (it's pointless - because even if I "convince a man against his will, he'll remain the same opinion still"). My true audience is someone else who may be following along.

[Helmet Head]

By the way, with respect to "what's good for me might not be good for you" - how can that be when we're
talking about cycling on a given road under a particular set of conditions and circumstances?

Consider two cyclists, Joejack and Diane, cycling on a given road under a particular set of conditions and circumstances. Let's say it's good for Joejack and is not good for Diane. How can that be?

How can the environment be the problem for one, when the same environment is good for another cyclist? The only differences are within the cyclists themselves: their attitudes and perspectives. Why should society make efforts to "improve" the environment for cycling when it's already fine, at least for those who make the effort to realize the environment is already fine for cycling?

[Bekologist]

riding vehicular in a high quality bike lane integrated with a regional road network isn't that difficult for ANY rider, head.

riders of all stripe and VC-certificate toting status should have NO PROBLEMS whatsoever riding high-quality bike facilties. you take the lane when safe, and leave the lane when unsafe. simple as pie. i mean cake. or is it pie?

why are communities AROUND THE GLOBE improving roadway conditions for bicycling? Because all the road conditions are not conducive for cycling.
THe failure of autocentric road designfor cycling has led communities across the world to improve existing road conditions.

That's why wide outside lanes are going in, why sharrows are being placed, why high quality bike lanes are being integrated with high speed suface roads. to improve the bicycling environment, which, by the admission of traffic engineers and bike advocates, by pretty much entire city administrations, are NOT sufficient for bicycling.

sure, blowhard superhero VC riders claim all roads are fine for bicycling. that's part of the vc skew.

Try to insist all roads are fine for cycling, to the moms that want to take their kids on a little jaunt from the suburbs around Atlanta's Ring Road....


if a rider grew up in Mount Vernon, Iowa, they'd have a different perspective on the bicycling environment than one that grows up in Brooklyn. A rider raised in Victoria or Ottawa would have a different perspective on the bicycling environment than a rider raised in San Diego.

And a rider that grew up on Mackinac Island would wonder what all the cars are doing on the roads in any other environment.

the bicycling environments in India, China, etc. are beyond the scope of post #160's analysis.

[rando]

pie.

[noisebeam]

high quality bike lane
You keep repeating this phrase "high quality BL" but have yet to define what that means. Using this phrase is meaningless unless you do.

Al

[Bekologist]

i used to say well accomodated, but i like high quality better. how about "exceeding the minimum AASHTO standards to the degree deemed necessary by bike aware traffic engineers"?

I'd rather say high quality instead. versus poor bike lanes.

its a quality difference. open to interpretation, like 'practicable'. 'high quality.'

was it pie, or is it cake?

"easy as accomodation pie. no, make them eat VC cake!"

[SSP]

riding vehicular in a high quality bike lane integrated with a regional road network isn't that difficult for ANY rider, head.

riders of all stripe and VC-certificate toting status should have NO PROBLEMS whatsoever riding high-quality bike facilties. you take the lane when safe, and leave the lane when unsafe. simple as pie. i mean cake. or is it pie?

why are communities AROUND THE GLOBE improving roadway conditions for bicycling? Because all the road conditions are not conducive for cycling.
THe failure of autocentric road designfor cycling has led communities across the world to improve existing road conditions.

That's why wide outside lanes are going in, why sharrows are being placed, why high quality bike lanes are being integrated with high speed suface roads. to improve the bicycling environment, which, by the admission of traffic engineers and bike advocates, by pretty much entire city administrations, are NOT sufficient for bicycling.

sure, blowhard superhero VC riders claim all roads are fine for bicycling. that's part of the vc skew.

Try to insist all roads are fine for cycling, to the moms that want to take their kids on a little jaunt from the suburbs around Atlanta's Ring Road....

+1 - very well said, Bek.

FWIW, I consider myself a VC rider, but I also appreciate well designed accomodations like you describe. And I'm not about to attempt to play "VC peek-a-boo" on the freeway just to make a point. :rolleyes:

[Helmet Head]

+1 - very well said, Bek.

FWIW, I consider myself a VC rider, but I also appreciate well designed accomodations like you describe. And I'm not about to attempt to play "VC peek-a-boo" on the freeway just to make a point. :rolleyes:
I don't play "VC peek-a-boo" on the freeway either, nor do I know anyone who does.

What's your point?

[noisebeam]

i used to say well accomodated, but i like high quality better. how about "exceeding the minimum AASHTO standards to the degree deemed necessary by bike aware traffic engineers"?

Which to me would mean no bike lane striping on any road posted less than, but not including 35mph and striping only on longer >1mi stretches of intersectionless (including all side streets and driveways) roads. Bike lane stripe on these longer stretches must end 200' before any and all intersections, including those with a RTOL.

Where bike lane striping is put in place the resulting lane must be 6' or greater in width, not including gutter pan and a documented and funded lane sweeping and maintenance program including regular sweeping to keep debris free (every 1wk-1mo. depending on local conditions/season) and ad-hoc when requested or after snowstorms or other heavy debris creating weather.

Al

[SSP]

I don't play "VC peek-a-boo" on the freeway either, nor do I know anyone who does.

What's your point?

You need to have your hyperbole and mockery meters checked...sounds like they're on the fritz.

[genec]

By the way, with respect to "what's good for me might not be good for you" - how can that be when we're
talking about cycling on a given road under a particular set of conditions and circumstances?

Consider two cyclists, Joejack and Diane, cycling on a given road under a particular set of conditions and circumstances. Let's say it's good for Joejack and is not good for Diane. How can that be?

How can the environment be the problem for one, when the same environment is good for another cyclist? The only differences are within the cyclists themselves: their attitudes and perspectives. Why should society make efforts to "improve" the environment for cycling when it's already fine, at least for those who make the effort to realize the environment is already fine for cycling?

Let's say Joejack is an experienced high milage cyclist and Diane is a student, riding her bike for her second year as a utility cyclist. Let's say there are lots of Dianes and not many Joejacks... whom should the environment be geared for?

We see exactly such examples everyday on local freeways. Drivers that have driven the roads for a long time know the slow points, the merging lanes and how the car pool lanes work, etc. Newer drivers need the "Truck Merging" signs, the "Keep Right" signs, the dashed lines indicating the merge lanes, and the Lane Ends, Merge Right signs, even the signs that say Two or More for car pools.

Joejack knows where to stop to activate the traffic light... he has figured it out through trial and error over many years. The Dianes need marking on the road to indicate where to stop. Joejack knows to leave the right side of the road when approaching an intersection where motorists can turn right. The Dianes need dashed Bike Lanes to tell them this.

Joejack knows it is OK to ride his bike on the street... The Dianes think the sidewalk is OK, but they see the Bike Lane markings and signs and realize they don't have to avoid so many fellow students in the Bike Lane.

Joejack knows to avoid the gutters in the streets that are aligned in his direction of travel... the Dianes avoid this danger because a bicycle coopertative city sewer department has aligned the gutters to not be a hazard to cyclists.

The Dianes enjoy their cycling so much they eventually enrole in a class to learn more about it... and continue to bike commute after college. A few even become experienced high milage cyclists.

[Helmet Head]

riding vehicular in a high quality bike lane integrated with a regional road network isn't that difficult for ANY rider, head.
Agreed. Have I said anything to make you think that I don't realize this? If so, what did I say? If not, why are you saying this?

This is exactly the type of non-sequitur I was referring to above. It's a perfect example of repeating their irrelevant mantras.

riders of all stripe and VC-certificate toting status should have NO PROBLEMS whatsoever riding high-quality bike facilties. you take the lane when safe, and leave the lane when unsafe. simple as pie. i mean cake. or is it pie?
Again, agreed. What does this have to do with anything anyone else has said? Hint: nothing. It's a non sequitur.

why are communities AROUND THE GLOBE improving roadway conditions for bicycling?

to get cyclists out of the way of motorists
to increase bike use by attracting cyclists who believe they should not be cycling on the roads with motorists


Because all the road conditions are not conducive for cycling.
No, that's not why. Of course there are some roads that are not conducive for cycling (almost exclusively freeways, bridges and tunnels where slow moving vehicles are prohbitied) . But the vast majority of roads are perfectly fine for cycling, for anyone who makes the effort to gain the knowledge and attitude to realize it.

THe failure of autocentric road design for cycling has led communities across the world to improve existing road conditions.
Road designs seem "autocentric" only because the vast majority of their users happen to be driving autos. Don't believe me? Imagine the exact same roads, the exact same designs, without cars. They'd clearly be awesome for bicycling. So the design is fine. The trouble is the perception that many cyclists hold that they don't belong, or that the attitude of motorists about them makes it somehow difficult for them to use the excellent-for-cycling road designs. But when one realizes that the excellent design features (smooth pavement, efficent access to just about anywhere) are just as available to the cyclist whether others who happen to be in cars are also using it, the perceived "need" for "improving" already excellent-for-cycling road conditions disappears.

So the solution lies not in "improving" road conditions, or "the environment", for cycling, but in helping cyclists realize that road conditions and environment are already excellent for cycling.

That's why wide outside lanes are going in, why sharrows are being placed, why high quality bike lanes are being integrated with high speed suface roads. to improve the bicycling environment, which, by the admission of traffic engineers and bike advocates, by pretty much entire city administrations, are NOT sufficient for bicycling.
Here you make one of my most important arguments against having more and more segregated facilities: their mere existence implies a need for separating cyclists from motorists, and implications that cyclists do NOT belong in roadway space that is normally used by motorists.

sure, blowhard superhero VC riders claim all roads are fine for bicycling. that's part of the vc skew.
Since roads are fine for bicycling, it's not a skew. Note your inability to cite what it is specifically that makes them NOT fine for bicycling.

Try to insist all roads are fine for cycling, to the moms that want to take their kids on a little jaunt from the suburbs around Atlanta's Ring Road....
So now the problem with the environment for cycling is that kids can't get anywhere they want on bikes? :rolleyes:


if a rider grew up in Mount Vernon, Iowa, they'd have a different perspective on the bicycling environment than one that grows up in Brooklyn. A rider raised in Victoria or Ottawa would have a different perspective on the bicycling environment than a rider raised in San Diego.

And a rider that grew up on Mackinac Island would wonder what all the cars are doing on the roads in any other environment.

the bicycling environments in India, China, etc. are beyond the scope of post #160's analysis.
The rules of the road are the rules of the road. If you act in accordance with them, and keep your wits about you, you can ride pretty much the same anywhere you can go.

[Helmet Head]

You need to have your hyperbole and mockery meters checked...sounds like they're on the fritz.
Hyperbole and mockery have their place. They can be effective as an alternative means to convey something.

But when you peel away the hyperbole and mockery from what you guys are saying, there's nothing of substance being conveyed. Or maybe I'm just dense. If so, can you spell it out for me, please?

You wrote: And I'm not about to attempt to play "VC peek-a-boo" on the freeway just to make a point.

So, peel away the hyperbole and mockery... what do you have left? What's your point?

[Bekologist]

you're being dense, sophist. I mean, Super duper VC man, mr. head. sorry for confusing you with a bicyclist.

[SSP]

Road designs seem "autocentric" only because the vast majority of their users happen to be driving autos. Don't believe me? Imagine the exact same roads, the exact same designs, without cars. They'd clearly be awesome for bicycling. So the design is fine.

By your "logic", those same smooth paved surfaces would be perfectly "awesome" for a wide variety of other activities...like, skating, walking the dog, barbecuing, and sunbathing. :rolleyes:

[SSP]

Hyperbole and mockery have their place. They can be effective as an alternative means to convey something.

But when you peel away the hyperbole and mockery from what you guys are saying, there's nothing of substance being conveyed. Or maybe I'm just dense. If so, can you spell it out for me, please?

You wrote: And I'm not about to attempt to play "VC peek-a-boo" on the freeway just to make a point.

So, peel away the hyperbole and mockery... what do you have left? What's your point?

Hyperbole and mockery...duHH!

[joejack951]

By your "logic", those same smooth paved surfaces would be perfectly "awesome" for a wide variety of other activities...like, skating, walking the dog, barbecuing, and sunbathing. :rolleyes:

You've never seen anybody walking their dog on the street?

[editted my bad grammar captured forever on the next page in a quote]

[SSP]

So now the problem with the environment for cycling is that kids can't get anywhere they want on bikes? :rolleyes:
Yeah, dumb*ss. If we want to encourage more folks to take up cycling, better facilities would help (duHH!).

Or, are you suggesting that a parent should send their 7-year old off to school pedaling on a 45-mph NOL arterial? :rolleyes:

[LittleBigMan]

My true audience is someone else who may be following along.
That's cool. I'm all for open debate, as well. We all can learn something, though we don't agree on everything.

Let's go back to the idea that cyclists should be out of the way of motor traffic. In the US, almost eveyone who doesn't ride a bike seems to think so, and so do many cyclists. That thinking can lead to two separate conclusions:

1) Cyclists should have separate facilities to operate more effectively.

2) Cyclists must be removed from the roadway for motor traffic to operate effectively.

The difference between these two ideas is that you can accept the first without accepting the second. You can support separate facilities because you think you need them without supporting the notion that all cyclists must be removed from the roadway. Therefore, you can support separate facilities and equal road rights at the same time.

But those who believe that all cyclists should be removed from the roadway are not advocates of cyclists' rights. So there is a big difference between these two positions. That's why I think cyclists who believe we have a right to the road should band together to support each other rather than become divided over whether or not cyclists should have the option of separate facilities.

In the end, cyclists have more power working together on the second issue if we come together on the first.

[SSP]

You never seen anybody walking their dog on the street?

Not in a VC "right tire track" position on a 45 mph NOL artieral.

[Helmet Head]

Let's say Joejack is an experienced high milage cyclist and Diane is a student, riding her bike for her second year as a utility cyclist. Let's say there are lots of Dianes and not many Joejacks... whom should the environment be geared for?

We see exactly such examples everyday on local freeways. Drivers that have driven the roads for a long time know the slow points, the merging lanes and how the car pool lanes work, etc. Newer drivers need the "Truck Merging" signs, the "Keep Right" signs, the dashed lines indicating the merge lanes, and the Lane Ends, Merge Right signs, even the signs that say Two or More for car pools.

Joejack knows where to stop to activate the traffic light... he has figured it out through trial and error over many years. The Dianes need marking on the road to indicate where to stop. Joejack knows to leave the right side of the road when approaching an intersection where motorists can turn right. The Dianes need dashed Bike Lanes to tell them this.

Joejack knows it is OK to ride his bike on the street... The Dianes think the sidewalk is OK, but they see the Bike Lane markings and signs and realize they don't have to avoid so many fellow students in the Bike Lane.

Joejack knows to avoid the gutters in the streets that are aligned in his direction of travel... the Dianes avoid this danger because a bicycle coopertative city sewer department has aligned the gutters to not be a hazard to cyclists.

The Dianes enjoy their cycling so much they eventually enrole in a class to learn more about it... and continue to bike commute after college. A few even become experienced high milage cyclists.
Let's look at your example for motorists on freeways:


Drivers that have driven the roads for a long time know the slow points,
the merging lanes and how the car pool lanes work, etc.
Newer drivers need the "Truck Merging" signs,
the "Keep Right" signs,
the dashed lines indicating the merge lanes,
and the Lane Ends,
Merge Right signs,
even the signs that say Two or More for car pools.


Note that everything on this list is about notifying drivers about local conditions which drivers new to the area are likely to not know otherwise. The reason those signs and stripes are needed is to inform drivers of specific local situations which they have no way of knowing unless they're told, or already know about it somehow. Even the car pool stuff has to be specified because there are no general rules about how car pool lanes work and what the rules are (they're even different between southern and northern CA, much less between states). There is no way a driver can know a lane is going to end soon unless he has been there before. Etc.

Now let's look at your supposedly comparable examples for cyclists:

Joejack knows where to stop to activate the traffic light... The Dianes need marking on the road to indicate where to stop.
Joejack knows to leave the right side of the road when approaching an intersection where motorists can turn right. The Dianes need dashed Bike Lanes to tell them this.
Joejack knows it is OK to ride his bike on the street... The Dianes think the sidewalk is OK, but they see the Bike Lane markings and signs and realize they don't have to avoid so many fellow students in the Bike Lane.
Joejack knows to avoid the gutters in the streets that are aligned in his direction of travel... the Dianes avoid this danger because a bicycle coopertative city sewer department has aligned the gutters to not be a hazard to cyclists.

These have nothing to do with local conditions, and everything to do with general stuff that applies everywhere. There are only a few types of traffic light sensor triggers. Once you learn how to trigger them, you can trigger them, if anyone can. Right only lanes are already marked. You can see an intersection when you're approaching - that's what should trigger you to move left, if you know the rules of the road. Knowing it's okay to ride in the street is a general issue, not a local one. Same with knowing to avoid gutters (and potential parallel grates is only a secondary reason to avoid them).

I think it's interesting and very revealing that you compare the lack of general knowledge about cycling in traffic, and the supposed need to facilitate this, with the lack of specific local knowledge about driving on a freeway, and the obvious need to facilitate that.

Do you recognize and appreciate the significance of the distinction?

[LittleBigMan]

Also, the idea that allowing separate facilities to be built for cyclists will open the floodgate to have cyclists banned from the road does not necessarily hold water. It's cyclists voices that keep our right to the road, not the absence of facilties. So the stronger our collective voice, the stronger our rights.

[genec]

Do you recognize and appreciate the significance of the distinction?

Do you not recognize and appreciate that you are wrong and that many of the bike items I listed are indeed local issues and are not general. But then when driving in SB you did not take note of the location of the bicycle traffic signal devices did you?
Nor have you been to Portland to see the very LOCAL blue lanes.

And how about this sign that is so often posted here:

http://www.ohiobike.org/cyclist-friendly-files/bike-use-full-lane.jpg

Nothing like that exists in San Diego... so I would call that sign a pretty local thing.

Those three examples alone prove how wrong you are.

[genec]

Also, the idea that allowing separate facilities to be built for cyclists will open the floodgate to have cyclists banned from the road does not necessarily hold water. It's cyclists voices that keep our right to the road, not the absence of facilties. So the stronger our collective voice, the stronger our rights.

+10

[Helmet Head]

That's cool. I'm all for open debate, as well. We all can learn something, though we don't agree on everything.

Let's go back to the idea that cyclists should be out of the way of motor traffic. In the US, almost eveyone who doesn't ride a bike seems to think so, and so do many cyclists. That thinking can lead to two separate conclusions:

1) Cyclists should have separate facilities to operate more effectively.

2) Cyclists must be removed from the roadway for motor traffic to operate effectively.

The difference between these two ideas is that you can accept the first without accepting the second. You can support separate facilities because you think you need them without supporting the notion that all cyclists must be removed from the roadway. Therefore, you can support separate facilities and equal road rights at the same time.

But those who believe that all cyclists should be removed from the roadway are not advocates of cyclists' rights. So there is a big difference between these two positions. That's why I think cyclists who believe we have a right to the road should band together to support each other rather than become divided over whether or not cyclists should have the option of separate facilities.

In the end, cyclists have more power working together on the second issue if we come together on the first.
Of course, I strongly disagree, and this time I'll try to explain via a diagram.

[Helmet Head]

Also, the idea that allowing separate facilities to be built for cyclists will open the floodgate to have cyclists banned from the road does not necessarily hold water. It's cyclists voices that keep our right to the road, not the absence of facilties. So the stronger our collective voice, the stronger our rights.
Then how do you explain the correlation between less acceptance of cyclists in the road with higher availability of segregated facilities?

To illustrated by example, I was in a "well facilitated" suburb of Germany for almost a week, and in that time I did not see even a single cyclist on any of the arterials which are very similar to the ones I ride on every day. The only cycling they had was folks riding up to maybe 10 mph on sidepaths, and VC style on quite (20 kph) neighborhood streets.

[Helmet Head]

Do you not recognize and appreciate that you are wrong and that many of the bike items I listed are indeed local issues and are not general.
No, I don't. (see, this is an example of actually answering a question that is posed to you - you might want to try it some time, rather than ignoring the question and just posing another question. :rolleyes:)

But then when driving in SB you did not take note of the location of the bicycle traffic signal devices did you?
I didn't notice them, true. So what? They're not needed here, why would they be needed there?


Nor have you been to Portland to see the very LOCAL blue lanes.

And how about this sign that is so often posted here:

http://www.ohiobike.org/cyclist-friendly-files/bike-use-full-lane.jpg

Nothing like that exists in San Diego... so I would call that sign a pretty local thing.

Those three examples alone prove how wrong you are.
How so?

1) Those three examples were not on your original list.
2) You did not explain how any of the cycling related items in your original list were examples of local issues, much less counter my explanations of how they were not.
3) There is nothing "local" about citing 21202. So, SF has a sign. They don't have an issue or traffic challenge that is unique/local to them. Do you really think narrow lanes are unique to SF?
4) How are Portland blue lanes, which I concede are local, an example supporting your point? The fact that they're only used in Portland is irrelevant. They're used to mark supposedly appropriate (and way too late, in my opinion) crossing points for freeway-like offramps on surface street arterials. There is nothing local about these situations, and knowing how to deal with them is a general issue.

Apparently, you do not recognize, much less appreciate, the distinction, between specific/unique/local situations that non-local drivers have no way of knowing about, and, so, signs/marking are needed, versus general situations (offramps, narrow lanes, etc.) for which no special signs/markings should be needed to tell drivers or cyclists how to deal with them.

[I-Like-To-Bike]

I was in a "well facilitated" suburb of Germany for almost a week, and in that time I did not see even a single cyclist on any of the arterials which are very similar to the ones I ride on every day. The only cycling they had was folks riding up to maybe 10 mph on sidepaths, and VC style on quite (20 kph) neighborhood streets.
So BFD!!. Maybe that is what those Germans like to do. Ride relaxed on suitable roads and paths that are available to them. And just maybe they are using their bikes for practical transportation purposes, and don't consider it a great idea getting all steamed up, ala the Mighty Helmet Head, with a workout pace and constant course correction brought on by over wrought psychoanalysis of all the other users of the road.

I have contempt for so called cycling advocates who takes such HH "stuff" seriously.

[Helmet Head]

So BFD!!. Maybe that is what those Germans like to do. Ride relaxed on suitable roads and paths that are available to them. And just maybe they are using their bikes for practical transportation purposes, and don't consider it a great idea getting all steamed up, ala the Mighty Helmet Head, with a workout pace and constant course correction brought on by over wrought psychoanalysis of all the other users of the road.

Maybe. Or maybe the segregated system has made it culturally unacceptable to ride a bike on roads where only cars belong.

[I-Like-To-Bike]

Maybe. Or maybe the segregated system has made it culturally unacceptable to ride a bike on roads where only cars belong.
Believe what you want, Sophist. Who gives a dang what you think, other than other "cycling education" salesmen?

[genec]

I didn't notice them, true. So what? They're not needed here, why would they be needed there?



The above is in reference to markings on the street for sensors for traffic lights...

HH says "They're not needed here..."

Really? Who made that determination?

[genec]

3) There is nothing "local" about citing 21202. So, SF has a sign. They don't have an issue or traffic challenge that is unique/local to them. Do you really think narrow lanes are unique to SF?


Really? Cite one location of a direct reference to 21202 here in San Diego. ("Share the Road is not a direct reference)

"Cooperation" also means at the city level, as I have mentioned several times.

[genec]

Maybe. Or maybe the segregated system has made it culturally unacceptable to ride a bike on roads where only cars belong.

You mean like "Freeways" here in the US?

[PaulH]

This is such a fine example of a promisising thread that degenerated into ad hominum attacks.

Paul

[I-Like-To-Bike]

This is such a fine example of a promisising thread that degenerated into ad hominum attacks.

Paul
Well that's what happens when you have a fine thread going and one poster jumps in to post 29 of the last hundred posts to repeat and repeat and repeat the same old mantra; that proves once again that he understands NOTHING at about other bikers' desires let alone understanding anything about anyone else's cycling environment; and doesn't have a clue that there is any other opinion that counts but his own. Unless it is one of the "smart" guys agreeing with him.

[SSP]

By the way, with respect to "what's good for me might not be good for you" - how can that be when we're
talking about cycling on a given road under a particular set of conditions and circumstances?

Consider two cyclists, Joejack and Diane, cycling on a given road under a particular set of conditions and circumstances. Let's say it's good for Joejack and is not good for Diane. How can that be?

Like most other experienced cyclists, I'm reasonably comfortable cycling on NOL 40+mph arterials. But, I wouldn't expect a 7-year old riding their bike to school to feel the same as I do about that riding scenario. Nor would I want to see a 7-year old attempt to negotiate that sort of roadway.

So, two people, same roadway, and what's good for one is not good for the other due to the design of the road, and disparate levels of skill/experience.

Really, HH, you seem incapable of envisioning any other experiences but your own (I'm not the first person to note this). I'm assuming you're not a salesperson, corporate leader, or therapist (or any other profession that requires insight and/or empathy for others' perspectives).

Try thinking outside of your box every once in a while.

[joejack951]

Like most other experienced cyclists, I'm reasonably comfortable cycling on NOL 40+mph arterials. But, I wouldn't expect a 7-year old riding their bike to school to find that sort of roadway to feel the same as I do. Nor would I want to see a 7-year old attempt to negotiate that sort of roadway.

So, two people, same roadway, and what's good for one is not good for the other due to the design of the road.

Really, HH, you seem incapable of envisioning any other experiences but your own (I'm not the first person to note this) I'm assuming you're not a salesperson, corporate leader, or therapist (or any other profession that requires insight and/or empathy for others' perspectives). Try thinking outside of your box.

What roads with any reasonable amount of traffic do you think are good for a 7 year old to use without any supervision?

[SSP]

What roads with any reasonable amount of traffic do you think are good for a 7 year old to use without any supervision?

All neighborhood streets, and most arterials with wide, striped, BL's.

Part of my daily commute is on a road with a posted speed limit of 40 mph on which traffic regularly travels at 50+ mph. But, the roadway is wide, and the striped bike lane is nearly 10' wide. Kids regularly use it on their bikes to get to the nearby elementary school. In this case, it's the facilities that make that possible (IMO).

[sbhikes]

I was recently in India, in Mumbai where the traffic is intense, to put it mildly. There are no bike lanes or bike paths. Bikes ride in the main traffic lanes but trend to the outside endges. But nobody actually rides in lanes (despite the signs that say "Lane Driving is Safe Driving"). That would limit your options to pass someone.

The way motorists deal with bicyclists in this system (and it was the same in Delhi, Agra and Aurangabad where I also went) is to honk at them to make them move out of the way. The bicyclist responds by moving out of the way.

So does this anti-segregationist, anti-lanes of any kind situation create a utopia of respect for bicyclists in the roadway? Is it safer? I don't know about the first. I can only guess what our hired drivers might have been thinking about those who were in their way when they honked. As far as safety? I personally saw more major accidents in 3 weeks in India than I've seen in 2 decades in the US, but none of them involved bicyclists.

One thing I'm sure of is improving the experience of cycling can only happen in the US when cyclists come together as a group and advocate for better conditions. And that's because of our democracy and how tax money gets spent. We can't have a system like India. They don't have rules and interest groups trying to get their piece of the pie like we do.

And in the US, it seems more common than not, that cyclists want better on-street and off-street cycling facilities. They want access to the roads and bike paths for safer cycling with their children. They don't want to be run over or honked at and road-raged at by cars. They don't want to have to practice complicated psy-ops to simply survive.

[kalliergo]

[Cyclists] don't want to be run over or honked at and road-raged at by cars. They don't want to have to practice complicated psy-ops to simply survive.

America has something like 50-60 million at-least-occasional cyclists. Many of them ride unlawfully, incompetently, and recklessly. Only the tiniest fraction could possibly be practicing anything like the vehicular style of cycling described here as "complicated psy-ops."

Somehow, miraculously, a total of only 784 of these cyclists were killed in road crashes (with or without motor vehicle involvement) in the latest year for which DOT statistics are readily available.

That's 0.001568%.

Obviously, the behaviors required to make cycling survivable aren't all that complicated.

I haven't found the statistics on death-by-honking, yet.

[Bekologist]

.....In the US, it seems more common than not, that cyclists want better on-street and off-street cycling facilities. They want access to the roads and bike paths for safer cycling with their children. They don't want to be run over or honked at and road-raged at by cars. They don't want to have to practice complicated psy-ops to simply survive.

Hear, hear, Diane. well put.

[I-Like-To-Bike]

America has something like 50-60 million at-least-occasional cyclists. Many of them ride unlawfully, incompetently, and recklessly. Only the tiniest fraction could possibly be practicing anything like the vehicular style of cycling described here as "complicated psy-ops."

Somehow, miraculously, a total of only 784 of these cyclists were killed in road crashes (with or without motor vehicle involvement) in the latest year for which DOT statistics are readily available.

That's 0.001568%.

Obviously, the behaviors required to make cycling survivable aren't all that complicated.

I haven't found the statistics on death-by-honking, yet.
Cute; if you like sophistry. Almost as good as the "childish name-calling and brain-dead spouting" from everybody else, that sent you off in a snit before, eh?

What's the antonym for Sayanara?

[rando]

Originally Posted by sbhikes


.....In the US, it seems more common than not, that cyclists want better on-street and off-street cycling facilities. They want access to the roads and bike paths for safer cycling with their children. They don't want to be run over or honked at and road-raged at by cars. They don't want to have to practice complicated psy-ops to simply survive.


... but then they are not real, forester-skilled steely-eyed VC alpha dogs! Don't you WANT to be one?