Vehicular Cycling (VC) - Forester takes on BF Posters

When discussing a technical subject, one is most unlikely to contribute usefully to the discussion unless one has a pretty good knowledge of that subject.

So you're saying that my pointed questions and participation in debate on these subjects while holding public office were useless and we all should have just kept our mouth's shut and went by our city engineer's recommendations? John, having a technical background myself, plus experience in other areas, including politics, I have learned that even 'technical' subjects are rarely only technical. Every subject has multiple aspects that must be considered when making decisions that address the big picture for the long term, rather than the short-sighted point decisions that seem to be the norm these days, and indeed have gotten us to the point we are at concerning cycling (I know we both agree on that, based on your writings). Indeed, you bring politics into these technical subjects quite often - to the point that vehicular cycling is both technical AND political. So far I am not impressed with your political savvy, yet I am engaging with you in these discussions anyway...so I'm sure you can bear with those of us who don't have your transportation engineering background and perhaps even educate us, right?

Maybe you don't agree with the 'cyclist-inferiority' complex. But plenty of motorists - and surprizingly cyclists - do.
I'm sorry, but you don't disabuse motorists of their belief in the 'cyclist inferiority complex' by putting cyclists in their path - that's just suicidal - rather, you do it through motorist education. The motorists who truly believe in what I would prefer to call the 'motorist superiority complex' are going to tell you to 'get on the sidewalk' regardless of whether the sidewalk in question is a designated sidepath or not.

Maybe you don't agree with the 'cyclist-inferiority' complex. But plenty of motorists - and surprizingly cyclists - do.


Well that is all fine and dandy and I would probably agree with that statement; but that doesn't necessitate or justify labelling anyone who is a bikeway proponent part of the "cyclist-inferiority complex." That is a classic nonsequitur given the above.

You tell me chip? (my guess is confused). Do you possess the victim mentality?

Only when I'm feeling molested by you and HH....or the entire roadie forum. :p

... dismantling of the interstate system?What percentage of facilities which serve the public (trains, buses, water fountains, colleges, lunch counters, etc.) were dismantled as a result of removing segregation? :rolleyes:

As you say, some bike paths are useful, a statement with which I agree and have stated for years;

Given the obvious confusion here over the issue, it is probably worthwhile emphasizing this.

Neither Forester nor any other VC proponent with whom I'm familiar, has ever asserted that "bike paths" (Class I facilities in more formal terms) ought never to be built, are not sometimes useful and appropriate for cyclists, or anything even remotely approaching such arguments.

Many of us have argued against mandatory use of such facilities, against construction of a particular form of the bike path, the sidepath, and so on. No one I know has condemned bike paths per se, although we often have strong criticisms of specific path designs, implementations, etc.

Even the most VC of the VC often use and approve of particular paths.

Given the obvious confusion here over the issue, it is probably worthwhile emphasizing this.

Neither Forester nor any other VC proponent with whom I'm familiar, has ever asserted that "bike paths" (Class I facilities in more formal terms) ought never to be built, are not sometimes useful and appropriate for cyclists, or anything even remotely approaching such arguments.

Many of us have argued against mandatory use of such facilities, against construction of a particular form of the bike path, the sidepath, and so on. No one I know has condemned bike paths per se, although we often have strong criticisms of specific path designs, implementations, etc.

Even the most VC of the VC often use and approve of particular paths.


I think at least pertaining to these forums, the constant turning of Cyling death threads over to speculation on it being caused by a bike path has lead to the perception of VC as anti-bike lane. I know I have gotten this impression from past threads whether it was specifically stated or not.

Well that is all fine and dandy and I would probably agree with that statement; but that doesn't necessitate or justify labelling anyone who is a bikeway proponent part of the "cyclist-inferiority complex." That is a classic nonsequitur given the above.

I believe we debunked 'cycling inferiority complex' pretty well in another thread, though it would be fun to go through the exercise again with the feller who coined the wacky term. But this thread isn't exactly a title bout that's going to influence JF to change his views any more than it will change mine. It's more like an exhibition bout, where all the folks outside the ring get to size up the participants and make up their own minds who they think should get the belt - and the participants in the ring get a better understanding of their opponents for that day when there might just be a title bout. (unless of course one prefers to sandbag) ;)

Interesting John. There is no scientific support for the notion of a God or other dieties either, yet the majority of the population practices some religion where such a diety is at its base. Indeed, for better or worse, much of the world's history is based upon these beliefs, despite a lack of scientific evidence supporting them. Decisions concerning far greater issues than cycling are made daily using these belief systems as their basis. How has the world survived?

Please answer me this - IF the resources and political will (which comes from support of the majority) exist to create bikeways for the cyclist-inferiority-infested majority AND our right to ride vehicularly on the roads is not threatened by these bikeways, what, specifically, from a science and engineering standpoint, is your opposition based upon?

Interesting suggestion that the issues of bicycle transportation should be resolved by superstition. Of course, that is what has been done, and that superstition is exactly what vehicular cyclists oppose.

In answer to your question, I first answer that the conditions postulated in your hypothetical question are most unlikely to exist. Please note that all my discussions are based on transportational cycling. Recreational cycling is an entirely different issue. Transportational cycling needs to be evaluated in accordance with the safety, convenience, and travel time required to get from anywhere in town to anywhere else in town. (Well, maybe not from one den of iniquity to another, but you get the idea.) You postulate conditions in which the majority rules according to its belief that bikeways make cycling safe for unskilled bicyclists (that is the reason most often given) but they are willing to allow a minority to ride on the roadways in a vehicular manner. One thing wrong about that is that no bikeway system can provide safe travel throughout town for people without vehicular cycling skills. That is the opposite of the conditions that you postulate. In other words, are you willing to advocate that people without the proper skills ride around town? I say that that is immoral.

Urban sidepaths are extremely dangerous, except in the few topographically favorable situations that cannot provide much transportation. Are you willing to have people use these at the increased rate of car-bike collision that they create? The statistics for that are in Wachtel's paper.

Bike lanes are somewhat different, in that competent cyclists can ride on roadways under social conditions in which the cyclist can ignore the presence of the stripe. However, when the majority says that the stripe makes cycling safe, it is more difficult socially to ignore the stripe, and the stripe makes cycling more difficult, and therefore more dangerous, for those who do not recognize the importance of ignoring the stripe but, instead, follow the majority opinion, enforced by the governmental action in painting the stripe, of obeying the stripe. It takes more skill to know when and how to disobey the stripe than it does to ride properly without the stripe.

Furthermore, any society that puts its faith in bikeways will also put its money into bikeways. The chances of getting good roads in a bikeway-believing society are rather small.

Given the obvious confusion here over the issue, it is probably worthwhile emphasizing this.

Neither Forester nor any other VC proponent with whom I'm familiar, has ever asserted that "bike paths" (Class I facilities in more formal terms) ought never to be built, are not sometimes useful and appropriate for cyclists, or anything even remotely approaching such arguments.

Many of us have argued against mandatory use of such facilities, against construction of a particular form of the bike path, the sidepath, and so on. No one I know has condemned bike paths per se, although we often have strong criticisms of specific path designs, implementations, etc.

Even the most VC of the VC often use and approve of particular paths.

JF uses the term 'bikeway', which the definitions I've found seem to indicate that the term includes bike paths. Are you saying that JF does not include bike paths when he says bikeways? (or 'cycling-inferiority bikeways')

"Bikeway" means a vehicle way, paved or unpaved, upon which bicycles, unicycles or other vehicles propelled by human power may be pedaled. The bikeway may be part of a road or highway or it may be adjacent to a road or highway. A bikeway is a right-of-way under the jurisdiction and control of the State or a local subdivision of the State for use primarily by bicyclists and pedestrians. [1999, c. 331, §1 (new).]
janus.state.me.us/legis/statutes/29-A/title29-Asec2322.html

A generic term encompassing all types of facilities aiding bicycle movement.
www.tdot.state.tn.us/bikeroutes/definitions.htm

A generic term for any road, street, path, trail or way, that in some manner, is specifically designated for bicycle travel, regardless of whether such facilities are designated for the exclusive use of bicycles or are to be shared with other transportation modes.
www.loudoun.gov/compplan/bikegloss.htm

A street specially treated to provide a bicycle-friendly environment.
www.city.vancouver.bc.ca/engsvcs/transport/plan/1997report/glossary.htm

A thoroughfare reserved for bicycles either exclusively or during specially assigned periods.
www.ci.norman.ok.us/planning/greenbelt/glossary.htm

My personal experience shows that my two 4 year old sons, tend to not weave out into traffic when there is a line there. When there is no line their cycling becomes erratic. I know that not everyone is a 4 year old but that is one case I have observed where a facility has been helpful. The road was a 35 mph 4 lane and was included on a route for a 10 mile family charity ride. Around the corner we were on a 40 mph 2 lane road with a wide lane with no line, I found that the boys needed a lot more reminding to ride in a logical fashion here. So my observations differ from yours at least in this case.


Personally I like wide outside lanes (and even narrow lanes too) as well as the next VCer but I do find uses for bike lanes as well.


Ah, yes, the argument that our highway system should be built for use by four-year-olds. And you think that a bike-lane stripe makes a four-year-old safe against the dangers of traffic?

I think at least pertaining to these forums, the constant turning of Cyling death threads over to speculation on it being caused by a bike path has lead to the perception of VC as anti-bike lane. I know I have gotten this impression from past threads whether it was specifically stated or not.

One must distinguish between "bike lanes" (Type II facilities) and "bike paths" (Type I facilities).

So you're saying that my pointed questions and participation in debate on these subjects while holding public office were useless and we all should have just kept our mouth's shut and went by our city engineer's recommendations? John, having a technical background myself, plus experience in other areas, including politics, I have learned that even 'technical' subjects are rarely only technical. Every subject has multiple aspects that must be considered when making decisions that address the big picture for the long term, rather than the short-sighted point decisions that seem to be the norm these days, and indeed have gotten us to the point we are at concerning cycling (I know we both agree on that, based on your writings). Indeed, you bring politics into these technical subjects quite often - to the point that vehicular cycling is both technical AND political. So far I am not impressed with your political savvy, yet I am engaging with you in these discussions anyway...so I'm sure you can bear with those of us who don't have your transportation engineering background and perhaps even educate us, right?

So, "we all should have just kept our mouth's shut and went by our city engineer's recommendations?"

Well, no, because in the case of bicycle transportation your city engineer is at least as likely to be misinformed as the general public. Bicycle transportation is one of those rare cases in which the official opinion is nothing more than superstition, and is actually even less than that. In the case of bicycle transportation, the city engineer is likely to consider the AASHTO Guide to Bicycle Facilities (or your state's equivalent) and, possibly, the FHWA's implementation guide titled Selecting Roadway Design Treatments to Accommodate Bicycles. In doing so he would be building a system that was designed by motorists to make motoring more convenient, regardless of the harm done to cyclists. Is that what you would like to have done?

Ah, yes, the argument that our highway system should be built for use by four-year-olds. And you think that a bike-lane stripe makes a four-year-old safe against the dangers of traffic?

Well, first, I don't believe I stated it was a highway. The second one was if it makes a difference. As for making it safer, it gives the kids a boundary or guide to help them hold their line. What age do you think you cannot teach a cyclist to ride better than most adults? I recall you mentioning 8. I wish only to point out that with a clearly marked border in some cases (I do not advocate 4 year olds on the side of 55 mph highways) that age could be lowered. I realize you probably don't care about folks with crazy ideas about riding with their children on roads and not pushed back onto MUPs but some of us do. Some of us see the statistics about Bicycle Inferiority complexes and believe that perhaps the road isn't as dangerous as everyone thinks it is for bicyclists as long as they ride predictably. I find that bike lanes help my 4 year olds to do this. Question for you John, is a 4 year old who rides predictably with an adult present just as safe from rear end collisions? Seems like if the statistics work they either work or don't don't they?
http://www.lamanchadesign.com/fouryearolds.jpg

Oh, and is that a truck I see giving us some extra room? hmmmm
And also, you don't need to be snide about it. If you can't see this as a reason for bike lanes just say so. It makes perfect sense to me. I don't know if you have any 4 year olds but something tangible they can see constantly is much easer to follow than some inane piece of logic that will slide out of their minds with the next butterfly. Come to think of it I know a few adults who are like this too.

Aw crap, well if you can be snide I will too. Is Vehicular Cycling for the cyclists or cyclists for the Vehicular Cycling? Are only people who are capable of understanding the concept of VC to be allowed on the streets? Do we expulse all other users who may have similar desires but desire to use them in a different way (of course this concept has been stated repeatedly only to be called superstitious and rot so I don't know why I am repeating it)? I can tell you that as my kids grow older they will see me avoiding garbage outside of bikelanes at high speeds and will even stray onto the forbidden narrow 2 lane highway as we find those lonely highways of the western deserts but for now, a line is most helpful. Why can't we just use all the resources at our disposal and admit there are riders of differing ability out there and always will be? Not every driver is nascar certified, not even every driver has been through drivers ed. Would it be good if they were? yes. Would they be able to understand the concepts of traffic better and how to drive in it more efficiently? Yes. Do they? No.. Ok, I am good and done now. Belittle me at your leisure.

Incidentally the logic about lines making people safe seems to hold true for cars. Does a double yellow line keep a motorist safe from head on collisions? Does a fog line establish the edge of the road where asphalt and natural earth are the same color?

I believe we debunked 'cycling inferiority complex' pretty well in another thread, though it would be fun to go through the exercise again with the feller who coined the wacky term.
Not really, all you'll get in return is constant repetition of the same wacky ideas and bunk (perhaps reworded, perhaps not) followed by the inevitable ad hominem arguments, if you continue not to be impressed by repeated doses of bunk (and if the moderators permit it.) Trust me, I've been there.

What percentage of facilities which serve the public (trains, buses, water fountains, colleges, lunch counters, etc.) were dismantled as a result of removing segregation? :rolleyes:

I wasn't discussing the removal of segregation. I was discussing the removal of a facility. Forcing bikes (and cyclists) to act as vehicles (in the fossil fuel powered sense of the word) seems silly to me. Bicycles and cyclists are different beasts from cars and trucks - it just happens that the two overlap and cause friction on pavement. Rules should be flexible that play to the strengths of each. Interstates (and some highways) are car and truck only (in most cases, in most states). I don't shout obsceneities at drivers telling them to "Get on the interstate - thats what its there for!" - yet people will do this to cyclists in the presence of a bike path.

The street is a public right of way. Early on this was the domain of people, then horses and carriages, bicycles, and now the auto. Our use of the facility has changed - and the auto now reigns supreme in the domain that was once open for all. Pedestrians (who once ruled the street) have been given their own semi-domain on the street - the sidewalk - through no fault of their own... but for "their own safety".

Our streets should be open sourced. Without the street people would constantly be trespassing getting to the corner store and back. It seems that we should be able to figure out how to get bikes and peds and cars and delivery trucks interacting safely in the same space.


I see alot of comments on training cyclists... and wishes that drivers were better trained. Currently its on me (the cyclist) to ride in a predictable and safe manner - (VC or not, LAB certified or not... etc). If a cyclist gets killed - they had it coming. Yet a vehicle can attain more speed, carry more weight, and lost control with far greater circumstances. Drivers should be required to have more training based on their vehicles and usage - much like pilots (of boats and planes). You can't get your license and immediately fly a 747... yet you can get your license and jump behind the wheel of a light truck. (or RV!). Seems a graduated system would better serve all road users.

Well, no, because in the case of bicycle transportation your city engineer is at least as likely to be misinformed as the general public. Bicycle transportation is one of those rare cases in which the official opinion is nothing more than superstition, and is actually even less than that.
Don't keep us all in suspense. Let's hear it from the horse's mouth. Who IS properly "informed" about bicycle transportation and what makes that person/organization properly "informed" to make decisions for the general public?

One thing wrong about that is that no bikeway system can provide safe travel throughout town for people without vehicular cycling skills. .

That seems to be one of the underlying disagreements here. I don't think anyone disputes that there are cyclists who do not know how to safely ride on the roads (although some would probably disagree with your wording given that we can't come to a consensus on the definition of VC). The question is, having recognized that fact, what do we as a society do about that. I agree that in an ideal world the most efficient option would be to educate everyone as to those skills needed to ride in the roadways safely. However worthy of a goal that is, it is not reality and not going to happen anytime soon.--That is not to say I oppose education efforts; but it seems there will always be a group of cyclists who don't meet your definition of "competent" VC'ers. I would rather have such people commute to work via a properly constructed bikepath or bike lane rather than sit in their car in traffic.

In other words, are you willing to advocate that people without the proper skills ride around town? I say that that is immoral.
Why not? They really can't do much harm to anyone but themselves, and the safer and more convenient you make it for them, the more likely they are to try cycling. The more likely they are to try cycling the more likely they are to continue cycling if their initial experiences are without incident. The more they continue cycling the better their skills will become. That's called building a constituency. In any event, a lot of people don't want to go out and play in traffic on their bike, regardless of their level of training and experience. Besides, we let people without any training pretty much walk anywhere they want, and there are plenty of motorists out on the roads who appear to lack the appropriate skills and training, and they are the most dangerous road users of all. The annual highway death toll caused by motorists is what's really immoral.

Bicycles and cyclists are different beasts from cars and trucks... Perhaps in Newspeak (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspeak), but not in English. A dictionary definition of 'bicycle' begins with the words: a vehicle... (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/bicycle)
A definition for vehicle is a means of carrying or transporting something <planes, trains, and other vehicles> (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/vehicle)


Interstates (and some highways) are car and truck only (in most cases, in most states).In other words, cyclists are allowed to use some of the Interstate system already.


It seems that we should be able to figure out how to get bikes and peds and cars and delivery trucks interacting safely in the same space.Some of us already have; some others just refuse to believe it.

Which brings up an interesting point, how did you become aware of those specific BF postings and quotes for pasting and blasting on your own web site? You seemed to be completely unaware of the normal access and protocols of this Forum until yesterday. Did a little birdy whisper in your ear?

Come on, ILTB: If your life's work was being crticized on some other forum, wouldn't you consider it perfectly appropriate for some friend or supporter to let you know about it?

Perhaps in Newspeak (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspeak), but not in English. A dictionary definition of 'bicycle' begins with the words: a vehicle... (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/bicycle)
A definition for vehicle is a means of carrying or transporting something <planes, trains, and other vehicles> (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/vehicle)

In other words, cyclists are allowed to use some of the Interstate system already.



1. Every freeway i've ever seen has a sign that says no bikes allowed. Others also ban mopeds and other slow moving vehicles.

2. Your argument here is a simple syllogism which can easily be proven false.
a. All vehciles have the right to use any roadway
b. A bicycle is a vehcile
c. therefore, all bicycles have the right to use any roadway
--Logically, then, the following must also be true
a. All vehciles have the right to use any roadway
b. A (plane/train) is a vehicle.
c. Therefore all (planes/trains) have the right to use any roadway

Come on, ILTB: If your life's work was being crticized on some other forum, wouldn't you consider it perfectly appropriate for some friend or supporter to let you know about it?


I actually think it is kind of cool to be hearing all this from the source. I also find it amusing to see certain similarities between apples and trees.

Assuming it actually is Forester behind that user name of course.

Newspeak
The purpose of newspeak was to eliminate the "grey area" and have people think only in terms of either/or.

Like either separated bike paths, or bicyclists in the middle of the lane.

1. Every freeway i've ever seen has a sign that says no bikes allowed. Others also ban mopeds and other slow moving vehicles.

2. Your argument here is a simple syllogism which can easily be proven false.
a. All vehciles have the right to use any roadway
b. A bicycle is a vehcile
c. therefore, all bicycles have the right to use any roadway
--Logically, then, the following must also be true
a. All vehciles have the right to use any roadway
b. A (plane/train) is a vehicle.
c. Therefore all (planes/trains) have the right to use any roadway


In Arizona all non-metro interstates are open for bicycle travel, but that is mostly because there are so few paved roads out here you would literally add hundreds of miles to your trip if that weren't the case.

I actually think it is kind of cool to be hearing all this from the source. I also find it amusing to see certain similarities between apples and trees.

Assuming it actually is Forester behind that user name of course.

Who else could generate that verbiage in that length of time - and that's a compliment.

Well, first, I don't believe I stated it was a highway. The second one was if it makes a difference. As for making it safer, it gives the kids a boundary or guide to help them hold their line.

Lines are nice for guidance on a road. Straight lanes and turn lanes help traffic flow better by getting people into the right area of the road at the right time. Probably one of the biggest issues with most bike lanes is that they go against the normal vehicular lane setup in that they are designated as a straight lane for cyclists while the lane adjacent is a straight/right/left turn lane for vehicles in that lane. No where else on the roadways is this setup used and no where else would it be tolerated for full width vehicular lanes. Yet, when these lanes are installed for cyclists, cyclists applaud them. The bike lane to the left of a right turn only lane is less problematic but on many roads, it would be impossible to implement this type of facility. It does not completely eliminate the problem of turning traffic having to cross a lane that is not a normal vehicular traffic lane, but is designated as a straight lane for cyclists, to turn right.

I'm pretty certain that your 4 year olds were not doing shoulder checks or merging out of the bike lane at intersections to avoid right hooks, thus using the bike lane as the vehicle code suggests bike lanes be used (most as far right as practicable laws have exceptions for places where right turns are authorized). If they were, I applaud your teaching (not that I don't applaud you for riding with your children anyway but I still do feel the need to point out the issues with assuming that simply staying to the right of the bike lane stripe automatically makes one safe).

1. Every freeway i've ever seen has a sign that says no bikes allowed. Others also ban mopeds and other slow moving vehicles.
Just an FYI, almost all of the interstate freeway system in Oregon is open to cyclists, except within the corporate boundaries of the City of Portland and a small segment in Medford.

Well, first, I don't believe I stated it was a highway. The second one was if it makes a difference. As for making it safer, it gives the kids a boundary or guide to help them hold their line. What age do you think you cannot teach a cyclist to ride better than most adults? I recall you mentioning 8. I wish only to point out that with a clearly marked border in some cases (I do not advocate 4 year olds on the side of 55 mph highways) that age could be lowered. I realize you probably don't care about folks with crazy ideas about riding with their children on roads and not pushed back onto MUPs but some of us do. Some of us see the statistics about Bicycle Inferiority complexes and believe that perhaps the road isn't as dangerous as everyone thinks it is for bicyclists as long as they ride predictably. I find that bike lanes help my 4 year olds to do this. Question for you John, is a 4 year old who rides predictably with an adult present just as safe from rear end collisions? Seems like if the statistics work they either work or don't don't they?
http://www.lamanchadesign.com/fouryearolds.jpg

Oh, and is that a truck I see giving us some extra room? hmmmm
And also, you don't need to be snide about it. If you can't see this as a reason for bike lanes just say so. It makes perfect sense to me. I don't know if you have any 4 year olds but something tangible they can see constantly is much easer to follow than some inane piece of logic that will slide out of their minds with the next butterfly. Come to think of it I know a few adults who are like this too.

Aw crap, well if you can be snide I will too. Is Vehicular Cycling for the cyclists or cyclists for the Vehicular Cycling? Are only people who are capable of understanding the concept of VC to be allowed on the streets? Do we expulse all other users who may have similar desires but desire to use them in a different way (of course this concept has been stated repeatedly only to be called superstitious and rot so I don't know why I am repeating it)? I can tell you that as my kids grow older they will see me avoiding garbage outside of bikelanes at high speeds and will even stray onto the forbidden narrow 2 lane highway as we find those lonely highways of the western deserts but for now, a line is most helpful. Why can't we just use all the resources at our disposal and admit there are riders of differing ability out there and always will be? Not every driver is nascar certified, not even every driver has been through drivers ed. Would it be good if they were? yes. Would they be able to understand the concepts of traffic better and how to drive in it more efficiently? Yes. Do they? No.. Ok, I am good and done now. Belittle me at your leisure.

Incidentally the logic about lines making people safe seems to hold true for cars. Does a double yellow line keep a motorist safe from head on collisions? Does a fog line establish the edge of the road where asphalt and natural earth are the same color?


Roads and streets are part of the highway system. The term highway does not exclude street.

1. Every freeway i've ever seen has a sign that says no bikes allowed. Others also ban mopeds and other slow moving vehicles.

2. Your argument here is a simple syllogism which can easily be proven false.
a. All vehciles have the right to use any roadway
b. A bicycle is a vehcile
c. therefore, all bicycles have the right to use any roadway
--Logically, then, the following must also be true
a. All vehciles have the right to use any roadway
b. A (plane/train) is a vehicle.
c. Therefore all (planes/trains) have the right to use any roadway

In no state vehicle code is a plane or train defined as a vehicle. Interstates prohibit slow moving vehicles (any type, not just cyclists). Interstates were designed for uninteruptted vehicle flow and thus don't lend themselves to being easily used by slow moving vehicles. Many states allow cyclists to use interstate shoulders when there are no reasonable alternatives.

Because the ban includes all slow moving vehicles and the alternative routes are generally more direct, it's much easier to tolerate than cyclist-only bans, like those on some local bridges into New Jersey..

Just an FYI, almost all of the interstate freeway system in Oregon is open to cyclists, except within the corporate boundaries of the City of Portland and a small segment in Medford.


Oh, I don't doubt there are---I just haven't seen them

I'm pretty certain that your 4 year olds were not doing shoulder checks or merging out of the bike lane at intersections to avoid right hooks, thus using the bike lane as the vehicle code suggests bike lanes be used (most as far right as practicable laws have exceptions for places where right turns are authorized). If they were, I applaud your teaching (not that I don't applaud you for riding with your children anyway but I still do feel the need to point out the issues with assuming that simply staying to the right of the bike lane stripe automatically makes one safe).

On this particular ride all the turns were right turns and there didn't happen to be any right hand turn lanes we had to negotiate past. As far as doing a full VC merge, I will admit I don't think they are up to that. At those intersections we would likely dismount and use the crosswalk.

I was riding with a mirror and was letting them know when traffic was approaching.

In no state vehicle code is a plane or train defined as a vehicle. ..


Exactly my point. B.R. was using a dictionary definition of "vehicle" to support his argument, which, if applied literally leads to absurdities. I was simply trying to indicate that the fact that a bicycle is defined as a "vehcile" in the dictionary is not really relevent because there are a number of other objects defined as "vehicles" that cannot use the roads.

Roads and streets are part of the highway system. The term highway does not exclude street.
Damn. I need to move. My street is now a highway.

What is odd is that when I look at the map of the National Highway System (http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/hep10/NHS/maps/ca/ca_californianorth.pdf), my street isn't on it.

Weird. Something must be amiss.

Roads and streets are part of the highway system. The term highway does not exclude street.

Dang, I tried I really tried not to bite on this one but just for the sake of debate, is the 100 foot long section of street in front of my house called a highway? I know what you are getting at though. We are arguing semantics in a forum that should be about Advocacy and Safety so I will stop at this point.

So, we have radya and skanking advocating the use of the roads by people who do not have the appropriate safety skills. And, in some cases, justifying this by saying that we allow motorists to do so.

So, we have radya and skanking advocating the use of the roads by people who do not have the appropriate safety skills. And, in some cases, justifying this by saying that we allow motorists to do so.
This is all really beside the point. You are discussing this issue with experienced cyclists here, and support for your anti-facilities position is certainly not unanimous among the experienced cyclists, in fact y'all appear to be in the minority.

So, we have radya and skanking advocating the use of the roads by people who do not have the appropriate safety skills. And, in some cases, justifying this by saying that we allow motorists to do so.


Yes, isn't it wonderful? None of us needs to be a perfect driver to be allowed the opportunity to drive a car. Just like no one has to be a perfect linquist to contribute to these forums. Or have a doctorate of Philosophy to argue with you or Helmet Head. No one needs to be the perfect cyclist to use the roads. Yes, in fact, in a world of imperfect people, by necessity, those without a perfect command of safety are allowed to live and make do the best they can. Even the Airline industry can't get completly perfect pilots.

Although they come the closest out of the industries I think.

So, we have radya and skanking advocating the use of the roads by people who do not have the appropriate safety skills. And, in some cases, justifying this by saying that we allow motorists to do so.
Are you in favor of a government run bicycle licensing program?

On this particular ride all the turns were right turns and there didn't happen to be any right hand turn lanes we had to negotiate past. As far as doing a full VC merge, I will admit I don't think they are up to that. At those intersections we would likely dismount and use the crosswalk.

I was riding with a mirror and was letting them know when traffic was approaching.

Just to be clear, what I'm considering an intersection is ANY place someone could turn right (driveway, parking lot, dirt road, etc.). Anyway, I'm glad you are able to enjoy rides like that with your children. If they are able to ride in a straight line, I see no reason why you and the bunch could not have used a full traffic lane on that road. And honestly, at full speed or with very heavy traffic, I'd consider that shoulder/bike lane to be of marginal width due to the gutter pan.

Are you in favor of a government run bicycle licensing program?

Probably. but only if they include training that uses "Effective Cycling" as a manual.

:D

sorry. carry on.

Dang, I tried I really tried not to bite on this one but just for the sake of debate, is the 100 foot long section of street in front of my house called a highway? I know what you are getting at though. We are arguing semantics in a forum that should be about Advocacy and Safety so I will stop at this point.
Well since you live in AZ:
http://www.azleg.state.az.us/ars/28/01171.htm
"1. "Highway" means the entire width between the boundary lines of every way publicly maintained by the federal government, the department, a city, a town or a county if any part of the way is generally open to the use of the public for purposes of vehicular travel."

I didn't have any question as to what JF meant when he used the term above.

Al

It's time for me to go home to dinner, but I'd like to address this before I do, knowing that you probably don't have time to sit and participate in this discussion all day and night.


Interesting suggestion that the issues of bicycle transportation should be resolved by superstition. Of course, that is what has been done, and that superstition is exactly what vehicular cyclists oppose.

I'm not suggesting anything, merely pointing out reality.



In answer to your question, I first answer that the conditions postulated in your hypothetical question are most unlikely to exist. Please note that all my discussions are based on transportational cycling. Recreational cycling is an entirely different issue. Transportational cycling needs to be evaluated in accordance with the safety, convenience, and travel time required to get from anywhere in town to anywhere else in town. (Well, maybe not from one den of iniquity to another, but you get the idea.) You postulate conditions in which the majority rules according to its belief that bikeways make cycling safe for unskilled bicyclists (that is the reason most often given) but they are willing to allow a minority to ride on the roadways in a vehicular manner. One thing wrong about that is that no bikeway system can provide safe travel throughout town for people without vehicular cycling skills. That is the opposite of the conditions that you postulate. In other words, are you willing to advocate that people without the proper skills ride around town? I say that that is immoral.

Transportational and recreational cycling, while they may have different goals, are both relevant. Without the masses of recreational cyclists, transportational cycling is doomed to the insignificance (in the context of political power) it suffered between the 1920s and 1970s. My discussions are based on cycling as a whole, which includes all cyclists, from the political standpoint that you seek to influence, not from a narrow technical perspective. Remember, John, it was you that has made the two so intertwined into vehicular cycling.

The conditions I postulated have and do exist. It's called compromise and lives within our political system, where the norm is for people with different interests to come together to achieve a common goal, even if they have no interest or even disagree with the all the individual goals of others involved that are included in the whole. You wash my back, I wash yours - if you don't want to wash mine, yours isn't getting washed either.

You maintain that bikeways 'cannot provide safe travel throughout town for people without vehicular cycling skills', yet they do every single day. Are they 'totally safe' - of course not, just as roadways are not totally safe, vc skills or no vc skills. Are all cyclists 'competent' vehicular cyclists? Nope, even many who claim to be vehicular cyclists routinely break not only the law, but also the 'rules' of vehicular cycling and have no problem admitting it....yet both the vehicular cyclists and others manage to get from point A to point B safely each and every day. It's riding a bike, John, it's not rocket science no matter how hard you try to portray it as such. There is nothing immoral about encouraging people to ride without testing them for some arbitrary level of competence - unless you want to force them to ride in traffic, which is what you propose. Indeed, how do you expect to ensure that all cyclists are competent vehicular cyclists...mandatory training, licensing? Unless you advocate the former at minimum, there will always be cyclists who do not practice vc. Oh well, that's where we are today and cycling is still one of the safest physical activities that one can do. How to you explain away that little reality?



Urban sidepaths are extremely dangerous, except in the few topographically favorable situations that cannot provide much transportation. Are you willing to have people use these at the increased rate of car-bike collision that they create? The statistics for that are in Wachtel's paper.

Bike lanes are somewhat different, in that competent cyclists can ride on roadways under social conditions in which the cyclist can ignore the presence of the stripe. However, when the majority says that the stripe makes cycling safe, it is more difficult socially to ignore the stripe, and the stripe makes cycling more difficult, and therefore more dangerous, for those who do not recognize the importance of ignoring the stripe but, instead, follow the majority opinion, enforced by the governmental action in painting the stripe, of obeying the stripe. It takes more skill to know when and how to disobey the stripe than it does to ride properly without the stripe.

Furthermore, any society that puts its faith in bikeways will also put its money into bikeways. The chances of getting good roads in a bikeway-believing society are rather small.

I don't suppose you want to compare total federal, state and local spending on highways, roads and bridges compared to bikeways, do you? I didn't think so. You keep treating this as a EITHER-OR proposition - it is not. Money goes into both bikeways and roads every day, just like people ride their bicycles on both the roadways and bikeways everyday...and somehow the vast majority survive.

I think I understand where you are coming from, since we both have techincal backgrounds, albeit in different fields. You want perfection, you want the system to be 'right' and are not fond of compromises that make the system less than it could be. I know the feeling...but I've learned over the years to look at the big picture and accept that nothing is ever perfect, everything is a compromise - we do the best we can do to make the system the best that we can, but in the end we don't stop the works in the name of perfection. You're older than me and have been involved in politics from an advocacy level, I would expect you would have learned that by now as well.

I gotta go home and eat my dinner, now, but I'll be back...forgive me if I rushed and didn't address all of your points.

Just to be clear, what I'm considering an intersection is ANY place someone could turn right (driveway, parking lot, dirt road, etc.). Anyway, I'm glad you are able to enjoy rides like that with your children. If they are able to ride in a straight line, I see no reason why you and the bunch could not have used a full traffic lane on that road. And honestly, at full speed or with very heavy traffic, I'd consider that shoulder/bike lane to be of marginal width due to the gutter pan.


Yeah, I can't say it is a model of bikelanes. On the bikes they ride speeds above 9 or 10 mph are not really a reality (not that it isn't legal to ride slow and take the lane, I just prefer to be moving a little closer to the speed of speed of traffic than a jog when I do). We do in fact have a rather goofy bike lane in our neighborhood where they have tried to integrate a bike lane and a parking lane and it is so wide the boys have a tendency to meander around in it unless I am right there reminding them to ride straight so I suppose a 4 foot wide lane is probably optimal for the need I am espousing.

I am tryinig to work with them on not hugging the gutter though and each of them has had experience with why they should not hug the gutter. Just have to keep helping them remember that.

So, we have radya and skanking advocating the use of the roads by people who do not have the appropriate safety skills. And, in some cases, justifying this by saying that we allow motorists to do so.


I said no such thing. I said it doesn't make sense to oppose well-constructed and maintained bike paths when some cyclists do not have the appropriate safety skills to use the roads and probably won't learn them. I was quite clear on that. I don't see how a reasonable person engaged in an honest debate could construe that statement to mean that I am "the use of the roads by people who do not have the appropriate safety skills."

Well since you live in AZ:
http://www.azleg.state.az.us/ars/28/01171.htm
"1. "Highway" means the entire width between the boundary lines of every way publicly maintained by the federal government, the department, a city, a town or a county if any part of the way is generally open to the use of the public for purposes of vehicular travel."

I didn't have any question as to what JF meant when he used the term above.

Al


Highway it is! At least until I cross the state line :) .
(of course I guess that depends on which state line it is though).


This gives me food for thought though. Does that mean 4 year olds should not ride bikes on any street maintained with public money for public use? AND if so, what is the permissable age that children suddenly are "supposed" to use the street/highway?

I don't suppose you want to compare total federal, state and local spending on highways, roads and bridges compared to bikeways, do you? I didn't think so. You keep treating this as a EITHER-OR proposition - it is not. Money goes into both bikeways and roads every day, just like people ride their bicycles on both the roadways and bikeways everyday...and somehow the vast majority survive.
From a funding and spending perspective, Oregon has a bicycle bill that for the last 30+ years has required transportation projects to spend at least 1% of their budgets on bicycle improvements. For the most part the 1% spending goal has not been met on most projects - the vast majority of the money is spent on highway projects designed to primarily benefit motorists, many of which are either inaccessible or inhospitable to bicyclists - yet nevertheless plenty of bicycle 'facilities' have been built, without affecting the ability to fund and construct motor vehicle-oriented highway projects whatsoever.

I'm not suggesting anything, merely pointing out reality.Transportational and recreational cycling, while they may have different goals, are both relevant. Without the masses of recreational cyclists, transportational cycling is doomed to the insignificance (in the context of political power) it suffered between the 1920s and 1970s. My discussions are based on cycling as a whole, which includes all cyclists, from the political standpoint that you seek to influence, not from a narrow technical perspective. .


Indeed, In addition, I would venture to guess that most cyclists that post here, like myself, who use the bicycle as a means of transportation, became interested in it BECAUSE OF recreational riding. I'll be the first to admit that I was utterly clueless when I first started. But through recreation, I developed a love of cycling that imbued me with a desire to learn as much as I could about cycling. The more I learned, the more comfortable I became. The more comfortable and knowledgable I became the more willing I was to use the roads and cycle "vehicularly." There wouldn't be many people using cycling as a means of transportation in this country if there were not adequate "recreational cycling facilities" as you use the term. If developing more "recreational facilities" with get others interested in cycling, form the impetus to learn the appropriate skills to ride in traffic, and make them feel comfortable enough to develop and hone those skills, then I can't see how one can oppose them.

There is nothing immoral about encouraging people to ride without testing them for some arbitrary level of competence - unless you want to force them to ride in traffic, which is what you propose.

I'm enjoying the discussion here but wanted to comment on this one line as I feel it's very important to realize. Whether you are riding in the lane, in a bike lane, or on a sidepath, you are riding in traffic. At some point in time, you and the other vehicles using the roadway are going to cross paths and if you don't know how to handle that conflict, you shouldn't be out there. I feel it is immoral for bike lane/sidepath advocates to encourage people to use those facilities under the false assumption that they are no longer part of traffic and thus are freed from the obligations they have to protect their own safety. Reference any thread about riding in a bike lane or on a sidewalk/sidepath and being right hooked for confirmation that some (the majority?) of cyclists using those facilities don't truly understand that they are still part of traffic and need to be aware of what's going on around them.