Vehicular Cycling (VC) - The VC Pardox?

THERE ARE NO RIGHT ANSWERS TO THIS QUESTION!

If at some point in your life you adopted a riding style that is significantly more assertive with respect to where and how often you use lane control ("taking the lane") than a riding style that you used prior to that, and you have significant experience with both, do you find any change in how motorist treat you? Better? Worse? About the same?

They treat me worse but pass me safer.

They treat me worse but pass me safer.
What about motorists up ahead in front of you, like those waiting to turn into the road, or to cross it? Do they treat you better or worse depending on where you're riding?

Far better

where's the "I am treated WORSE by drivers when I am more assertive with lane control" poll anwser?

and VC "pardox"? is that like a Geisel "Lorax"? or one of the Star Bellied Sneetches? ;)

There's two posters here already that suggest WORSE treatment via more assertive lane control...... interesting....

In certain roadway situations, I could ride in a non-assertive manner and receive less honks than I would riding in an assertive manner (past parked cars or intersections). This is the only downside (if one can consider a few ignorant honks a downside) to using an assertive lane position. I could go on and on about the upsides but I don't feel it's necessary (but I will if requested :)).

I did not vote in the poll, but here are my experiences:

1. While "taking the lane" in a downtown metro area where traffic is likely to be slow, I feel safer and have gotten little harassment from motorists.

2. When riding 2 abreast and "taking the lane" on higher speed roads or thouroughfares with two lanes of travel in each direction I have not received much hassle.

3. The most trouble I have, and the most angry responses from motorists occur in the following circumstances when "taking the lane"

a. High volume, higher speed roads (35 +) used by motorist commuters during rush hour that link the suburbs to downtown when I am riding alone.

b. Riding on one-lane per direction roads by myself

where's the "I am treated WORSE by drivers when I am more assertive with lane control" poll anwser?

and VC "pardox"? is that like a Geisel "Lorax"? or one of the Star Bellied Sneetches? ;)

There's two posters here already that suggest WORSE treatment via more assertive lane control...... interesting....
Sorry, i thought "I am treated better when I am less assertive" covered that, but I can see that they're not necessarily flipsides of the same coin. Pretty close, but not quite. My bad.

I did not vote in the poll, but here are my experiences:

1. While "taking the lane" in a downtown metro area where traffic is likely to be slow, I feel safer and have gotten little harassment from motorists.

2. When riding 2 abreast and "taking the lane" on higher speed roads or thouroughfares with two lanes of travel in each direction I have not received much hassle.

3. The most trouble I have, and the most angry responses from motorists occur in the following circumstances when "taking the lane"

a. High volume, higher speed roads (35 +) used by motorist commuters during rush hour that link the suburbs to downtown when I am riding alone.

b. Riding on one-lane per direction roads by myself
Interesting how most people seem to be exclusively thinking in terms of passing motorists when they read this question, and I was mostly thinking about treatment from those ahead - potential crossing traffic.

being that I've made it thru every intersection with oncoming traffic so far REGARDLESS of my road position, I'd have to say it really doesn't matter. Ride a little more, mr. head, and it would become apparent WHY the respondents are thinking this way.

The reason more of us are considering overtaking traffic- overtaking situations is where drivers really like to show their bicyclist discrimination.

oncoming, turning traffic, there's very little 'better' or 'worse' treatment dependant on your road position. They either ignore you and cut you off, or they don't. it's rare the drivers "Buzz" a bike in a turning manuvuer.

Have I described the 'premptive yield' where, in some scenarios, a cyclist aims DIRECTLY for the driver of oncoming, turning traffic? VERY useful at night.

being that I've made it thru every intersection with oncoming traffic so far REGARDLESS of my road position, I'd have to say it really doesn't matter. Ride a little more, mr. head, and it would become apparent WHY the respondents are thinking this way.

The reason more of us are considering overtaking traffic- overtaking situations is where drivers really like to show their bicyclist discrimination.

oncoming, turning traffic, there's very little 'better' or 'worse' treatment dependant on your road position. They either ignore you and cut you off, or they don't. it's rare the drivers "Buzz" a bike in a turning manuvuer.

Have I described the 'premptive yield' where, in some scenarios, a cyclist aims DIRECTLY for the driver of oncoming, turning traffic? VERY useful at night.


My main problem--and fear---is that I cannot see what is going on behind me at every moment simultaneously watching what is happening in front of me. At least with oncoming traffic I can see where they are going, and can sometimes anticipate their movements by looking at the drivers. However, even though I routinely try to check my rear and know how/what is back there---it is certainly not practical to look back continuously so you can keep an eye on every single car in the long commute parade that will pass you. What is truly scary is that I can be as visible as I want and take the lane and I have no way to know what the JAM behind me is doing. For all I know it is a woman putting on makeup, or a man shaving, or a busines exec trying to read his paper/blackberry and drive at the same time. These people could easily smack into me while not paying attention and i would have no forewarning. WHile I certainly always look behind me when turning, approaching an intersection, etc. it is simply not possible or safe to continually check my rear when I am being passed by every car doing 35 +. In these instances I do try and "get out of their way" and ride as close to the curb as I can, but then I have an additional problem when there is an obstacle in the gutter. SO in the end i tend to avoid these spots. I would certainly appreciate any advice without condemnation or insults as to how to remedy this situation.

Skanking biker, do you have a rear-view mirror of some kind? I hate glancing behind all the time, and found a mirror really helps increase awareness.

I'll admit it... I am treated by motorists better when I am assertive with lane control... but those that take exception to that assertiveness are just as assertive back. (becomes an alpha dog fight)

I had one such scenario just yesterday afternoon, Gene. some JAM decided to close pass/squeeze brush right up to a stopsign. With me faster off the stop, my attempts to then wave him by resulted in him catching up and slowing, mouthing obscenities at me thru the window as he slowed

- then the JAM patented "force biker into parked cars squeeze manuvuer"- all for being assertive in traffic and doing a polite 'wave 'em by'. I slowed, and banged high heaven out of the sidepanel of his van.

fool tried that move a little bit too close to home- I know where he lives and parks.

yep. its all fun and games out there.

Skanking biker, do you have a rear-view mirror of some kind? I hate glancing behind all the time, and found a mirror really helps increase awareness.


I've got a helmet mirror and I do not like it

I had one such scenario just yesterday afternoon, Gene. some JAM decided to close pass/squeeze brush right up to a stopsign. With me faster off the stop, my attempts to then wave him by resulted in him catching up and slowing, mouthing obscenities at me thru the window as he slowed

- then the JAM patented "force biker into parked cars squeeze manuvuer"- all for being assertive in traffic and doing a polite 'wave 'em by'. I slowed, and banged high heaven out of the sidepanel of his van.

fool tried that move a little bit too close to home- I know where he lives and parks.

yep. its all fun and games out there.


The big problem for which I cannot find a solution is the 4 lane divided road (2 in each direction) separated by a median with few intersecting sidestreets. During times of high volume traffic "taking" the right lane results in holding up an entire column of traffic for miles. Vehicles can't get around me because there is solid traffic in the left lane. They try and run me off the road, and I have nowhere to go because of the curb bordering the right lane and small space between the border of the right lane and the curb. If a sidewalk was available i might consider using it in this circumstance, but there is no sidewalk. Essentially, there is no way for me to safely use a road like this.

being that I've made it thru every intersection with oncoming traffic so far REGARDLESS of my road position, I'd have to say it really doesn't matter.
...
oncoming, turning traffic, there's very little 'better' or 'worse' treatment dependant on your road position. They either ignore you and cut you off, or they don't. it's rare the drivers "Buzz" a bike in a turning manuvuer. That's opposite of my experience.

I used to get people turning in front of me, near right hooks etc. fairly often when I rode less assertively. Now that I ride much more assertively, those types of "turning conflicts" virtually never happen.


Ride a little more, mr. head, and it would become apparent WHY the respondents are thinking this way. Please do not take your argument to a personal level. Thanks.


The reason more of us are considering overtaking traffic- overtaking situations is where drivers really like to show their bicyclist discrimination. Well, I'm not talking about taking the lane where there is no good reason to do so. But at intersections and their approaches, in narrow lanes, when fsdt is not present, etc. Darn. I blew it by not clarifying this.


Have I described the 'premptive yield' where, in some scenarios, a cyclist aims DIRECTLY for the driver of oncoming, turning traffic? VERY useful at night. Why would you do change your road position like that if you've "made it thru every intersection with oncoming traffic so far REGARDLESS of [your] road position, [and you'd] have to say [road position] really doesn't matter?"

The big problem for which I cannot find a solution is the 4 lane divided road (2 in each direction) separated by a median with few intersecting sidestreets. During times of high volume traffic "taking" the right lane results in holding up an entire column of traffic for miles. Vehicles can't get around me because there is solid traffic in the left lane. They try and run me off the road, and I have nowhere to go because of the curb bordering the right lane and small space between the border of the right lane and the curb. If a sidewalk was available i might consider using it in this circumstance, but there is no sidewalk. Essentially, there is no way for me to safely use a road like this.
That sucks. Can you give us road name and nearest intersection to check it out on google maps?

During times of high volume traffic "taking" the right lane results in holding up an entire column of traffic for miles. Vehicles can't get around me because there is solid traffic in the left lane.
Perhaps you exaggerate ('miles'?) a bit for effect? Yes some vehicles will be delayed waiting to pass, but only momentairily.
My experience with such roads is that when traffic is moving 30-50mph there are enough gaps so a driver coming up behind cyclist can with proper planning merge left into one of those gaps with minimal delay, or at worst wait 15-30s for a gap and then merge (as long as they keep a good distance to allow them to accelerate into gap smoothly)
When gaps are minimal, I find traffic is near bumper to bumper and moving slower than average cyclist, so the cyclist is not impeding any one, everyone is impeding each other. That is when I get tempted to go on sidewalk, when traffic is 15mph and solid for miles.
There are of course some roads with close packed and fast traffic, here adding an addtional travel lane is what is needed for all users.

Al

adding an addtional travel lane is what is needed for all users.l

I agree, but that is hard to do when people protest adding other lanes on the grounds that it will increase vehicular traffic and increase urban sprawl.


An example of the "type" of road to which I am referring is when I was living in Madison, Wisconsin----John Nolan Drive leading up to the isthmus. Thankfully there is a MUP running parellel with the road that can be used, but that won't do any good for those who won't ride on facilities designated for bike travel. Another example from when I lived in Madison would be University Ave outside the campus area. In the campus are, University has a nice bike lane but as you move towards the outskirts the lane disappears and when running out to the suburbs like Middleton, there is no way you could ride that road during rush hour----granted, there are MUPS within a few miles that a cyclist could use to detuour around. I'm just citing these examples to illustrate my point that I simply do not feel safe on roads like these. These are the two clearest examples that come to mind offhand.

Oh--back where my folks live in Oak Creek, Wisconsin, the main drag through town is a 40 mph divided hwy--2 lanes each direction---Howell Avenue, that DOES indeed run for miles and there is no parrellel sidewalk or MUP. I am completely screwed if I need to run to a grocery store or barber, etc. or other business that is located on this main drag and try and ride down this drag. Its worse in this case because in addition to your normal commuting JAMS, you have to deal with A-hole teenagers driving their mommy's escalade. --Again, I can try and compensate by going a few miles out of the way to the next parallel road and then cutting over---but I still would need to use that road at some point. A road where I cannot compensate at all is Ryan Road--State HWY 32--(which coincidentally intersects with Howell) and runs west for miles in areas without sidewalks and curbs.---here the speed fluctuates 45-55.

I find roads like these to be a big problem in areas where the streets are not laid out in a grid or in suburban areas where there may be relatively large open areas between subdivisions.

Another problem I often face is the hill problem. Lets assume there is sufficient space on a 4 lane divided highway for vehciles approaching you from behind to pass on the left. How do you compensate for the JAM that pulls onto the road on the other side of the hill (and doesn't see you because you just crested the hill) and rapidly accelerates downward?

Thankfully there is a MUP running parellel with the road that can be used, but that won't do any good for those who won't ride on facilities designated for bike travel.
Do you know anyone "who won't ride on facilities designated for bike travel."?

Thankfully there is a MUP running parellel with the road that can be used
Well maintained (plowed, cleared of leaves) and wide (supports passing and/or opposing direction use) MUP adjacent to longer intersectionless roads are an excellent bicycle facility. I'd use it if I had such a situation.

Al

Do you know anyone "who won't ride on facilities designated for bike travel."?


I have seen posts here where some have made comments to the effect that using facilities designated for bike travel encourages the idea that cyclists shouldn't use the roads.

Well maintained (plowed, cleared of leaves) and wide (supports passing and/or opposing direction use) MUP adjacent to longer intersectionless roads are an excellent bicycle facility. I'd use it if I had such a situation.

Al
I agree

I have seen posts here where some have made comments to the effect that using facilities designated for bike travel encourages the idea that cyclists shouldn't use the roads.I've been told by professional transportation planners at public meetings that they expect bikers and peds to use the government's special places for those classes instead of the roads. I've also read what Michael Farrell (Transportation Planner II, MWCOG) wrote (http://archives.listserve.com/archiver/html/members/2006-06/msg00016.html) on the Association of Pedestrian and Bicycle Professionals (APBP) listserver:

... if you could get cyclists to take the lane, ... you would cause a lot of traffic congestion.
If you want cyclists to ... not block motor vehicle traffic, put in the bike lane.

The big problem for which I cannot find a solution is the 4 lane divided road (2 in each direction) separated by a median with few intersecting sidestreets. During times of high volume traffic "taking" the right lane results in holding up an entire column of traffic for miles. Vehicles can't get around me because there is solid traffic in the left lane. They try and run me off the road, and I have nowhere to go because of the curb bordering the right lane and small space between the border of the right lane and the curb. If a sidewalk was available i might consider using it in this circumstance, but there is no sidewalk. Essentially, there is no way for me to safely use a road like this.
I had a situation like that. I don't have it anymore. I eventually noticed that there were a couple of places that were slightly wider and I could use them as turnouts to let people pass. This was because the road had a lot of curves. Maybe you don't have that.

Roads like that aren't good to ride a bike on. It's too bad they design them that way. I understand how important it is for us to maintain our rights to use all the roads, but under these kinds of circumstances I'm not really interested in being the martyr for the cause.

Sorry I have no advice for you except to maybe call the community relations officer at the police and explain that you have to use this road and the problems you are having. Depending on how the cops view cycling in your area, they might help you.

I did a little experiment today while I was out taking a walk.

I walked facing traffic (as is the law) on a narrow road that has no sidewalk, no bike lane, no shoulder (except for sand) and one lane in each direction. I walked on the edge of the road, not in the sand.

People passed me much too closely almost all the time. Less than half the people would cross over the line to pass me safely. The rest did not seem to take any care at all. These people were going 40 or 50 mph. I was wearing bright clothing in broad daylight and there were no distractions along the road. Only farm fields.

Even when I stuck my arm out this one lady would not cross over the line to pass me safely. I could have touched her car. She did not even slow down.

I don't think any of this stuff about how drivers treat us have much to do with cyclists. I think it's all about the motorists. It's too inconvenient to slow down, change course, or otherwise behave safely around slower "traffic" on the road. Whatever gets in their way either must be ignored or yelled at.

There is no paradox. You can be yelled at for being in the center of the lane. You can be yelled at for being on the side of the road, too. Some people will pass you safely. Others won't. Still others will purposefully harrass you.

It's not about you. It's about them.

The best thing you can do to deal with this is to find what works best for you as far as safety. If it works best for you to be a silverback gorilla out there, then power to ya. It doesn't work so well for me. I find that finding quieter routes, using bike lanes and bike paths, and wearing high visibiltiy gear works best for me. It's not perfect, but I get the best results possible FOR ME.

I have seen posts here where some have made comments to the effect that using facilities designated for bike travel encourages the idea that cyclists shouldn't use the roads. Well, of course using facilities designated for bike travel encourages the idea that cyclists shouldn't use the roads. But have you seen posts where anyone has said that they won't ride in facilities designated for bike travel for that or for any other reason? Just trying to be clear...

That sucks. Can you give us road name and nearest intersection to check it out on google maps?

Try Clairmont Mesa Blvd during any busy time. I take the lane due to the parked cars along the side and wanting to stay out of a busy door zone. Certain times of the day, the mood gets downright ugly. I hold my position... but it is not a pleasant experience. Certainly not for the faint hearted.

Try any day except Sunday, about noon. The traffic varies quite a bit from location to location. The busiest locations tend to be just west of 805, near Convoy, near Clairemont drive and over the 163 bridge moving west.

Take note, I didn't say it could not be done... I do it all the time. I just mentioned the mood gets quite ugly.

I did a little experiment today while I was out taking a walk.

I walked facing traffic (as is the law) on a narrow road that has no sidewalk, no bike lane, no shoulder (except for sand) and one lane in each direction. I walked on the edge of the road, not in the sand.

People passed me much too closely almost all the time. Less than half the people would cross over the line to pass me safely. The rest did not seem to take any care at all. These people were going 40 or 50 mph. I was wearing bright clothing in broad daylight and there were no distractions along the road. Only farm fields.

Even when I stuck my arm out this one lady would not cross over the line to pass me safely. I could have touched her car. She did not even slow down.

I don't think any of this stuff about how drivers treat us have much to do with cyclists. I think it's all about the motorists. It's too inconvenient to slow down, change course, or otherwise behave safely around slower "traffic" on the road. Whatever gets in their way either must be ignored or yelled at.

There is no paradox. You can be yelled at for being in the center of the lane. You can be yelled at for being on the side of the road, too. Some people will pass you safely. Others won't. Still others will purposefully harrass you.

It's not about you. It's about them.

The best thing you can do to deal with this is to find what works best for you as far as safety. If it works best for you to be a silverback gorilla out there, then power to ya. It doesn't work so well for me. I find that finding quieter routes, using bike lanes and bike paths, and wearing high visibiltiy gear works best for me. It's not perfect, but I get the best results possible FOR ME.
Indeed there are similarities. Most people seem to feel obligated to stay out of the way of cars when walking too. If you treat drivers like they own the road (except maybe the margin), then they will act like they own it. Basic human nature.

Sounds like you were walking in the road margin. Did you experiment with walking further out in the lane?
How about walking far in the lane, and then moving aside back to the edge when they are just a few seconds from reaching you?

wow, mr. head. your really reaching in your suggestion to Sbikes. bordering on ludicrous, dude. give it a rest, and lets' see what the rest of the crowd has to say, without your timely rebuttals and attempts to find the magix solution to all the scenarios described herein.

Remember, you are NOT the arbitrater of safety in this forum. neither the referee nor the teacher. You're just another rider like the rest of us. You are NOT responsible for OUR safety concerns on the roads.

Depends on the context - in certain situations lane control (which I take to mean 'taking the lane') works well for me. Usually on city streets.

However I have found that lane control kinda backfires on the University of Calgary campus. The road 'grid' on campus is rather roundabout with a whole lot of ped crossings (seems unneccesary to me - but I was not consulted :)). Anyhow I regularly encounter a road where the right lane is a turn lane, and the left is a through lane, but fairly narrow. When I take the left lane, a significant number of motorists buzz past me in the turn lane, then merge left hard out of the right turn only lane, through a pedestrian crosswalk. I have *politely* suggested to several of these people that this is a questionable manouver (note that my riding speed is equal or higher than average driving speed in this area - limit is 20 kmh (about 15 mph)). I have also pointed out that it is a *bad idea* for a cyclist to merge left through a right turn only lane - but my protests fall on deaf ears. I generally avoid this area unless it is free of snow and ice - because in that case I am significantly faster than the cars, and they don't try to pass me.

I did not vote in the poll, but here are my experiences:

1. While "taking the lane" in a downtown metro area where traffic is likely to be slow, I feel safer and have gotten little harassment from motorists.

2. When riding 2 abreast and "taking the lane" on higher speed roads or thouroughfares with two lanes of travel in each direction I have not received much hassle.

3. The most trouble I have, and the most angry responses from motorists occur in the following circumstances when "taking the lane"

a. High volume, higher speed roads (35 +) used by motorist commuters during rush hour that link the suburbs to downtown when I am riding alone.

b. Riding on one-lane per direction roads by myself
This is exactly the list of circumstances I was going to post. Wow.

I did not vote because motorists treatment of me and my bike varies a great deal depending on the locality, some harass you no mater what and in other areas your lane position does not matter at all for considerate treatment from motorists (we have areas where they will change lanes to pass you even when you are in a bike lane) and all the combinations in between

Thankfully there is a MUP running parellel with the road that can be used


Well maintained (plowed, cleared of leaves) and wide (supports passing and/or opposing direction use) MUP adjacent to longer intersectionless roads are an excellent bicycle facility. I'd use it if I had such a situation.

Yep, although I would add not crowded with clueless peds to the list. I frequently use a MUP like this alongside a stretch of 4-lane roadway that is unpleasant to ride.

interesting... how does MUP use relate to the original post?

I guess riders will ALWAYS have to interact with other humans, wether clueless peds or clueless drivers!

Yep, although I would add not crowded with clueless peds to the list. I frequently use a MUP like this alongside a stretch of 4-lane roadway that is unpleasant to ride.
Right after posting I almost edited my above post to include designed to accomidate pedestrian and cycle usage patterns if applicable
For example if going thru parks, playgrounds, need to be much wider with designated ped and cycle sections, but if a remote connector primarily used by cyclists going places, a narrower path is OK

Al

A. Motorists up ahead of me treat me much better when I control the lane. I find them much less likely to infringe on my right of way.

B. Motorists from behind treat me slightly better when I control the lane. Most of my roads involve traffic usually running at 40 mph or more, so I'm almost never in a situation were I am riding the same speed or faster. In this situation even though some motorists will still pass me unsafely (like near intersections, blind curves or when there is oncoming traffic) when I control the lane, I feel it happens less often. Plus at least I have some space on my right to retreat to when push comes to shove!

Also, motorists behind me are the only ones I've ever received honks, yells or other aggressive behavior from, which is also part of how one is treated.



Sounds like you were walking in the road margin. Did you experiment with walking further out in the lane?
How about walking far in the lane, and then moving aside back to the edge when they are just a few seconds from reaching you?

Oh great, just when I thought I had this lane control thing down while cycling, now I have to take the lane while walking! :eek: :lol:

Oh great, just when I thought I had this lane control thing down while cycling, now I have to take the lane while walking! :eek: :lol:
You will always remain a lawless incompetent phobic pedestrian. UNLESS you get your needed training from a certified Effective Walking Instructor. Then, and only then, will you be a competent Real Walker.
Sidewalks are the Products of the Segregationist Evil Doers!! Power to the Pedestrian!! Take the Lane!! :rolleyes:

You will always remain a lawless incompetent phobic pedestrian. UNLESS you get your needed training from a certified Effective Walking Instructor. Then, and only then, will you be a competent Real Walker.
Sidewalks are the Products of the Segregationist Evil Doers!! Power to the Pedestrian!! Take the Lane!! :rolleyes:
Laugh all you want, but the prevalence of segregated walking facilities has resulted in most people no longer having the experience or skills to drive and walk safely and effectively on roads without segregated walking facilities.

Laugh all you want, but the prevalence of segregated walking facilities has resulted in most people no longer having the experience or skills to drive and walk safely and effectively on roads without segregated walking facilities.

To play devil's advocate here:

Hasn't the construction of "segregated walking/cycling facilities" encouraged more people to take altnerate transportation, thus helping to reduce pollution? Rightly or wrongly, most joggers/cyclists feel safer using "segregated facilities" and thus are more likely to use them. Haven't those facilities encouraged more people to exercise and become healthier? Don't those factors have to be weighed against the fact that as you put it "most people no longer having the experience or skills to drive and walk safely and effectively on roads without segregated walking facilities." My point is, so what if people don't know how (or have lost the ability) to "effectively" cycle/walk on roads if this loss is made up for by other positive societal gains (less polution/healthier people)?

I simply do not find it practical to suggest that one should walk in the middle of a lane of traffic.

To play devil's advocate here:

Hasn't the construction of "segregated walking/cycling facilities" encouraged more people to take altnerate transportation, thus helping to reduce pollution? Rightly or wrongly, most joggers/cyclists feel safer using "segregated facilities" and thus are more likely to use them. Haven't those facilities encouraged more people to exercise and become healthier? Don't those factors have to be weighed against the fact that as you put it "most people no longer having the experience or skills to drive and walk safely and effectively on roads without segregated walking facilities." My point is, so what if people don't know how (or have lost the ability) to "effectively" cycle/walk on roads if this loss is made up for by other positive societal gains (less polution/healthier people)?

I simply do not find it practical to suggest that one should walk in the middle of a lane of traffic. I'm not suggesting that one should walk in the middle of a lane of traffic (I did suggest Diane experiment walking out further in the road, and moving out of the way as the car approached, in order to see if that caused them to pass her more safely or not).

I'm just pointing out that for better or worse, the proliferation of segregated walking facilities has resulted in many people not knowing how to drive when peds are present where segregated walking facilities don't exist, and many don't know how to walk safely/effectively in such a situation. Now, there may be a tradeoff -- and you mention -- one that makes it even worth it, that's fine. And the same tradeoff should be considered when evaulating the value of segregated cycling facilities.

My point is that denying that segregated facilities have these secondary effects on society should not be part of the process.

Edit: In many debates about segregated cycling facilities, when anyone tries to raise this issue of how adding segregated facililities inhibits integrated behavior, it is often dismissed out of hand.

I'm not suggesting that one should walk in the middle of a lane of traffic (I did suggest Diane experiment walking out further in the road, and moving out of the way as the car approached, in order to see if that caused them to pass her more safely or not).

I'm just pointing out that for better or worse, the proliferation of segregated walking facilities has resulting in many people knowing how to drive when peds are present where segregated walking facilities don't exist, and many don't know how to walk safely/effectively in such a situation. Now, there may be a tradeoff -- and you mention -- one that make it worth it, that's fine. And the same tradeoff should be considered when evaulating the value of segregated cycling facilities.

My point is that denying that segregated facilities have these secondary effects on society should not be part of the process.


gotcha---fair enough

Edit: In many debates about segregated cycling facilities, when anyone tries to raise this issue of how adding segregated facililities inhibits integrated behavior, it is often dismissed out of hand.

I wonder why? I guess separate men's and ladies' bathrooms inhibit integrated behavior between the genders too. :rolleyes:

Laugh all you want, but the prevalence of segregated walking facilities has resulted in most people no longer having the experience or skills to drive and walk safely and effectively on roads without segregated walking facilities.
I certainly will!http://www.orangemane.com/BB/images/smilies/ha.gif http://www.orangemane.com/BB/images/smilies/lolup.gif http://www.orangemane.com/BB/images/smilies/rofl2.gif

I wonder why? I guess separate men's and ladies' bathrooms inhibit integrated behavior between the genders too. :rolleyes:
Of course it does.

Don't you think there would be less sexual discrimination in our society, and fewer aholes spewing sexist nonsense if bathrooms were integrated?

Again, that's not to say that the societal benefits of restroom sexual integration outweigh the societal benefits of restroom sexual segregation, it's just something to consider, rather than deny.

Also, the differences between males and females are real and significant with respect to cultural values of privacy, politeness and modesty. Sexually segregated restrooms simply reflect that. But to a certain extent, here too must be a feedback loop effect.

The point is that whenever segregation is considered, be it ped/vehicle, bike/vehicle, male/female, white/black, Jew/gentile, smoker/non-smoker, first-class/second-class, whatever, the benefits of segregation must be weighed against the disbenefits. In each case the disbenefits of segregation must be acknowledged and considered, not denied to exist. I don't see why ped/vehicle segregation should be any different.

Yet any time anyone tries to bring up the disbenefits of ped/vehicle segregation around here, many immediately dismiss it out of hand.

I guess separate men's and ladies' bathrooms inhibit integrated behavior between the genders...

... the differences between males and females are real and significant with respect to cultural values ... Sexually segregated restrooms simply reflect that.
Not too many years ago, one of the rest stops for a moderately large organized ride was located at a convenience store which actually was fairly convenient; we were allowed to use the restrooms inside. Those single occupant rooms were labeled by gender. A line had already formed when I entered, and I got on the end of it. Then the mixed group of riders already in line said:
We're just using whichever restroom becomes available first, and ignoring the signs. The cyclists' disregard for the separation by class (i.e., segregation) of the facilities worked out well; integrated use was more efficient, being consistent with the principle of first come, first relieved ;)


... the benefits of segregation must be weighed against the disbenefits.
If that includes laws regulating travel that grant individuals in a particular classification (such as motorist) permission to engage in activity (say, traveling along in the middle of a traffic lane) yet denies other individuals the same permission, then there's a legal precedent (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/394/618.html) to be weighed which states that, when it comes to the right to travel:

... any classification which serves to penalize the exercise of that right, unless shown to be necessary* to promote a compelling government interest, is unconstitutional.
* necessary in this context implies that there are no less restrictive means than the challenged regulation available to protect or promote the compelling government interest.

Oh give me a break. Taking the lane while walking wrong way in traffic is an exercise in stupidity, if not lawlessness.

Oh give me a break. Taking the lane while walking wrong way in traffic is an exercise in stupidity, if not lawlessness.
Indeed. However, no one has suggested this, so why are you saying it?

addressed to Diane....

Sounds like you were walking in the road margin. Did you experiment with walking further out in the lane?
How about walking far in the lane, and then moving aside back to the edge when they are just a few seconds from reaching you?


WHO suggested it? YOU DID, Mr. HEAD :roflmao: incredible. somebody ban this joker.....