Vehicular Cycling (VC) - Forester takes on BF Posters

I disagree. The very fact that many on these forums and many who aren't commute on a daily basis using a combination of roads/streets/facilities without riding in traffic like that indicates it is not "impractical." While I don't disagree that cycling in a highway as shown in the vidoes is possible for some and can be done safely by some, I hardley think the guy I pass every morning with the cargo trailer, two sets of panniers and searchlight on his handlbars is going to be willing (or able) to do that. I'm not knocking the skills in the video. I'm just saying why subject yourself to those conditions if you don't have to? How about a couple on a tandem pulling a seven year old on a trailercycle on a road like that? Oh, that would be my wife, daughter and me. Believe me when I say we are slow, especially if there is any kind of uphillish grade.

It's really not about the skill or the speed, it's about the attitude. It's about what you believe is and is not safe and/or appropriate.

Edit: I hope this thread slows down a bit. I'm checking out for a while, maybe the whole weekend. We'll see. I think we could all use a break, eh?

OK, I won't make you. But you should note that "don't" is a contraction of the two words "do" and "not" and is properly spelled with a comma between the "n" and the "t."

Can we stop being silly and mean, now?


Rest assured my good sir that I was not trying to call you a "lamo nitpicker." Thank you for correcting my spelling. Sister Anthony Marie would have made me clean 12 chalboards for that one.

"JF also says that the bicycle is the only threat to the supremacy of the auto on the road (aside -- what about the motorcycle, itself an object of very similar advocacy?);"
Motorcycles do not present a problem for automobile drivers because they move as fast as cars.

motorcycles do not represent a problem for automobile drivers because they move as fast...OK, tell that to the thousands of motorcycle advocates who are fighting OUR fight -- their rightful place on the road without being a target.

Edit: I hope this thread slows down a bit. I'm checking out for a while, maybe the whole weekend. I think we could all use a break, eh?

Yes, I am actually hoping to get some riding in this weekend. I may cyclo-commute to get my haircut but take the long way home, in which case I will be really confused as to how to ride because I'll have to decide if that is transportational or recreational cycling.

... it seems that John's positions is that bicycle exclusive infrastructure should not be part of transportation development, but parks and recreation. Of course, a lot of people, who consider themselves "transportational", since they do errands or commute on bicycle, might be surprised that JF doesn't consider them "transportational".There's an important difference between highways (streets, roads, etc.) and recreation facilities. The highway system's primary purpose is transporation. In contrast, the primary purpose of almost all non-highway facilities that permit cycling is recreation.

How about a couple on a tandem pulling a seven year old on a trailercycle on a road like that? Oh, that would be my wife, daughter and myself. Believe me when I say we are slow, especially if there is any kind of uphillish grade.

It's really not about the skill or the speed, it's about the attitude. It's about what you believe is and is not safe and/or appropriate.

Absolutely. My physical condition (failing knees, drugs that limit cardiac output, a cardioverter/defibrillator implanted in my chest that is guaranteed to make my cycling very erratic if my heart rate gets out of control :) ) makes it impossible for me to ride nearly as fast as I used to. In fact, I'm just a slow cyclist these days. That does not prevent vehicular cycling -- it doesn't even make an appreciable difference in my ability to ride vehicularly. It makes hill-climbing on hot days a real chore, though. :(

In contrast, the primary purpose of almost all non-highway facilities that permit cycling is recreation.


Even one that is named: "SOUTHWEST COMMUTER PATH" and runs from the suburbs into the heart of downtown?

It is true that the motoring establishment created the cyclist-inferiority superstition and used that to justify the bikeway system for making motoring more convenient. However, that does not mean that we have to accept that. We might be able to change it, since it is so opposite to scientific knowledg about cycling and traffic. And even if it you think that opposing it is a "pipe dream", we should stand up for ourselves and our rights and scientific validity as long as we are able, instead of cringing down into beaten acceptance of it.I DO BELIEVE I SAID THAT MYSELF, VERY NEXT LINE, WHICH YOU CONVENIENTLY IGNORE.

"THIS is why he cannot 'stretch' it and still be credible. there's not a bit of misunderstanding -- JF, in his own words, states that bikeways are not in the best interests of cyclists. there are cities around the country and the world whose track record proves him wrong, yet he continues to espouse it."

Which are these cities around the world where bikeways have made cycling safer and faster and more convenient? I know of none. You make the assertion. Then back it up with facts and figures.AMSTERDAM; PORTLAND, OR; MADISON, WI; PARIS; COPENHAGEN; SAN DIEGO, according to your own fella, HH.

"i have yet to see anything to lend weight to the notion of 'rear-collision phobia' (his words). particularly when HIS OWN statements indicate that 3/4 of bike-involved collisions are 'blind-side' types of encounters." The statistics indicate that only about 2% of daytime, urban car-bike collisions occur when a straight-ahead cyclist is hit by a nominally straight-ahead motorist. That's a bit more accurate than your statement, and more conclusive. MY STATEMENT IS A QUOTE YOU WROTE AND PUBLISHED!So why the puzzlement about the rear-collision phobia? Precisely because practically all of our society's activities regarding bicycle transportation are supposedly intended to deal with this minor problem, to the detriment of all the other things that ought to be done. And, also, because this system for dealing with the supposed rear-collision problem was invented, designed, and paid for by motorists because they understood that it would clear bicycles from their path. The existence of a cyclist-inferiority phobia is the most reasonable explanation for activities that otherwise defy explanation.YOU CAN'T EXPLAIN IT, SO IT'S A PHOBIA?

"JF also says that the bicycle is the only threat to the supremacy of the auto on the road (aside -- what about the motorcycle, itself an object of very similar advocacy?);"
Motorcycles do not present a problem for automobile drivers because they move as fast as cars. If there is any threat to the supremacy of the auto on the road it is in the form of trucks. But, in general, discussions such as we have been having lump all motor vehicles into one category.

"then he tells another poster that the statement of bicycles being second-place to cars "has no meaning, is not even English"."
Well, it's not my fault that some people try to convey thoughts in a language that is not English. If they used English they would be better understood.I DIDN'T HAVE A BIT OF A PROBLEM UNDERSTANDING HIS POINT.

:fight:

Even one that is named: "SOUTHWEST COMMUTER PATH" ...?There are a few exceptions (that's why I wrote almost). Anyway, signs are cheap when compared to the cost of such a path. Is that facility run (as in operated, not funded) by the same agency that's responsible for running the primarily-for-transportation highway system?

...the massive traffic caused by poor city planning.I think such planning issues are very important for getting people to make more trips by bike. The head of engineering (including traffic) for my town once told me that the most important factor in transportation isn't engineering; it's the location of the "trip generators" (schools, homes, offices, stores, parks, etc.)

... I think society can do a lot more.Charity starts at home; in this case, society needs to stop violating the right of individuals to equal protection (http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/index.php/Equal_protection) in the effort to clear the public's highways for heavy motor vehicle traffic.

what if transportation IS your recreation? are you a transportational recreationist OR A recreational transportationalite? or you could be combination of the two, shunned by society.

The bike paths in my area were developed specifically for transportation cyclists. One of them became too popular, however, and has devolved into an MUP. For the longest time they tried to keep pedestrians off, but it just didn't work because the path is on the beach. The other path remains an important bike freeway. The fastest, easiest way to get from Santa Barbara to Goleta.

then we are going to end up with more and more situations where there is no reasonable/legal way to get from A to B by bicycle. That is not cycling advocacy; that is anti-cycling advocacy.
Again more of the same over-the-top Henny Penny Rhetoric.

OK, off the top of your head, you could recall the alleged terrible situation when some California Recreational Cyclists had to take an alternative nearby piece of the real estate during a temporary period of road reconstruction. And the club members didn't like it. I don't suppose the motorists liked the construction either. But so be it. Is this your best example of the degrading effects of bike facilities on the rights of bicyclists to travel from A to B?

what if transportation IS your recreation?Well, almost any form of transportation can be regarded by the traveler as being recreational. Transporation is basically just travel between two different destinations.

Now when we're talking about facilities (instead of people), the difference between those whose primary purpose is transportation and facilities which are primarily intended for recreation becomes quite important. How billions of our money (i.e., revenue from taxpayers) gets spent on public facilities depends in large part on the primary purpose of those facilities. No less important for those who travel by human power is whether the transportation department (the experts) or some other department (not experts) runs the facilities that the government sponsors (or mandates) for travel when cycling.

The bike paths in my area were developed specifically for transportation cyclists. Interesting. Are those run (as in operated, not funded) by the same agency that's responsible for running the primarily-for-transportation highway system?

Interesting. Are those run (as in operated, not funded) by the same agency that's responsible for running the primarily-for-transportation highway system?

Yes. The County.

As a practical matter, if you can make your necessary and desired journeys under nice conditions, OK, but that limits your travel to those routes, and hence the destinations reachable by those routes. If you want to generally travel throughout all of the area within reachable distance, then you will have to accept some unpleasant conditions because society cannot provide for pleasant travel everywhere.
You just don't get it. There isn't a freeway from your front door to your every destiation, why do you think that people expect bikeways from their front doors to every destination?

Bikeways can make it nicer and quicker to get from one point A to another point B. That's all they have to do. They don't have to replace every single stretch of pavement. If I can take a bikeway to work, avoid 30 intersections and 10 traffic signals, avoid pollution and noise, dangerous school zones, and breathe clean air for 5 out of 7 of the miles to my office, you better believe I'm going to opt for that.

It's not about a superstion or whatever. It's about finding pleasant, safe, speedy passage from here to there. Just like you get on the freeway to go to your destinations quickly, I ride a couple of miles to the bikeway to get to mine quickly. It's the BEST option out of all that are available to me.

Charity starts at home; in this case, society needs to stop violating the right of individuals to equal protection (http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/index.php/Equal_protection) in the effort to clear the public's highways for heavy motor vehicle traffic.


"Charity" has nothing to do with it. Members of a community coming together and voting to use their own tax dollars to create facilities for the public to use is self-government, not CHARITY.

I notice how your camp keeps using the word "society" over and over again, like it is some six-headed monstrous leviathan that cannot be confronted. "Society" is made up of communties of people. Those people can be persuaded. If you persuade enough people, then the government, which is made up of the people, can institute change. I happen to believe that the more cyclists there are out there riding and the more the "joe sixpacks" that can realistically see cycling as an alternate means of transportation, the more people will be persuaded to change and accept cycling as a legitimate form of transportation.

"Society" can be changed. Its hard and often not pretty, but it can be done if enough people are motivated and stick together. You want to change society, you need to convince joe sixpack that not only is cyling beneficial, but that it is practical. And you are sure as hell not gonna do that by insisting that only an elite few of worthy cyclists confine themselves to the roads. Do I like that it is this way? No. But that is reality. Instead of living in never-never land, I choose to accept reality and work within the system. Is democracy messy? Yes. Does it involve compromise? Yes. Is it easy to get things done? No. But its the system we have and as difficult and frustrating as it is to change things sometimes, living in a "society" where you have to persuade your peers is far better than living in one where one's actions are dictated by our benevolent "betters" sitting in ivory towers.
______

{steps down from soapbox**

You just don't get it. There isn't a freeway from your front door to your every destiation, why do you think that people expect bikeways from their front doors to every destination?

Bikeways can make it nicer and quicker to get from one point A to another point B. That's all they have to do. They don't have to replace every single stretch of pavement. If I can take a bikeway to work, avoid 30 intersections and 10 traffic signals, avoid pollution and noise, dangerous school zones, and breathe clean air for 5 out of 7 of the miles to my office, you better believe I'm going to opt for that.

It's not about a superstion or whatever. It's about finding pleasant, safe, speedy passage from here to there. Just like you get on the freeway to go to your destinations quickly, I ride a couple of miles to the bikeway to get to mine quickly. It's the BEST option out of all that are available to me.


How many times and different ways do people here have to express this sentiment before it sinks in?

The other path remains an important bike freeway. The fastest, easiest way to get from Santa Barbara to Goleta.

Is the reference to the Goleta Bike Path?

Yes. The County.Where I live, the primarily-for-transportation roads (other than the ones that NCDOT controls) are run by the Engineering department of my town. The paths in town are run by the Parks, Recreation and Cultural Resources department.

Which county department run the paths that you mentioned?

You want to change society, you need to convince joe sixpack ...That's one way, but sometimes another ways are more effective (especially for individuals who've had their civil rights trampeled on by Mr. Sixpack;)


... not gonna do that by insisting that only an elite few of worthy cyclists confine themselves to the roads.Whew, good thing that I haven't insisted on that in any of my posts!:)

OH NO....EVERY TWO-BIT HACK-WITH-A-COMPUTER'S OPINION CARRYS JUST AS MUCH WEIGHT AS A PUBLISHED AUTHOR AND RECONGINZE AUTHORITY ON THE SUBJECT......

(just want my post to carry as much righteousness as Rando's.....hence the huge typeface.....)


some would say that about tabloid newspapers. they are published. they often quote 'recognized' authorities or even 'ufo' experts. they often cite aliens, creatures that have eaten our young, seances chanelling elvis, the pope as a woman werewolf (ok i made that up), and satan living among us.

i wouldn't trust them, even recognizing that they are published and 'respected'.

btw - you can self publish on lulu.com. i'm working on a cycling journal. (primarily for myself)

maybe i should work on 'the way of the recreational transportational cyclist'. would be a great seller, and i would be published. then i would be asked to talk about my work, and chat online, maybe get paid to present to a group. then i would be an expert.

Ohio State coaches learned there was something else besides 3 yards and a cloud of dust. That old stuff was good enuff in Woody's day. But I doubt if Ohio State fans are ready to go back to the old ways now that they have discovered the preferred alternative - like beating up relentlessly on Wolverines year after year. Learning and adapting to the new day and age is exactly how Coach Joe (Greatness Personified) has been succesful for so many years too.

To bad the coaches of vehicular cycling have not adapted in a similar fashion. One of the things I like about Hurst is that his books have reflected the realities of today, not the failed utopia of yesteryear.

I disagree. The very fact that many on these forums and many who aren't commute on a daily basis using a combination of roads/streets/facilities without riding in traffic like that indicates it is not "impractical."

There's the fly in the vc ointment, pal - the most experienced transportational cyclists use whatever venue and riding style suits their purpose the best, unhindered by dogma and politics.

In a paper of John's, which is linked from the American Dream Coalition, it seems that John's positions is that bicycle exclusive infrastructure should not be part of transportation development, but parks and recreation:


Of course, a lot of people, who consider themselves "transportational", since they do errands or commute on bicycle, might be surprised that JF doesn't consider them "transportational".


That's pretty circular. A cyclist who prefers to ride with less traffic is paranoid... (you can see where this might head - the paranoid cyclist's opinion is of less worth then those who agree with me).


You know, like the 3 speeds of Amsterdam (which he mentions later). Those are only for recreational cyclists. A person, cruising to work at 12mph on a 3 speed is not "transportational".


Because that's where the money is, folks... :)


Transportational refers to travel for the purpose of reaching a specific destination for some particular purpose at that location. Recreational refers to travel for the fun of traveling. The type of bicycle is irrelevant, although the reference to Amsterdam's three-speeds shows that the author hasn't been there. The Dutch utility bicycle is typically single-speed.

Bikeways can make it nicer and quicker to get from one point A to another point B... Doesn't have to be a bikeway; a public way where heavy motor vehicle operation was prohibited would provide those benefits without the segregation.


It's the BEST option out of all that are available to me.It would be better if the government regulation for access to that public way was in compliance with the equal protection clause (http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/index.php/Equal_protection).

I disagree. The very fact that many on these forums and many who aren't commute on a daily basis using a combination of roads/streets/facilities without riding in traffic like that indicates it is not "impractical." While I don't disagree that cycling in a highway as shown in the vidoes is possible for some and can be done safely by some, I hardley think the guy I pass every morning with the cargo trailer, two sets of panniers and searchlight on his handlbars is going to be willing (or able) to do that. I'm not knocking the skills in the video. I'm just saying why subject yourself to those conditions if you don't have to?

The type of facilities that happen to occur in such locations that some cyclists can have pleasant rides in light traffic does not mean that society can provide such service to all parts of town. That should be easily understood.

To bad the coaches of vehicular cycling have not adapted in a similar fashion. One of the things I like about Hurst is that his books have reflected the realities of today, not the failed utopia of yesteryear.

+1, but I can't comment specifically about Hurst.


this thread is starting to remind me of art school... there were those instructors, artists, professors that never seemed to be able to leave the 'good ole days' - in art everything that wasn't grounded in whatevertheygrewup-ism was crap, in grad school for architecture and planning it was the same... getting in with the prof was as simple as copying a style, venerating the masters of his or her day...

the folks i learned the most from set aside particular styles and realized that the ideas behind the art or architecture were far more important than the actual work itself. often times these ideas were cocktails of the social status of the artist, the political leanings of the establishment that the artist may have agreed or disagreed with, the access the artist had to materials and education, the location of the artist and the language and culture that informed his or her life. much is the same in indigenous architecture - igloos do not work in the dessert - but in our modern way of dealing with the world we limit ourselves by applying universal, technical solutions to local problems - forgetting about all those things that inform our everyday world. cycling for recreational transportation (or whatever we are calling it) is more than the sum of cyclists + bikes + roads + facilities. the idea that a man or woman can freely move about covering great distance with relative ease unencumbered by motors and fuel and heavy infrasturcture is inspiring... how do we seize it and take it to the next level, the next era - while honoring that all cycling, like politics, is local?

from what i understand many of the works that are criticized here are outdated, trapped in a time when cracks in the modernist solutions to life were just beginning to show. the superblock, urban "renewal", technology as progress and savior, the auto as liberator, the garden city as ideal... and on and on. we are seeing what this leap informed us about and what does and doesn't work - it is time to move on and address the realities of the day. we should map these realities, measure them, study them, react to them and steer them with a vision of what we want the future to be. if that future is facilities and roads, mixing and overlaying traffic patterns and classifications - so be it. it seems to be in sync with the rest of our lives - a street just isnt a road anymore - its a bike path, a meeting place, a town hall, a demonstration zone, a place to workout, and a place to drive. much like all technology roads and bike paths should adapt to their uses. they are merely means to an end. if the path gets me to work... then morph the path to work. if the road at the end of the path leads to greener pastures then that tool should be adapted to its uses. form does follows function in these cases. a road or street or path is really a simple thing - a bit of hard surface placed on the earth. what we do with it (and argue about how we do it) is the really interesting part of the equation.

This is typical popular superstition. Freeway driving is, on average, less stressful and less dangerous than driving the same distance on normal surface streets.

This is typical outdated superstition. Due to increased congestion, freeway driving in urban areas and their outlying bedroom communities is, on average, at least as dangerous and definitely more stressful that driving the same distance on normal surface roads, that enjoy less congestion due to the same outdated superstition.

Transportational refers to travel for the purpose of reaching a specific destination for some particular purpose at that location.

By your definition, my weekend day tours are transportational, since I am traveling with for the purpose of reaching a specific destination (a park, restaurant, shop, B&B, etc) for some particular purpose (swimming, dining, shopping, lodging) at a location. :D

The type of facilities that happen to occur in such locations that some cyclists can have pleasant rides in light traffic does not mean that society can provide such service to all parts of town. That should be easily understood.

You mean just as those less dangerous, less stressful freeways cannot provide such service to all parts of town?

I think such planning issues are very important for getting people to make more trips by bike. The head of engineering (including traffic) for my town once told me that the most important factor in transportation isn't engineering; it's the location of the "trip generators" (schools, homes, offices, stores, parks, etc.)

Very true.

There is a bit more to that though when the planners know there are only two routes to or from a certain section of a city, but refuse to add anymore. That just amplifies the traffic that those two routes see with every trip generator added.

In that instance, the answer was to plan ahead, and to add more throughroutes than needed. That's the biggest problem in Florida city layout it seems....a massive lack of foresight when laying out the roads.

a road or street or path is really a simple thing - a bit of hard surface placed on the earth. what we do with it ... is the really interesting part of the equation.IMHO, what happens prior to construction is even more interesting. In another forum, Peter Sayer once wrote (http://sports.groups.yahoo.com/group/bicyclingadvocacy/message/9277):

... I don't feel that this kind of work needs to be, or even should be, about campaigning for pork to build "cycle facilities". It ought to be about encouraging city authorities to make the cycling lifestyle easier ... by countering urban sprawl, ensuring that zoning laws allow people to live close to their workplace and to essential commerces, and encouraging commerces and employers to consider bicycle access and parking when planning any new construction.

Bigpedaler provided the following in a form that the quotation system did not forward. Therefore, I copied and pasted it myself.


Originally Posted by John Forester
It is true that the motoring establishment created the cyclist-inferiority superstition and used that to justify the bikeway system for making motoring more convenient. However, that does not mean that we have to accept that. We might be able to change it, since it is so opposite to scientific knowledg about cycling and traffic. And even if it you think that opposing it is a "pipe dream", we should stand up for ourselves and our rights and scientific validity as long as we are able, instead of cringing down into beaten acceptance of it.I DO BELIEVE I SAID THAT MYSELF, VERY NEXT LINE, WHICH YOU CONVENIENTLY IGNORE.

"THIS is why he cannot 'stretch' it and still be credible. there's not a bit of misunderstanding -- JF, in his own words, states that bikeways are not in the best interests of cyclists. there are cities around the country and the world whose track record proves him wrong, yet he continues to espouse it."

Which are these cities around the world where bikeways have made cycling safer and faster and more convenient? I know of none. You make the assertion. Then back it up with facts and figures.AMSTERDAM; PORTLAND, OR; MADISON, WI; PARIS; COPENHAGEN; SAN DIEGO, according to your own fella, HH.

"i have yet to see anything to lend weight to the notion of 'rear-collision phobia' (his words). particularly when HIS OWN statements indicate that 3/4 of bike-involved collisions are 'blind-side' types of encounters." The statistics indicate that only about 2% of daytime, urban car-bike collisions occur when a straight-ahead cyclist is hit by a nominally straight-ahead motorist. That's a bit more accurate than your statement, and more conclusive. MY STATEMENT IS A QUOTE YOU WROTE AND PUBLISHED!So why the puzzlement about the rear-collision phobia? Precisely because practically all of our society's activities regarding bicycle transportation are supposedly intended to deal with this minor problem, to the detriment of all the other things that ought to be done. And, also, because this system for dealing with the supposed rear-collision problem was invented, designed, and paid for by motorists because they understood that it would clear bicycles from their path. The existence of a cyclist-inferiority phobia is the most reasonable explanation for activities that otherwise defy explanation.YOU CAN'T EXPLAIN IT, SO IT'S A PHOBIA?

"JF also says that the bicycle is the only threat to the supremacy of the auto on the road (aside -- what about the motorcycle, itself an object of very similar advocacy?);"
Motorcycles do not present a problem for automobile drivers because they move as fast as cars. If there is any threat to the supremacy of the auto on the road it is in the form of trucks. But, in general, discussions such as we have been having lump all motor vehicles into one category.

"then he tells another poster that the statement of bicycles being second-place to cars "has no meaning, is not even English"."
Well, it's not my fault that some people try to convey thoughts in a language that is not English. If they used English they would be better understood.I DIDN'T HAVE A BIT OF A PROBLEM UNDERSTANDING HIS POINT.

"Which are these cities around the world where bikeways have made cycling safer and faster and more convenient? I know of none. You make the assertion. Then back it up with facts and figures.AMSTERDAM; PORTLAND, OR; MADISON, WI; PARIS; COPENHAGEN; SAN DIEGO, according to your own fella, HH."

The Dutch sidepath system typically used in central Amsterdam does not make cycling either safer or more convenient. However, it is patronized still (though less than before) because motoring is so inconvenient in central Amsterdam. In the newer areas of Amsterdam, motoring holds sway, much as in America. Same goes for Copenhagen. Paris I am unsure about, but those who have been there tell me that their bikeway system, rather rudimentary, is a pain. Portland: no evidence at all; I've cycled there several times, and cyclists could always go anywhere safely and conveniently. However, the blue bikelanes in Portland were painted blue to indicate how dangerous they were, a clear demonstration of the opposite of what you argue. Madison: the best test of comparable bikeways, as I wrote I think yesterday, and the result was inconclusive, good on one street, worse on the comparable street. San Diego: Nowhere about town have bike lanes improved conditions; didn't need improving. The two bike paths that were mentioned, by HH and by me, parallel what are essentially rural (though inside the city limits) freeways from which cyclists are prohibited and alongside which are no surface streets. Not much here to support your argument.

"That's a bit more accurate than your statement, and more conclusive. MY STATEMENT IS A QUOTE YOU WROTE AND PUBLISHED!"
Don't get your knickers in a twist just because I improved to make more specific the example you chose from my writing. I was doing you a favor.

"The existence of a cyclist-inferiority phobia is the most reasonable explanation for activities that otherwise defy explanation.YOU CAN'T EXPLAIN IT, SO IT'S A PHOBIA?"

Not at all. The phobia explanation is not picked out of the air. After all, if that were the criterion, I could explain it as a devious plot by General Motors (like the streetcar legend, though GM seems to have lost much of its awesome power these days). I chose the phobia explanation because it is the best explanation for the events and situation, which fit the official definition of phobia in all ways except that this is widespread.

You just don't get it. There isn't a freeway from your front door to your every destiation, why do you think that people expect bikeways from their front doors to every destination?

Bikeways can make it nicer and quicker to get from one point A to another point B. That's all they have to do. They don't have to replace every single stretch of pavement. If I can take a bikeway to work, avoid 30 intersections and 10 traffic signals, avoid pollution and noise, dangerous school zones, and breathe clean air for 5 out of 7 of the miles to my office, you better believe I'm going to opt for that.

It's not about a superstion or whatever. It's about finding pleasant, safe, speedy passage from here to there. Just like you get on the freeway to go to your destinations quickly, I ride a couple of miles to the bikeway to get to mine quickly. It's the BEST option out of all that are available to me.

Your answer confirms my point. You choose to take a less convenient and slower way to make a trip because society has not made all areas pleasant. That's what I said, only I added that society does not feel justified to, and probably cannot, make all areas as pleasant as might be desired.

+1, but I can't comment specifically about Hurst.


You would enjoy Hurst. Not only is his style non-lecturing and non-confrontational, most of what he writes makes perfect sense to anyone who is an experienced transportational cyclist. The only time you see big debates about his work is when some BF member decides to take exerpts of his writing, without the context before and after, to prove some wacky theory of their own. He has no trouble admitting that the plans for a vehicular cycling utopia from the 70s has been rendered pretty much dead by the realities of today, that much of the facilities of today are much better than the crappy facilities of the 70s and that vehicular cycling is just one style of riding, not the one-true way, and indeed can make you less safe in many real-life situations by trying to follow it rather than using your experience and common sense. In a nutshell, Hurst represents experience and reality while John Forester, with all due respect, represents techniques that are valid at their core, but distorted by dogma, psuedo-scientific theories and politics.

"Charity" has nothing to do with it. Members of a community coming together and voting to use their own tax dollars to create facilities for the public to use is self-government, not CHARITY.

I notice how your camp keeps using the word "society" over and over again, like it is some six-headed monstrous leviathan that cannot be confronted. "Society" is made up of communties of people. Those people can be persuaded. If you persuade enough people, then the government, which is made up of the people, can institute change. I happen to believe that the more cyclists there are out there riding and the more the "joe sixpacks" that can realistically see cycling as an alternate means of transportation, the more people will be persuaded to change and accept cycling as a legitimate form of transportation.

"Society" can be changed. Its hard and often not pretty, but it can be done if enough people are motivated and stick together. You want to change society, you need to convince joe sixpack that not only is cyling beneficial, but that it is practical. And you are sure as hell not gonna do that by insisting that only an elite few of worthy cyclists confine themselves to the roads. Do I like that it is this way? No. But that is reality. Instead of living in never-never land, I choose to accept reality and work within the system. Is democracy messy? Yes. Does it involve compromise? Yes. Is it easy to get things done? No. But its the system we have and as difficult and frustrating as it is to change things sometimes, living in a "society" where you have to persuade your peers is far better than living in one where one's actions are dictated by our benevolent "betters" sitting in ivory towers.
______

{steps down from soapbox**

The hard facts about this matter are that joe sixpack pays for bikeways because he believes that they make motoring easier, in two ways. First, he sees the obvious, and the only demonstrated result, that bikeways shove cyclists out of his way. Second, he believes your argument, though it has never proved correct, that bikeways make motoring easier by making other motorists, not his kind, of course, switch to bicycling.

By your definition, my weekend day tours are transportational, since I am traveling with for the purpose of reaching a specific destination (a park, restaurant, shop, B&B, etc) for some particular purpose (swimming, dining, shopping, lodging) at a location. :D

Of course. So what?

Very true.

There is a bit more to that though when the planners know there are only two routes to or from a certain section of a city, but refuse to add anymore. That just amplifies the traffic that those two routes see with every trip generator added.

In that instance, the answer was to plan ahead, and to add more throughroutes than needed. That's the biggest problem in Florida city layout it seems....a massive lack of foresight when laying out the roads.

That is very true about Florida, although it is a problem in all of the Old South because of the political systems extant there.

The hard facts about this matter are that joe sixpack pays for bikeways because he believes that they make motoring easier, in two ways. First, he sees the obvious, and the only demonstrated result, that bikeways shove cyclists out of his way. Second, he believes your argument, though it has never proved correct, that bikeways make motoring easier by making other motorists, not his kind, of course, switch to bicycling.

Don't confuse them with the hard facts. That might burst their little Utopian dream bubble where a bike path runs directly from their front door to every conceivable location...just for them!

Originally Posted by sbhikes
You just don't get it. There isn't a freeway from your front door to your every destiation, why do you think that people expect bikeways from their front doors to every destination?

Bikeways can make it nicer and quicker to get from one point A to another point B. That's all they have to do. They don't have to replace every single stretch of pavement. If I can take a bikeway to work, avoid 30 intersections and 10 traffic signals, avoid pollution and noise, dangerous school zones, and breathe clean air for 5 out of 7 of the miles to my office, you better believe I'm going to opt for that.

It's not about a superstion or whatever. It's about finding pleasant, safe, speedy passage from here to there. Just like you get on the freeway to go to your destinations quickly, I ride a couple of miles to the bikeway to get to mine quickly. It's the BEST option out of all that are available to me.




Your answer confirms my point. You choose to take a less convenient and slower way to make a trip because society has not made all areas pleasant. That's what I said, only I added that society does not feel justified to, and probably cannot, make all areas as pleasant as might be desired.


How does her answer confirm your point? She states it is quicker for her and you say it is slower and less convenient.

The hard facts about this matter are that joe sixpack pays for bikeways because he believes that they make motoring easier, in two ways. First, he sees the obvious, and the only demonstrated result, that bikeways shove cyclists out of his way. Second, he believes your argument, though it has never proved correct, that bikeways make motoring easier by making other motorists, not his kind, of course, switch to bicycling.

Or perhaps Joe Sixpack rides a bike and has a family that also ride bikes and likes the idea of bikeways to enjoy cycling as recreation with his family? Despite your wish to keep this discussion limited to transportational cycling in urban areas, matters of public policy are not confined to the same narrow scope.

Of course. So what?

Ironic, because I consider that recreation...so perhaps the notion of a recreational-transportation cyclist, as another poster mentioned, is not so far-fetched.

IMHO, what happens prior to construction is even more interesting. In another forum, Peter Sayer once wrote (http://sports.groups.yahoo.com/group/bicyclingadvocacy/message/9277):


... I don't feel that this kind of work needs to be, or even should be, about campaigning for pork to build "cycle facilities". It ought to be about encouraging city authorities to make the cycling lifestyle easier ... by countering urban sprawl, ensuring that zoning laws allow people to live close to their workplace and to essential commerces, and encouraging commerces and employers to consider bicycle access and parking when planning any new construction.

+1 and many more on that.

You just don't get it. There isn't a freeway from your front door to your every destiation, why do you think that people expect bikeways from their front doors to every destination?


Because that is the usual tactic to deflect the discussion, ignoring or ruling out an integrated system that consists of both roadways and bikeways and making it seem like facilities advocates are asking for blanket coverage by bikeways, thereby making them look foolish. Remember Diane, part of the strategy outlined by JF himself consists of discrediting facilities advocates, which means muddying and distorting their goals. Whether you realize it or not, this debate has more to do with politics than science or engineering, so expect everything you say that has any potential credibility to be distorted and manipulated behind a facade of friendly helpful words.

Ironic, because I consider that recreation...so perhaps the notion of a recreational-transportation cyclist, as another poster mentioned, is not so far-fetched.


to be as serious about life as a child is at play... that would make a recreational transporational cyclist.

i'm darned serious about my recreating - even if it happens to be on my way to work. :) *
if only most folks in cars would feel the same way.


*just want to footnote that my current commute is merely 10-12 steps from the bedroom to my home office. i only practice VC when the dog and cat are in the hallway and the wife is heading for the kitchen. it can get mighty crowded then and i typically take the lane.

well, i see that after a few hours out to eat and play with my daughter & nephew did nothing to ease the contentious nature of this thread. i'm bored -- think i'll see what else is out there. knock yourselves out. (JF, HH, Kall -- literally)

The hard facts about this matter are that joe sixpack pays for bikeways because he believes that they make motoring easier, in two ways. First, he sees the obvious, and the only demonstrated result, that bikeways shove cyclists out of his way. Second, he believes your argument, though it has never proved correct, that bikeways make motoring easier by making other motorists, not his kind, of course, switch to bicycling.

And then there are the thousand of Joe six-packs like myself who took up cycling, found out they loved it, found it healthier and more convenient than driving, started cyclo-commuting, and then started to try and persuade others (friends/family/co-workers) to do the same. There are those, like myself who were too intimidated to hop right on the road for commuting purposes and found the availablility of bikeways served BOTH a recreational and a "transportational" purpose.

Notice that in the post you qouted from me, I was not referring to "making motoring easier"--where did that come from? I was quite clear I was referring to getting more people off their duffs and into the saddle for purposes other than recreation. However, to most Joe Sixpacks, recreational cycling is the gateway to transportational cycling, to use your false dichotomy.

I consider myself to be pretty Joe Sixpack--came from a blue collar family, worked in factories for to save enough for college, etc. Like most "ordinary" people I have no agenda other than that I want to live in cleaner, healthier cities. I don't hate cars and before I got into cycling I didn't hate cylists or want to "shove them off the road."

And the first time I saw a well-integrated bikeway/road system my first reaction was not to drum my fingers together and think "ooohhh yes, now we shall stick it to those pesky cylists and get them out of the way so we can have more road space .... and more cars .... and more traffic, congestion and pollution, mmmuuhaaaaaa"

Rather, my first reaction was "wow, isn't that something .... all these people riding bikes into work on a beautiful day while I'm stuck in a mile of traffic sucking exhaust. And lo and behold .....they don't all look like extras from "Tron" riding 4000 carbon a$$ hatchets--they look like me---hey---i could do that---in fact, next week I am going to give that a try."

[edit: the bikeway is not some endgame---it is 1 of many means to get more people out of their cars and onto their bikes, which, if enough do so, will result in more cyclists being able to utilize the roadways. Again, its about building a culture of cycling ---not seeking to pave the world]