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.
I can also illustrate by example.
My 14 mile route to work includes about 7 miles where I have two lanes in my direction. I take the center of the right lane for all of this trip. I have done this regularly for many years in Atlanta, the "World's Worst City For Cycling." Almost never had any problems with lack of "acceptance" by motorists.
A year or so ago, they put in a separated path alongside the RR tracks for a few miles of this route. It's really one of the better designs, almost no intersections. But I don't use it, it's not as convenient as the road I've used for years.
The increased incidence of "less acceptance" you refer to has not occurred.
The BikeForums Team
-adv-
This is an archived thread, you can find the full version of this thread, with images, links and more content here.
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.
Of course, I strongly disagree, and this time I'll try to explain via a diagram.
I could also use a diagram to show the effect of the collaborative effort of cyclists working together to secure our rightful place in the road. I would probably also include arrows showing how dividing our strength and working against each other has a negative effect in that regard.
noisebeam
Levels of acceptance on the road also decrease if 95% of commuter cyclists are using the adjcent sidewalk.
Al
Bekologist
lets get them off the sidewalk and using the roads with well implemented, integrated bike lanes and wide accomodating lanes, Al.
I was riding uphill on a four laner yesterday, and watched a timid, close to the edge of the road rider, dodging between parked cars, becomming nearly invisible then out again, just far enough to get around the parked car.
If that road would have had a buffered, integrated bike lane, this rider would have been positioned in a much more visible place on the road. Simple fact how a well designed accomodation can have positive effects on a bicyclist by increasing visible road position.
"Average" riders will be riding in a more visible road position than on unaccomodated roads. well designed, integrated bike lanes increase visibility of average riders, who would otherwise be curbhugging.
by understanding simple facts about improving the bicycling environment, roadway design changes can be made in communities that increase their bikeability.
genec
Levels of acceptance on the road also decrease if 95% of commuter cyclists are using the adjcent sidewalk.
Al
I agree... sidewalk riders cause more "harm" then bike lanes.
sbhikes
People don't want to be road-raged at or run over by drivers on cell phones when they ride a bike. But this desire is not born out of their cycling experiences. It's born out of their driving experiences. There is no logical reason to believe that just by replacing your car with your bike that people will stop road raging or talking on cell phones around you. Hence the desire for something safer to use when on a bicycle.
The people I know who are wary of riding on streets say that on a bike path there is no physical way they will be hit by some road rager or distracted soccer mom. You can't argue with this logic. How on earth can they run you over if the nearest car is nowhere to be seen? And don't get started on the intersection thing. Most bike paths I've used have very few intersections, so few that it's easy to ride for miles and miles without having to deal with one. Riding for miles and miles without any car traffic is what most people want, and is what a lot of cyclists enjoy about paths even if it's not their number one desire.
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?
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.
For crying out loud, the amount of sloppy reading around here is out of control. SSP, you conveniently left out this part of the above posting:
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?
Whether intentional or not, isn't it convenient that clipping that part out was necessary in order to make your contention seem plausible: you seem incapable of envisioning any other experiences but your own.
Here I am contending that the answer lies within each cyclist, the only differences are within the cyclists themselves: their attitudes and perspectives, and you have the gall to claim that I am incapable of envisioning any other experiences but my own? How could that be if I acknowledge that the only plausible explanation is the differences within the cyclists - their attitudes and perspectives (which obviously stem from their different experiences)? To top it off, nothing I said had anything to do with my own personal experiences.
Unbelievable.
genec
Whether intentional or not, isn't it convenient that clipping that part out was necessary in order to make your contention seem plausible: you seem incapable of envisioning any other experiences but your own.
Pot calling the kettle black!
Here I am contending that the answer lies within each cyclist, the only differences are within the cyclists themselves: their attitudes and perspectives, and you have the gall to claim that I am incapable of envisioning any other experiences but my own? How could that be if I acknowledge that the only plausible explanation is the differences within the cyclists - their attitudes and perspectives (which obviously stem from their different experiences)? To top it off, nothing I said had anything to do with my own personal experiences.
Those differences within the cyclists are primarily due to their experiences... as you note... but while some cyclists are quite experienced, others may have less experience... do we now design freeways for the most experinced motorists out there? Or as an example, do we seek some middle ground and design for that instead?
SSP
For crying out loud, the amount of sloppy reading around here is out of control. SSP, you conveniently left out this part of the above posting:
Whether intentional or not, isn't it convenient that clipping that part out was necessary in order to make your contention seem plausible: you seem incapable of envisioning any other experiences but your own.
Here I am contending that the answer lies within each cyclist, the only differences are within the cyclists themselves: their attitudes and perspectives, and you have the gall to claim that I am incapable of envisioning any other experiences but my own? How could that be if I acknowledge that the only plausible explanation is the differences within the cyclists - their attitudes and perspectives (which obviously stem from their different experiences)? To top it off, nothing I said had anything to do with my own personal experiences.
Unbelievable.
You asked a specific question:
"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?"
I answered it with a concrete example.
In answer to your second question: "How can the environment be the problem for one, when the same environment is good for another cyclist?"
By way of example, consider a cross-walk signal that's 15 seconds long. That's plenty of time for a 20-something to get across, but not enough time for a little old lady with a cane. Same environment, different experiences...and easily resolved by "accomodations".
Helmet Head
Pot calling the kettle black!
Like I said, the amount of sloppy reading around here is out of control. I wasn't calling anyone anything. I was just quoting what SSP said about me. Please reread my post (including the parts I was quoting - I include them to clarify the context).
Those differences within the cyclists are primarily due to their experiences... as you note... but while some cyclists are quite experienced, others may have less experience... do we now design freeways for the most experinced motorists out there? Or as an example, do we seek some middle ground and design for that instead?
We design all roadways, including freeways, for competent drivers, period, not for incompetent ones. The incompetent ones are the ones who cause crashes, whether they driving a car or riding a bike. We don't try to address behavioral incompetence issues by designing our roads or freeways accordingly.
genec
Like I said, the amount of sloppy reading around here is out of control. I wasn't calling anyone anything. I was just quoting what SSP said about me. Please reread my post (including the parts I was quoting - I include them to clarify the context).
I have read lots and lots of your posts... and believe me, you act as if you expect every cyclist to ride like you. If that were the case, then no doubt there would be a lot less variation out there in the cycling world... however, we cyclists come in lots of sizes, shapes and levels of experience.
We design all roadways, including freeways, for competent drivers, period, not for incompetent ones. The incompetent ones are the ones who cause crashes, whether they driving a car or riding a bike. We don't try to address behavioral incompetence issues by designing our roads or freeways accordingly.
Define competent? Passing the driving test? Apparently there are loads of incompetent drivers out there now because the state just made the test more difficult.
If we are not designing roads to address issues of incompetence, why do we do we put out signs that read: "Turning cars must wait for pedestrians to cross completly."
And how many "Keep Right Except to Pass" signs are needed to get the point across to "competent drivers." And don't even get me started on the meaning of "LIMIT" as in speed limit. :eek:
genec
By way of example, consider a cross-walk signal that's 15 seconds long. That's plenty of time for a 20-something to get across, but not enough time for a little old lady with a cane. Same environment, different experiences...and easily resolved by "accomodations".
+100
Helmet Head
I have read lots and lots of your posts... and believe me, you act as if you expect every cyclist to ride like you. If that were the case, then no doubt there would be a lot less variation out there in the cycling world... however, we cyclists come in lots of sizes, shapes and levels of experience.
Even if it's true that I act as if I expect every cyclist to ride "like me" (which I vigorously deny), only sloppy reading explains your "pot calling kettle black" comment, since I was not claiming SSP or anyone else acts as if they expect every cyclist to ride like them.
Define competent? Passing the driving test? Apparently there are loads of incompetent drivers out there now because the state just made the test more difficult.
The point is, they don't design the roads for blatant incompetence. Basic assumption about driver competence are made by roadway engineers. They don't make those assumptions about cyclists. In fact, they do the opposite. For example, they eschew bike lanes only on the uphill side because that encourage (incompetent) cyclists to ride down on the wrong side.
If we are not designing roads to address issues of incompetence, why do we do we put out signs that read: "Turning cars must wait for pedestrians to cross completly."
So maybe we put a handful (I've never see even one) out there in particularly bad situations. But what you're talking about is general design principles for designing for incompetent cyclists.
And how many "Keep Right Except to Pass" signs are needed to get the point across to "competent drivers."
Apparently not very many because they are very rare considering they would be appropriate on any multi-lane road.
And don't even get me started on the meaning of "LIMIT" as in speed limit. :eek:
You're comparing apples to oranges, again.
Helmet Head
You asked a specific question:
"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?"
Yes, it was a rhetorical question.
I answered it with a concrete example.
Duh. So did I (the part you neglected to include). It was a RHETORICAL question! Jeez, how much do we have to dumb down our writing in this forum in order to achieve comprehension?
In answer to your second question: "How can the environment be the problem for one, when the same environment is good for another cyclist?"
Another rhetorical question which I also answered in the same post. :rolleyes:
By way of example, consider a cross-walk signal that's 15 seconds long. That's plenty of time for a 20-something to get across, but not enough time for a little old lady with a cane. Same environment, different experiences...and easily resolved by "accomodations".
And this type of explanation applies to cycling only in situations where a difference in physical strength/ability applies, which it generally does not in most of the situations we debate about here with respect to road design. Off hand, merging left on high speed roads is about the only example I can think of that even comes close (where the ability to accelerate better and maintain higher speeds can help), and, even then, facilities can't help there.
Edit: lengthening the time the light stays yellow in large intersections is also a design change that can help cyclists as well as other drivers of slow moving vehicles. This is a type of design improvement I would support, of course.
SSP
Yes, it was a rhetorical question.
DuHH! Like I didn't know that. :rolleyes:
But, if you're going to ask a rhetorical question, don't be upset when someone answers it in a way that illustrates (once again) the fallacy of your rhetoric.
Helmet Head
Understanding the bicycling environment? Methinks we need a thread on Understanding written English before we can move on to understanding anything else.
Helmet Head
DuHH! Like I didn't know that. :rolleyes:
But, if you're going to ask a rhetorical question, don't be upset when someone answers it in a way that illustrates (once again) the fallacy of your rhetoric.
How does your example illustrate a fallacy of my rhetoric when it makes my point?
SSP
And this type of explanation applies to cycling only in situations where a difference in physical strength/ability applies, which it generally does not in most of the situations we debate about here with respect to road design.
Thanks for illustrating once again the narrowness of your perspective.
The differences in skill levels amongst the cycling population are, IMO, much more significant than you seem willing to admit (or are capable of seeing).
SSP
How does your example illustrate a fallacy of my rhetoric when it makes my point?
Asked and answered...see above.
Helmet Head
Thanks for illustrating once again the narrowness of your perspective.
The differences in skill levels amongst the cycling population are, IMO, much more significant than you seem willing to admit (or are capable of seeing).
You're taking my statements out of the context of the discussion - where road design matters, and, in particular, where accomodations can make a significant difference to make up for any such differences among cyclists.
There is a huge amount of all kinds of differences between Lance Armstrong on his road bike, and me pulling 70 lbs of trailer with my mountain bike. But what specific road design accomodation would make a difference?
Helmet Head
SSP, have you ever read "Listening to bike lanes" by Jeffrey Hiles?
It's a long-winded version of your argument, as I understand it.
sbhikes
Then how do you explain the correlation between less acceptance of cyclists in the road with higher availability of segregated facilities?
How do you explain it? Where are your data?
sbhikes
By way of example, consider a cross-walk signal that's 15 seconds long. That's plenty of time for a 20-something to get across, but not enough time for a little old lady with a cane. Same environment, different experiences...and easily resolved by "accomodations".
And, if you are going to put a sensor in the street for bicycles to trigger, do you a) just make the car sensor sensitive enough (if you do that, then how do you make the light last longer for cyclists) or b) put the sensor in the bike lane (and if you do that, then how do center-lane-positioned cyclists trigger it) or c) put the sensor in the bike lane 100-200 feet before the intersection so that by the time the cyclist triggers it, he's approaching the intersection and can continue without stopping.
Duh, the answer is c. And we have sensors like that in Santa Barbara.
SSP
And, if you are going to put a sensor in the street for bicycles to trigger, do you a) just make the car sensor sensitive enough (if you do that, then how do you make the light last longer for cyclists) or b) put the sensor in the bike lane (and if you do that, then how do center-lane-positioned cyclists trigger it) or c) put the sensor in the bike lane 100-200 feet before the intersection so that by the time the cyclist triggers it, he's approaching the intersection and can continue without stopping.
Duh, the answer is c. And we have sensors like that in Santa Barbara.
Most of our in-ground traffic light sensors are being replaced with "camera sensors". They're cheaper to deploy, and cheaper to maintain because they don't require digging up the pavement.
Thankfully, I've also found them to be generally more reliable for cyclists - it's fairly easy to trigger most of them with proper lane positioning (i.e., directly in the camera's line of sight).
kf5nd
Oh god, make it stop...
Bekologist
We design all roadways, including freeways, for competent drivers, period, not for incompetent ones.
Then design of bike facilities is also done for competent cyclists, and not the incompetent ones that don't understand hooks and traffic dynamics.