Vehicular Cycling (VC) - Forester takes on BF Posters

Diane, I think we have to separate the techincal aspects of vehicular cycling, which are commonly accepted, from the political aspects, which indeed are commonly rejected. Let's don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. ;)

You are right.

One can ride vehicularly and still use the vehicle markings of the roadway, as well as throw in some bikeways to speed things up a bit. That's how I ride.

I think maybe John and his crybabies wanking over equal protection clauses would do more good fighting for universal bicycle access to the freeways and interstates.

I think maybe John and his crybabies wanking over equal protection clauses would do more good fighting for universal bicycle access to the freeways and interstates.

Civility, please, Diane.

I don't have the source handy, not being my usual line of work, but it has been published quite frequently that the accident rate per car-mile on freeways is less than that on other roads.And what about the rate of fatal accidents? Or the rate of serious injuries? You are being disingenuous when you refer to accident rates without regard to the severity of injuries.

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.
You stubbornly continue to cling to this falsehood when in fact most self-identifying motorists actually believe that bikeways unnecessarily appropriate right-of-way that 'belongs' to motorists.

How many is 'a lot' Robert? I ride thousands of miles a year and have for 20 years and have never been in a bike/car collision. I know a few people who have, but when you hear the story, 9 times out of 10 the cyclist was doing something not-to-smart: Blowing stop sign or signal, passing on the right, riding with ear-buds, riding at night with no lights...just the regular dumb stuff cyclists do all the time.

Statistically, maybe half of the car-bike collisions suffered by adult riders can be legally pinned on the cyclist. That leaves 'a lot' of collisions. Your '9 times out of 10' is something that you apparently just made up, and is way off the mark.

Robert

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]
+100

John Forester gets hired to speak on behalf of pro-motoring organizations who would like nothing better than to shove bicyclists out of the way.

Would it surprise you to know that I am virtually car free, bicycle daily for transporation (commute to work, haul groceries, etc.) on all types of roads and paths, and my current bike of choice is a Raleigh 20, a 30-year old classic English transportation vehicle?

I repeat, the majority of the American public will NEVER accept VC as the cycling model to follow. People simply do not want to mix it up in high speed, high volume traffic on a bike, regardless of training - it is unpleasant and stressful, and your safety depends too much on the predicability (or lack thereof) of the motorists around you. This is not a phobia, it is a simple fact that American motorists are poorly trained, often distracted, and that a small but significant percentage of motorists are vehemently anti-cyclist and WILL both harass and endanger you if given half an excuse to do so.

As Chip has pointed out, the VC model has already been rejected by policymakers throughout the US, due to the likelihood that it's implementation would fail to increase the use of bicycles for transportation significantly.

Modern bicycle advocacy - getting more people on bicycles, safely - requires a different model, closer to the Amsterdam model. There are even ways to make intersections along paths and bike lanes safer, by providing bicycle-specific signals and signal phases, that are as of yet not widely adapted in the US.

Yes, Randya, I know the Raleigh 20. At one time I had the use of one when I was testing small-wheel bicycles. There was a different one, I think a Moulton, that was somewhat better but was not durable, wore out its front suspension. The Raleigh is conventional in construction, and yours must have lasted well.

At times I have lived with only my bicycle and feet for transportation, so that I recognize the limitations of the car-free lifestyle. I did not mean to say that you would not ride for transportation within those limitations, but that you, or any car-free person, has to live within those limitations.

I think that you are partially correct in that the official and ostensible reason for rejecting vehicular cycling is that it would not reduce motoring. Of course, the real reason is quite different, that the motoring establishment wants bikeways for the convenience of motorists. However, and this is crucial, the thirty years of the bikeway program have not reduced motoring either.

You have recognized, I suppose simply by observation, that the way, and it is the only practical way, by which Amsterdam makes its system safe is by the provision of more traffic signals with three phases, for motor traffic, for bicycle traffic, and for pedestrians. That looks wonderful at first glance. However, it produces more delay for all users. That is acceptable in Amsterdam, which has a medieval city plan in which distances are short and motoring is extremely inconvenient, but it won't work elsewhere. In the areas around Amsterdam, growth is much more on the American pattern.

You might ask one of the veteran practitioners of urban industrialized cycling in your city by the bay, as they will have far more experience in traffic than any other group, tend not to follow vehicular rules, and achieve accident rates far lower than those touted as evidence that VC works so well.


The simplest examples, yet the most confusing for vehicular cyclists, are stop signs, where we commonly disobey the letter of the law by not coming to a full and complete stop. One can justify doing so until the cows come home, but in the end it boils down to the fact that we are not obeying the law and thus not following the vehicular rules of the road for vehicles - hence not riding vehicularly. The application of the vc 'monkey see - monkey do clause', which claims that since motorists often roll through stops, it is vehicular behavior, doesn't change the fact that we are still, according to the law, not obeying the law.

What I find funny is the vehemence I get when pointing this out, being accused of being a boy scout, false dichotomies and rigid adherence to the law, when I am simply pointing out that we ARE disobeying the law in the legal sense and hence not behaving in a vehicular manner. Is it hair-splitting? Of course...but if you want to advocate 'lawful' operation, as Mr. Forester often terms it, you should at least accept the hair-splitting difference between what is lawful and what is not. Yes, we don't, as a practical matter, put our foot down at every stop, but that doesn't mean we can't simply accept the fact that we are not operating lawfully when we do that slow roll. ;)

Edit: almost forgot the other shoe! The reason why we 'can' roll through those stop signs safely? Situational awarness. :D

You might ask one of the veteran practitioners of urban industrialized cycling in your city by the bay, as they will have far more experience in traffic than any other group, tend not to follow vehicular rules, and achieve accident rates far lower than those touted as evidence that VC works so well.

Actually, Robert, I wanted an answer from you. That seems reasonable, given that it was you who made the assertion, and given that you represent yourself as expert in these matters, does it not?

In Minneapolis and nearby suburbs, a web of trails expanding along old rail corridors and reclaimed riverfront is turning into a separate-but-almost-equal road system offering bikers the opportunity to scoot through town with a speed and ease that motorists sometimes envy. Local officials have been slow in opening up critical connections between these trails, but the growing system is impressive--and even well-used during the chilly winter months.

http://www.pps.org/info/newsletter/june2005/great_transportation_places?referrer=newsletter_contents

You are right.

One can ride vehicularly and still use the vehicle markings of the roadway, as well as throw in some bikeways to speed things up a bit. That's how I ride.

I think maybe John and his crybabies wanking over equal protection clauses would do more good fighting for universal bicycle access to the freeways and interstates.

It is very unusual for a bikeway to reduce travel time for a trip. You happen to be able to make use of such a situation. In most cases, choosing to use a bikeway that is not on one's direct route increases distance and time. The urban locations where it is possible to produce a bikeway that shortens distance or increases speed are very few. One cannot support a general statement with an argument that, by its very nature, can apply to only a few situations.

Without riding it, I suspect that the bike path to which you refer lies largely near the ocean, so that there are few crossroads. Vehicular cyclists have no problem with such a path; there are others elsewhere in the nation, including some on abandoned rail routes with similar characteristics. However, it is impossible for such to provide for much of the total transportation being done.

As for the freeway situation, you are entirely mistaken about what you consider to be the importance of equal access, and you, in California of all places. For decades California has had the policy that in those locations where a freeway has replaced the previous road without surface streets being present, cyclists must be allowed to use the freeway. In a few cases the freeway has been provided with a sidepath, in most cases it has not. Rural freeways, because of the great distance between connecting roads, are one situation in which sidepaths are not particularly dangerous. The same policy is followed by most Western states; in most Eastern states it is not necessary because there always has been a net of surface streets. However, there are a few Eastern locations where the surface streets have not been developed at the time a road has been converted to freeway, and these locations are the subject of local advocacy, not on the basis of equal access to particular roads, but on the basis of providing equal connecting service to all locations on the road system.

Actually, Robert, I wanted an answer from you. That seems reasonable, given that it was you who made the assertion, and given that you represent yourself as expert in these matters, does it not?

Okay. It's true that I have quite a bit of experience in this area -- being a long-time practitioner of urban industrialized cycling myself -- and I'm a pretty good observer. The answer to your question is:

The type of situational awareness that would allow one to ride safely while not obeying the vehicular rules of the road is very similar to the type of situational awareness that would allow one to ride safely while obeying the vehicular rules of the road.

Robert

John Forester gets hired to speak on behalf of pro-motoring organizations who would like nothing better than to shove bicyclists out of the way.

I am sorry, Diane, that you feel compelled to state such falsehoods that have been disproved in the correspondence on this list. I repeat, I have never been hired to speak on behalf of pro-motoring organizations. In fact, I never have, regardless of pay or not. I speak and act only on behalf of cyclists and of scientific accuracy. However, the other part of your statement is correct. Pro-motoring organizations actually like nothing better than shoving bicyclists out of their way, which is why they originally invented and designed, and continue to pay for, the bikeway system that you think so advantageous. It is this muddled line of thought that makes it so difficult for such as you to think accurately.

Actually, Robert, I wanted an answer from you. That seems reasonable, given that it was you who made the assertion, and given that you represent yourself as expert in these matters, does it not?

http://www.amazon.com/Art-Cycling-Bicycling-21st-Century-America/dp/0762743166/ref=pd_ys_qtk_rvi/102-0071068-1841753

I am sorry, Diane, that you feel compelled to state such falsehoods that have been disproved in the correspondence on this list. I repeat, I have never been hired to speak on behalf of pro-motoring organizations. In fact, I never have, regardless of pay or not. I speak and act only on behalf of cyclists and of scientific accuracy. However, the other part of your statement is correct. Pro-motoring organizations actually like nothing better than shoving bicyclists out of their way, which is why they originally invented and designed, and continue to pay for, the bikeway system that you think so advantageous. It is this muddled line of thought that makes it so difficult for such as you to think accurately.
Did you make it to the National Bike Summit (http://www.bikeleague.org/programs/bikeadvocacy/summit.php) this year?

The best study of American car-bike collisions that has ever been done is that by Cross. Furthermore, a followup study done by NC Traffic Studies in recent years, though not nearly as detailed, confirms that the pattern has not changed significantly since.
Who sez this is the best study or if this study has any risk evaluation value at all, besides yourself? Anybody else in the safety or transportation fields ever reference it when evaluating bicycling risk? I wouldn't think so since it never measured the actual exposure rates of the cyclist population; i.e. what percentage of the total cyclist population rides on what portion of the street, not just those who have had accidents. I don't think Cross gave much, if any consideration to accident severity either.

Yes, indeed, here is ILTB's standard obfuscations at work. Talk about misleading the readers, indeed, by him who does so much of it. We vehicular cyclists recognize two things about this. Some traffic signals will not provide a green phase for bicycles. We work on those responsible to correct this problem. However, the standard rule for inoperative traffic signals is that those using them yield to approaching traffic and cross when safe. Of course, in this particular situation, the signal appears to motorists to be operating properly, so the cyclist must recognize this and yield appropriately. As for stop signs,we vehicular cyclists are with the traffic engineering profession in that a great many stop signs have been placed for political reasons, and with the motorists who don't know this but act according to what they have learned by experience, and use these stop signs as yield signs, what's known colloquially as the California stop.

In summary, vehicular cyclists are not the obsequious ideologues that ILTB has for years tried to paint them, but reasonable people operating in a usually reasonable environment.
What the Heck are you responding to? Certainly not to the response I gave to the kalliergo inquiry. Oh I know, another set of Straw man arguments.

I didn't discuss if the traffic lights are working or not, or if stop signs are appropriate. I wrote about taking appropriate action based on the presence of possible conflict with other vehicles, regardless of the traffic control devices.

I do, John, based on what the cyclists themselves want, no matter if they are transportational, recreational or a combination of both. I don't assume that I have to decide what is best for them based on my own personal theories and bias and I don't accuse them of having phobias and inferiority complexes if their needs don't jibe with my own. The bottom line is that you advocate what YOU feel is good for cyclists based on YOUR OPINION, backed up by whatever facts support YOUR OPINION, dismissing or ignoring anything that does not support YOUR OPINION. I do pretty much the same, but one big difference is that I also weigh the wants and needs of the population as a whole into the equation, looking at the big picture based on the realities of today, rather than on some ideal that has never materialized. I value your opinion, knowledge, expertise and the contributions you have made to cycling over the years, but that does not make your opinions the sole guide in crafting my own opinions and decisons, especially if they run counter to my own observations, experience or the wants and needs of all cyclists and the general population. I believe the major reason that your ideas meet so much resistance, other than your bedside manner (which I would be the last person to judge, not being very good at that myself), is that they are based on a narrow scope that fails to take the larger overall picture into account and frankly, have failed to adapt to the realities of today.


Interesting reply, chipcom. I don't know on what basis you assume that the realities of road use have changed greatly in recent years.

However, getting to your main point. You write that you consider the wants and needs of the population as a whole. The majority of voters (though not, perhaps the majority of persons) considers that bikeways are a good thing because they make motoring more convenient by pushing cyclists to the side, or off, the roadways. Is that what you mean?

Or do you mean the population of those who do, or might, cycle for transportation? While a few bikeways serve transportation needs better than the normal road system, most do not. This population has no need for bikeway systems; the road system provides reasonably safe and reasonably convenient transportation to almost all places that people desire to reach by vehicular means. (Beach access, wilderness travel, and the like are not relevant to this discussion.) Certainly, the road system needs improvement, but that's always the case and has no bearing on this discussion.

That leaves you with only "wants" rather than needs. It is not justified for the transportation system to use its funds to provide beyond reasonably safe and reasonably convenient to suit the aesthetic desires of the few. To justify the use of transportation funds you need to justify that use on the basis of the safety and convenience of the traveling public. Convenience does not mean pretty; it largely means the ability to reach destinations in reasonable time, and without having to make complicated arrangements and the like.

Did you make it to the National Bike Summit (http://www.bikeleague.org/programs/bikeadvocacy/summit.php) this year?

No, I did not attend the National Bike Summit this year, nor have I for years past. I see little point in spending my money to attend a meeting at which the leading speaker is announced to be John Pucher, or of an organization that has so far departed from serving its cyclist members.

The official and ostensible justifications for bikeways are that they reduce motoring and that they make it unnecessary to know how to ride a bicycle in traffic. Please don't hold me responsible for these official policy statements. However, if one believes them, then the necessary conclusion is that a bicycle transportation system must consist of a very dense network of bikeways, maybe not down every residential street, but reachable from every residential street and connecting into all centers of employment, commerce, and culture.
How 'bout holding you responsible for identifying the "official justification for bikeways?" And identifying what made this mysterious document the "official" justification for anything?
"Necessary conclusion"? Who has drawn that "necessary conclusion" from the putative "official justifications for bikeways" besides John Forester?

The majority of voters (though not, perhaps the majority of persons) considers that bikeways are a good thing because they make motoring more convenient by pushing cyclists to the side, or off, the roadways. Is that what you mean?
I really wish you'd stop saying this, because it is entirely unproven and, in my opinion, completely untrue.


Or do you mean the population of those who do, or might, cycle for transportation? While a few bikeways serve transportation needs better than the normal road system, most do not. This population has no need for bikeway systems; the road system provides reasonably safe and reasonably convenient transportation to almost all places that people desire to reach by vehicular means. (Beach access, wilderness travel, and the like are not relevant to this discussion.) Certainly, the road system needs improvement, but that's always the case and has no bearing on this discussion.
You are absolutely correct that the road system needs improvement, but you are wrong that it has no bearing on this discussion; it is very germaine and gets right to the heart of the issue. The road system is designed by and for motorists and is not safe and convenient for cyclists, it is only convenient - but not necessarily safe - for a few cyclists who have the crazy desire to spend their time cycling in traffic on high-speed high volume arterials.


That leaves you with only "wants" rather than needs. It is not justified for the transportation system to use its funds to provide beyond reasonably safe and reasonably convenient to suit the aesthetic desires of the few. To justify the use of transportation funds you need to justify that use on the basis of the safety and convenience of the traveling public. Convenience does not mean pretty; it largely means the ability to reach destinations in reasonable time, and without having to make complicated arrangements and the like.
If the goal is to achieve a modest 10% mode split for bicycling, I think it would be more than appropriate to dedicate 10% of transportation funding and 10% of both road improvements and right-of-way space to bicyclists, in the same way we provide - or should provide - dedicated pedestrian facilities. Most potential cyclists don't want to mix with motor vehicle traffic, nor is it particularly safe to do so.

It is well recognized that a considerable number of bicycle paths whose primary use is for recreation have been paid for out of transportation funds. However, by and large, few bikeways are much used for recreation. Those that are, are generally bike paths through parks or alongside non-industrial waterfronts. In other words, the places that provide quite pleasant environments. We vehicular cyclists have no problem with the creation of such facilities; we just wish that they were recognized for what they are and were paid for out of the proper funds, instead of misleading everybody by pretending that they are primary transportation facilities.
"Paid for out of Proper Funds"? If you are aware of taxpayer funds being used illegally or for purposes that are not legal please do report it to the appropriate authorities.

However, spending "transportation" funds (whatever that is supposed to mean) on projects not favored by John Forester does not make the spending "improper."

No, I did not attend the National Bike Summit this year, nor have I for years past. I see little point in spending my money to attend a meeting at which the leading speaker is announced to be John Pucher (http://policy.rutgers.edu/faculty/pucher.html), or of an organization that has so far departed from serving its cyclist members.
In the latter reference, are you referring to the LAB?
Was this you, or a namesake, who accepted a nomination to be placed on the ballot for the region 6 LAB board position last year? (http://www.bikeleague.org/news/022106_board_nominees.php)

So you skipped a consequential advocacy activity, on account of one speaker (out of thousands of attendees) and the folks who provided the venue, and instead chose to spend considerable time doing advocacy work here? Flattering!

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?
Oh, my goodness! I don't know how this thread (and this forum) will possibly survive, for whole weekend, without your contributions.

I suspect that this thread has only just begun to get interesting. And I wouldn't be surprised if it picks up speed considerably. I still say it should be a sticky.

Just for my own amusement I am currently reading every post in this thread carefully, and with great interest. I'm almost caught up- and I've pretty much finished reading everything on John Forester's website at least a couple of times (I love unintended humor)- and I've managed to read JF's books without purchasing them (which is how encourage others to read them--provided, of course, that they have a sincere interest in learning where VC-ists get some of their silly ideas).

I am pleased that my opinions appear to have been well represented in this thread by other posters (even by some posters with whom I have, in the past, had some rather serious disagreements). It is a tribute to John Forester that he has the influence to unite cyclists in opposition to his silly theories and his counter-productive "advocacy".

Interesting reply, chipcom. I don't know on what basis you assume that the realities of road use have changed greatly in recent years.

However, getting to your main point. You write that you consider the wants and needs of the population as a whole. The majority of voters (though not, perhaps the majority of persons) considers that bikeways are a good thing because they make motoring more convenient by pushing cyclists to the side, or off, the roadways. Is that what you mean?

Or do you mean the population of those who do, or might, cycle for transportation? While a few bikeways serve transportation needs better than the normal road system, most do not. This population has no need for bikeway systems; the road system provides reasonably safe and reasonably convenient transportation to almost all places that people desire to reach by vehicular means. (Beach access, wilderness travel, and the like are not relevant to this discussion.) Certainly, the road system needs improvement, but that's always the case and has no bearing on this discussion.

That leaves you with only "wants" rather than needs. It is not justified for the transportation system to use its funds to provide beyond reasonably safe and reasonably convenient to suit the aesthetic desires of the few. To justify the use of transportation funds you need to justify that use on the basis of the safety and convenience of the traveling public. Convenience does not mean pretty; it largely means the ability to reach destinations in reasonable time, and without having to make complicated arrangements and the like.


John, I mean the wants AND needs of the cycling population AND the wants and needs of the population as whole. The big picture, John, which is what public policy decisions are based upon, not the narrow technical 'best' of technicians and engineers. This is the part, I fear, that you fail to understand and is the reality that has been frustrating you for all these years.

Concerning how the realities of road AND cycling have changed, one just needs to recall how it was in the 70s and open their eyes to the present. A few that are pretty obvious are an increase in population of about 65 million people, an average of one or MORE motor vehicles per household, more bikeways that are of much better design than those of the 70s.

How 'bout holding you responsible for identifying the "official justification for bikeways? And identifying what made this mysterious document the "official" justification for anything?

Indeed, I've never seen such a document nor had it presented to me as the official justification for anything.

So you skipped a consequential advocacy activity...Have you read A Brief History of LAB (http://www.labreform.org/history.html)? Here's a quote:


During its tenure in Washington, LAB has clearly become a larger and more respected player in the legislative and regulatory field, and has cultivated partnerships with other associations whose missions are thought to be aligned in some way with ours. This enhanced status has come at the expense of LAB's core mission. That core mission, the reason for the League's existence, is to defend our right to use the roads, to teach the best practices of cycling, to demand equitable laws and fair enforcement and to provide service to members.

... more bikeways that are of much better design than those of the 70s.Facility designs based on a flawed concept are still flawed.

Have you read A Brief History of LAB (http://www.labreform.org/history.html)? Here's a quote:
They provided the venue. Federal, state, and local government representatives; industry representatives from around the world, advocacy activists and representatives, traffic professionals, and even quite a few concerned citizen bikers provided the content. This was a consequential event for advocacy. Presuming that the evolving core mission of the LAB is indicative of the presentation of unrelated contributors, simply because one reserved the space and time for the other, does not follow. Non sequitur, and an appeal to ignorance besides.
And what on earth makes this forum more acceptable for a man such as Forester? A man such as he should occupy a position of consequence, and conduct discussions in consequential settings.

Facility designs based on a flawed concept are still flawed.

Only if you agree that they are a flawed concept, which is a matter of opinion, not fact. The majority of both cyclists and the population in general do not agree that they are a flawed concept, so you're kinda in the minority here, Bruce.

And what on earth makes this forum more acceptable for a man such as Forester? A man such as he should occupy a position of consequence, and conduct discussions in consequential settings.
Maybe he has not been invited to consequential settings lately.

Has anyone happened to notice that this thread and others are now in a brand new subforum?
Me thinks certain people got a 'solution' that they were not bargaining for, but I for one think it's about darned time! :D

Has anyone happened to notice that this thread and others are now in a brand new subforum?
Me thinks certain people got a 'solution' that they were not bargaining for, but I for one think it's about darned time! :D
I noticed that!

And what about the rate of fatal accidents? Or the rate of serious injuries? You are being disingenuous when you refer to accident rates without regard to the severity of injuries.

The only study that I know that correlates the rates of injury with severity of injury is that by Kaplan. By his analysis, car-bike collisions did not produce a significantly greater proportion of severe injuries than did other accidents to cyclists.

John, I mean the wants AND needs of the cycling population AND the wants and needs of the population as whole. The big picture, John, which is what public policy decisions are based upon, not the narrow technical 'best' of technicians and engineers. This is the part, I fear, that you fail to understand and is the reality that has been frustrating you for all these years.

Concerning how the realities of road AND cycling have changed, one just needs to recall how it was in the 70s and open their eyes to the present. A few that are pretty obvious are an increase in population of about 65 million people, an average of one or MORE motor vehicles per household, more bikeways that are of much better design than those of the 70s.

Referring only to your last paragraph.
More people, more cars, more roads. The techniques of using them haven't changed. Bikeway design has improved. We (in which I took a major part) didn't get the first California safety design standards issued until 1976, and they weren't adopted nationally for another few years. But little has changed after the adoption of those standards.

John, I mean the wants AND needs of the cycling population AND the wants and needs of the population as whole. The big picture, John, which is what public policy decisions are based upon, not the narrow technical 'best' of technicians and engineers. This is the part, I fear, that you fail to understand and is the reality that has been frustrating you for all these years.

Concerning how the realities of road AND cycling have changed, one just needs to recall how it was in the 70s and open their eyes to the present. A few that are pretty obvious are an increase in population of about 65 million people, an average of one or MORE motor vehicles per household, more bikeways that are of much better design than those of the 70s.

Referring only to your first paragraph
What were these public policy decisions and on what basis were they made?

This was a consequential event for advocacy.There's direct advocacy for cyclists, and then there's advocacy for those who profit from influencing how our federal tax dollars are spent. LAB's summit is focused on the latter. IMHO, it's a waste of time and money (LAB charges a fee) to attend the summit until after the League corrects their Misplaced Advocacy (http://www.labreform.org/advocacy.html).

In the latter reference, are you referring to the LAB?
Was this you, or a namesake, who accepted a nomination to be placed on the ballot for the region 6 LAB board position last year? (http://www.bikeleague.org/news/022106_board_nominees.php)

So you skipped a consequential advocacy activity, on account of one speaker (out of thousands of attendees) and the folks who provided the venue, and instead chose to spend considerable time doing advocacy work here? Flattering!

Yes, indeed, I was one of the three reform candidates on last year's ballot.

A consequential activity? Since there appears to be only a very low probability of reforming the LAB to its proper activities for cyclists, I do not consider its activities to be consequential. Except maybe attending would have provided me with information about its activities, which information comes to me through other routes.

Indeed, I've never seen such a document nor had it presented to me as the official justification for anything.

The Federal Highways Administration has issued a raft of documents on this subject. There is a lengthy bibliography listed in my article "The Bicycle Transportation Controversy" in Transportation Quarterly, Spring 2001, Volume 55, Number 2, Pages 7-17

Referring only to your first paragraph
What were these public policy decisions and on what basis were they made?

All of them, John. All of them. ;)

All of them, John. All of them. ;)

I take it then that you have no knowledge of the public policy decisions which you praise but cannot identify?

A consequential activity? Since there appears to be only a very low probability of reforming the LAB to its proper activities for cyclists, I do not consider its activities to be consequential. Except maybe attending would have provided me with information about its activities, which information comes to me through other routes.
I don't think that Shimano, Trek, etc.; and state, local, and federal government representatives (http://bikeportland.org/cats/advocacy/national-bike-summit-07/) care at all about affecting the LAB's activities. The LAB was far from the focus of this event. In which case, you're correct that there would be a very low probability of reforming the LAB's activities at this event. But a very significant opportunity to act in the areas you're advocating.
Although, I do think that your activities here may become consequential in your effectiveness as an advocate in the future.

The Federal Highways Administration has issued a raft of documents on this subject. There is a lengthy bibliography listed in my article "The Bicycle Transportation Controversy" in Transportation Quarterly, Spring 2001, Volume 55, Number 2, Pages 7-17

From the standpoint of state/county/local governance, the words of a document published by a Federal bureaucracy are only something to be used in drafting funding/grant requests in the hopes that they might have a better chance of approval by parroting their pet phrases, definitions and mission statements.

I find it interesting that you place so much weight on these documents, but not so much weight on actual laws, such as those that require a stop at signs and signals when you advocate 'California stops' as part of 'lawful operation' of a bicycle. What is your methodology for choosing which 'official' words are to be taken seriously and which can be dismissed?

Only if you agree that they are a flawed concept, which is a matter of opinion...As is the contention that they're not based on a flawed concept.


The majority ... do not agree that they are a flawed concept, so you're kinda in the minority ...In the USA, a member of a minority has the same constitutional rights as a member of the majority (including freedom of expression (http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/index.php/First_amendment)), whether the majority agrees or not.

I am sorry, Diane, that you feel compelled to state such falsehoods that have been disproved in the correspondence on this list. I repeat, I have never been hired to speak on behalf of pro-motoring organizations. In fact, I never have, regardless of pay or not. I speak and act only on behalf of cyclists and of scientific accuracy. However, the other part of your statement is correct. Pro-motoring organizations actually like nothing better than shoving bicyclists out of their way, which is why they originally invented and designed, and continue to pay for, the bikeway system that you think so advantageous. It is this muddled line of thought that makes it so difficult for such as you to think accurately.
So then you are saying that you did not come to Santa Barbara to speak at an event that was sponsored by Santa Barbara Safe Streets, which is an offshoot of Cars Are Basic, an organization that believe the roads are made for cars and everything that isn't related to making transportation easier for motoring is "social engineering" and should be stopped.

Interesting.

I take it then that you have no knowledge of the public policy decisions which you praise but cannot identify?

I spent 4 years in local elected office, John, as well as time lobbying at the state and federal levels. EVERY decision by a governing body takes into account the wants and needs of multiple interest groups. Does this basic political reality baffle you?

One example from my personal experience that was not a happy ending for cyclists was a project to rebuild the entire main street in the small town I lived in and served on the governing body. In this case, despite me being on that governing body, all the bickering and unwillingness to compromise worked counter to all the cyclists involved. In the end, the minority who were the most vocal, using many of your views, convinced the commission that cycling facilities were so dangerous, that the majority (me being the lone dissenting vote) decided not only that no cycling facilites - including the wide outside lanes I tried to advance as a compromise - would be included in the project, but also recommened that local cyclists USE THE SIDEWALK. The folks that wanted wider medians and landscaping won that battle, cyclists lost. Later, the Mayor tried to introduce an ordinance to ban cycling on that road totally...but I was able to gather a majority for that vote and defeat him.

The moral of the story - lack of unity, caused by a lack of willingness to compromise, spelled defeat for local cyclists. THAT is my biggest problem with vehicular cycling and its politics...it divides the cycling community and enables those with interests other than cycling...the motorists being one of them, to win. Yes, John, you have made some great contributions to cycling, but your dogged refusal to compromise on the issue of facilities has and is hurting us all.

As is the contention that they're not based on a flawed concept.

In the USA, a member of a minority has the same constitutional rights as a member of the majority (including the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment (http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/index.php/Equal_protection)), whether the majority agrees or not.

Please, Bruce, I know you are smarter than that. Despite what the minority view is, the will of the majority usually dictates public policy. When 1,000 people tell their rep that they want a bike lane and you are the only one who doesn't, who do you think is going to win? Unless you cause such a ruckus that the governing body decides not to deal with the issue at all, the majority consensus usually wins out. Are you advocating what I believe John's postion is concerning facilities...raise such a ruckus that nothing is done, which is essentially a win for those who claim we should only ride on the roadways? Is that the strategy, are we seeing it openly admitted to here?

Maybe he has not been invited to consequential settings lately.
How on earth do you uninvite John Forester? It just doesn't seem possible!
I'm still wondering how he won't attend this event, because the LAB had something to do with it; while at the same time being nominated for a regional LAB position, and accepting that nomination. Or skipping out on perhaps the most significant cycling advocacy events in the US this year because he doesn't agree with one of the speakers; bumming around here instead, where he's arguing with 95% of the populace!

Seriously, John: Think about what you're doing. What do you have to gain by yelling at everyone who stops in here, especially now that VC is in the spotlight in a separate forum full of fighting? This is on your permanent record: everyone who looks you up for years to come here or on Google will find these unkind discussions. How does this represent you and what you're doing?
What do you have to gain? I would argue that there is little to gain (best case scenario!) beyond interpersonal victories in the realm of philosophical principle. Once again, very few people who turn this discussion up while Googling will have the patience to learn more about what you represent is going to thumb through a thousand posts to find the one where you show up someone they've never heard of.
Petty arguments on publicly available, independently searchable, and archived internet forums are not considered to be an effective activity for public figures.
But honestly, I don't care if you keep this PR madness up or not. I think it's funny that you're throwing a tantrum in front of the entire world. :beer: And now you're off in your own little corner of the forums where the only people who will see will be the people who want to pick on you, and the people who are curious about VC, but instead they find you losing your temper and common sense right now, and for years to come. This is not a consequential opportunity for advocacy, this is a petty argument that discredits you even if you win.

Benefit: Perhaps humiliate Bekologist for a moment. (good luck with that)

Cost: Discredit yourself, and by extension, your life's work for years to come in a Google searchable, archived format.

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

first of all, what the poster you quoted referred to was NOT superstition, it was personal observation and experience -- what he sees, does, and discusses w/ friends, family, co-workers.

second, i wish your freeway statement WAS accurate -- that would leave a LOT more room on city streets for bikes! see- problem solved! (lol)