Vehicular Cycling (VC) - The Division

The division that exists among cyclists today seems to be not so much about vehicular cycling techniques, but about the controversy over bike facilities vs. road use. Nobody seems to oppose practical methods of road riding, and most people here use the roads, even if they also use bike facilities. Many of us can agree that the roads are useful and essential for our transportation and recreational needs. Many of us also see bike facilities as equally useful and essential.

Where we seem to part ways is over whether implementation of bike facilities will eventually result in our being restricted from using the road. We agree that being restricted from the road would be a very bad thing, but we don't agree on whether that's likely to happen.

The question I would like to pose is whether or not a "hybrid system" of bike facilities and roads is possible, or will the implementation of bike facilities coincide with fewer and fewer rights for us to use the road, if we so choose. Keep in mind that we are already required in some places to use facilities where they exist, and in other places, we have a choice which to use.

What do you say? Is it possible to have both sytems together, or in the long run, will it tend towards having one pure system, either road based or bike facility based? Please support your views with some instructional examples, if possible.

What do you say? Is it possible to have both sytems together, or in the long run, will it tend towards having one pure system, either road based or bike facility based? Please support your views with some instructional examples, if possible.
Is it possible? Of course it is, that's the system that exists today. There is little to no evidence of any significant trend to implement any "pure system" as the OP suggests.

There is a lot lot of wailing and gnashing of teeth over a few local restrictions that seem to upset a few Internet chatterers who live thousands of miles away far more than any real life cyclists in the affected area. Dwindling numbers of unenforced Side Path Laws, especially in the absence of sidepaths or any plans to build them really is not much of a trend to be concerned about.

The division that exists among cyclists today seems to be not so much about vehicular cycling techniques, but about the controversy over bike facilities vs. road use. Nobody seems to oppose practical methods of road riding, and most people here use the roads, even if they also use bike facilities. Many of us can agree that the roads are useful and essential for our transportation and recreational needs. Many of us also see bike facilities as equally useful and essential.

Where we seem to part ways is over whether implementation of bike facilities will eventually result in our being restricted from using the road. We agree that being restricted from the road would be a very bad thing, but we don't agree on whether that's likely to happen.

The question I would like to pose is whether or not a "hybrid system" of bike facilities and roads is possible, or will the implementation of bike facilities coincide with fewer and fewer rights for us to use the road, if we so choose. Keep in mind that we are already required in some places to use facilities where they exist, and in other places, we have a choice which to use.

What do you say? Is it possible to have both sytems together, or in the long run, will it tend towards having one pure system, either road based or bike facility based? Please support your views with some instructional examples, if possible. It's not just the concern that more and more implementation of bike facilities will coincide with fewer and few rights for us to use the road. The concern is deeper, and has more to do with societal attitudes and beliefs about the reasonableness of using bicycles vehicularly in traffic than legal rights.

The concerns are about the role that the creation and existence of facilities play in reinforcing and popularizing (even more) the following notions:
Bicyclists are sitting ducks in traffic, having no way to protect themselves from motorist errors.
It is inherently dangerous to ride a bike in traffic.
It is stupid and unreasonable to ride a bike in traffic.
Bikes don't belong in traffic.
These notions are contrary to the interests of bicycling advocacy. What we should be doing is working towards making more and more people realize the opposite:

Bicyclists who know what they are doing (practice VC) can reduce the risk to something very reasonable.
It is not inherently dangerous to ride a bike in traffic, if the cyclist knows what he is doing.
It is not stupid or unreasonable to ride a bike in traffic, if the cyclist knows what he is doing.
Bikes DO belong in vehicular traffic, when they are also operated in the vehicular manner.
I don't have an issue with a good bike path here and there, or even a bike lane on a long intersectionless stretch of road. My problem with having too many facilities, bike lanes all over the place, "hybrid systems", etc., is that their creation and mere existence reinforces the first set of notions above, and quashes the spreading of the notions in the second set.

My problem with having too many facilities, bike lanes all over the place, "hybrid systems", etc., is that their creation and mere existence reinforces the first set of notions above, and quashes the spreading of the notions in the second set.

I don't agree. We have both systems in place here and both systems are used. You find faster riders in the road and slower riders and families on the MUP.

Thanks for your input, I-Like-To-Bike, HH, and Deputy Jones. These are the kinds of straight-forward opinions I'm looking for. I really do want to know what everyone thinks, and why.

I was going to say... The "hybrid system" is already in place and is evolving, with the network of bike lanes, bike paths, and vehicular street access I have in my local. I believe that all practical solutions to basically all problems are hybrid solutions of various sorts. And neither the doomsayers nor the rose glasses folks are correct and the effect lies somewhere between the two extremes.


...that it's neither one nor the other
there's a paradox in every paradigm.

lyrics of Ani Difranco

I certainly don't think that bike facilities will lead to a ban of bicycles on the roadway. I just can't see there being facilities on every non-freeway road in America, and that is what I thnk it would take for such a ban to be enacted. And if there were that many facilities... well. :D

And neither the doomsayers nor the rose glasses folks are correct and the effect lies somewhere between the two extremes.

I second that opinion.

Although I suspect that there will be extremes across localities and over time. For instance, someone posted an editorial about Tampa and the responses were primarily of the "get off the road sort." In the DC area, there is a strong network of cyclists such that the responses would have been quite different.

Just to be clear, in regards to HH's post, I think that there is a negative component to the supposed "bike path" which never seems to be just for bikes. But I think that the effect is small. More generally, there is an inertia for maintaining the status quo which is a hybrid system. I find it difficult to believe that the present state can be moved much in either direction.

I think there is a reality that is all too easily dismissed by people who promote bike lanes and paths. This reality is that every cyclist, if they want to go anyplace they want by bike, will have to ride on a road with motor traffic and without any bike lane or MUP sooner or later and most likely sooner. To think that every urban environ has not only the physical space for, the need for or the money to construct facilities on or parallel to each and every road is preposterous on it's face.

To think that every urban environ has not only the physical space for, the need for or the money to construct facilities on or parallel to each and every road is preposterous on it's face.
To be more accurate, such a proposal is really just a big fat preposterous STRAW MAN ARGUMENT made up by Henny Penny's to get hysterical about and shoot down with ease.

A Hybrid system is possible.... as others have said, it's what we have now. I personally think the chance that having facilities will force cyclists off the road is remote, but who knows? that's a fight for the future if it EVER happens. Every road doesn't necessarily need facilities, just as every cyclist doesn't need/want facilities. My hope is that we can get beyond the bike lane debates, as that seems to be the source of most of the animosity around here (that and that guy... what'shisname)

To be more accurate, such a proposal is really just a big fat preposterous STRAW MAN ARGUMENT made up by Henny Penny's to get hysterical about and shoot down with ease.

1+ On certain roads, cyclists benefit from bike lanes. On other roads, not. Sometimes banning cars from certain roads helps both the neighborhood and cyclist alike. And, by golly, sometimes a bike path or MUP is the best of all options.

Hence, the hybrid part of "hybrid system."

My hope is that we can get beyond the bike lane debates, as that seems to be the source of most of the animosity around here (that and that guy... what'shisname)
We could get beyond the debates, and even if we decided that "what'shisname" was all wet and losing our right to the road is not a probability, that wouldn't make the division go away.

It's best to bring it out in the open and talk about it honestly. I think that can be done if we respect each other and agree to disagree. We have nothing to fear from that.

...

It's best to bring it out in the open and talk about it honestly. I think that can be done if we respect each other and agree to disagree. We have nothing to fear from that.
Certainly. But you'll not get there as long as ideologues (as found in msg #9 ) continue serving up plates of hot steaming "stuff" and claiming this is what the other guys really want.

Think of it this way. The folks that ban cyclists from road use are elected. The more people who ride bikes the larger the constituency of people who will not accept being banned from using the road. A hybrid system has the best outcome for everyone.

Think of it this way. The folks that ban cyclists from road use are elected. The more people who ride bikes the larger the constituency of people who will not accept being banned from using the road. A hybrid system has the best outcome for everyone.
Correction: The folks that theoretically "could" ban cyclists from road use ...

What do you say? Is it possible to have both systems together, or in the long run, will it tend towards having one pure system, either road based or bike facility based? Please support your views with some instructional examples, if possible.

Yes it is possible and indeed the reality at present in most of the United States. It's far from complete, of course, and like anything else will never be complete, but rather always a work in progress. There will never be one 'pure' system as long as the pro and anti <your preference here> learn to compromise then work together to speak with one unified voice to:

1. Guarantee our right to use the roads
2. Implement well-designed facilities and improve those that exist.

Unfortunately there does not seem to be much willingness to compromise among the hard-core on either side, and these extremists ensure that no compromise or unity can be reached. If that continues to be the case, there is only one logical outcome - a pure system of facilities that eliminate our right to use the roads. Why? Because the majority consider the roads too dangerous to ride, and given the choice of facilities vs losing their right to the road, they will give up the right to the road, especially since those who advocate so strongly for it seem to oppose them more than assist them. If we lose our right to the road, no 'side' will be able to blame it other, it will be everyone's fault...the facilities people for giving up the rights of others so easily, and the vc people for being inflexible and making it easy for the facilities people to give up their (vc) rights in exchange for getting their own wishes. There's the cold hard reality in my opinion. Until both sides reject the extremist positions and come to some compromise...the all-facilities option will be the future.

Think of it this way. The folks that ban cyclists from road use are elected. The more people who ride bikes the larger the constituency of people who will not accept being banned from using the road. A hybrid system has the best outcome for everyone.
Maybe, but also consider my neighbor who rides bikes with her kids on the sidewalks & MUP exclusively (in my 25mph residential neighborhood) just about every evening.
She has seen me cycling and told me I shouldn't be on the road - now that a MUP connector has been built between two parks to cross the freeway, she told me that cyclists should be banned from using the alternate roads. She also wants railings put up on all sidewalk curbs to prevent cyclists/peds from falling into street. Met her at a neighborhood party.
But on average I see your point.
Al

Thing is, the vast majority of our recent bike facilities appear to have nothing to do with effective transportation. What they've been doing is they've been taking wide roads that didn't need bike paths, and replacing them with narrow ones where you have no choice to take the lane, and they've been adding a segregated multi user facility next to it, so you're essentially riding on the sidewalk with stops every time it crosses any street. Also these segregated facilities don't get plowed, so they're useless for a good part of the year - now inclusively. Oh, but the designers were considerate enough to provide the occasional parking lots so people can go ride their bikes...


So yeah, seeing this progression from the old bike facilities to the new ones, well we still have a hybrid system here, but it looks like they're heading in a direction to get bikes off the roads, or at least to make using the roads less attractive and kinda forcing the alternative onto users. The horrible MUPs they've been installing are sure to stay for several decades, and oh you'd swear the people who though these up were on drugs... Obviously, having an anti-cyclist mayoress doesn't help at all. I recall a few months ago she mentioned something about banning bikes off from boulevards... Slippery slope.

Oh, there is still a strong motivation for cycling advocacy.

What did the local organization do when these MUPs were being designed and implemented?

Unfortunately there does not seem to be much willingness to compromise among the hard-core on either side, and these extremists ensure that no compromise or unity can be reached.

The first part of the sentence is true about a lot of subjects. And I doubt that the second part is true in a meaningful way.

If you put those two bullets in a poll for all of the forums, what do you think that "support" versus "don't support" will look like? It will never be 100%, but I think it would be much higher than the vote for any US President.

One thing I'd like to see......

A Coast to Coast touring trail away from auto traffic. Now, before I get blasted..this is NOT to avoid the road because I'm nervous about traffic. Instead, I'd like to see a trail that you can run a road bike down and not even see smell or hear a car! Camping facilities along the way and services available. I realize it's totally impractical, but wouldn't it be a great ride?:D

The first part of the sentence is true about a lot of subjects. And I doubt that the second part is true in a meaningful way.

If you put those two bullets in a poll for all of the forums, what do you think that "support" versus "don't support" will look like? It will never be 100%, but I think it would be much higher than the vote for any US President.

The second part is too true. We're not talking about a vote here (I wish it were that easy), we're talking about public debate in front of a governing body, which is where we normally have to make our case. So no matter what compromise that you and I come up with, the extremes from both our camps show up and undermine the whole thing, making us look fractured and like we don't represent the constituency we claim. Extremists have no problem jumping ship and going off on their own, claiming that the parent body no longer represents their interests. Indeed, perhaps (in the context of cycling advocacy) LAB itself might be an example of where this has happened. Isn't there now a LAB reform group that consists of former members who believe LAB no longer represents their best interests? I've seen such things happen in the NRA and other groups, as well as within the political parties themselves. Example: neocon Republicans who used to be Jackson Democrats.

Unfortunately there does not seem to be much willingness to compromise among the hard-core on either side, and these extremists ensure that no compromise or unity can be reached.
There are some of us who have been labeled as 'extremists' in BF who are OK with bike lanes on intersectionless faster roads. Who also support practical MUPs with well designed intersections (as long as they are infrequent)

I think one of the best things that could be done to improve bicycle facilities across most of the US is if those across the spectrum of support/unsupport of the sub set of bicycle facilities known as bike lanes worked together to eliminate the stripe where they have been implemented in clearly dangerous or inappropriate ways as agreed by 'everyone.' - examples as seen in threads such as "Bike Lake Follies (http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=179714)"

Eliminating these stripes will benefit all cyclists and would also strenghen the pro-bike lane stance greatly.

Al

The first part of the sentence is true about a lot of subjects. And I doubt that the second part is true in a meaningful way.

If you put those two bullets in a poll for all of the forums, what do you think that "support" versus "don't support" will look like? It will never be 100%, but I think it would be much higher than the vote for any US President.

I don't know about that. In a discussion, when the hardcore advocates on both sides start having at it, it forces even the moderate to take a side. The conversation becomes polarized and people either leave the room, are start moving out towards one wing or the other of the argument. For an example, look no further than the A&S forum.

In a different context, I'm pretty sure that most people, with one or two exceptions, will play the part of moderates. In the A&S forum though, with one or two extremists stirring the pot and forcing everyone to harden their positions, there can be no moderates. The one or two moderates left are either ignored or shouted at by both sides.

In this way, one or two extremists can absolutely work to ensure that there is absolutely no compromise. They fight from the wing, on principle, and to fight back, people have to take sides, which means backing into their own wing of extremists, and you have a shooting war. Therefor, no compromise.

There are some of us who have been labeled as 'extremists' in BF who are OK with bike lanes on intersectionless faster roads. Who also support practical MUPs with well designed intersections (as long as they are infrequent)

I think one of the best things that could be done to improve bicycle facilities across most of the US is if those across the spectrum of support/unsupport of the sub set of bicycle facilities known as bike lanes worked together to eliminate the stripe where they have been implemented in clearly dangerous or inappropriate ways as agreed by 'everyone.' - examples as seen in threads such as "Bike Lake Follies"

Eliminating these stripes will benefit all cyclists and would also strenghen the pro-bike lane stance greatly.

Al

Al, I don't know of anyone who would call you an extremist...well cept maybe Bek, but he thinks we're ALL gas-huffers. ;)

There are some of us who have been labeled as 'extremists' in BF who are OK with bike lanes on intersectionless faster roads. Who also support practical MUPs with well designed intersections (as long as they are infrequent)

I think one of the best things that could be done to improve bicycle facilities across most of the US is if those across the spectrum of support/unsupport of the sub set of bicycle facilities known as bike lanes worked together to eliminate the stripe where they have been implemented in clearly dangerous or inappropriate ways as agreed by 'everyone.' - examples as seen in threads such as "Bike Lake Follies"

Eliminating these stripes will benefit all cyclists and would also strenghen the pro-bike lane stance greatly.

Al

The difference between a moderate and an extremist is that an extremist already knows exactly what he or she will compromise for and not compromise for. A moderate arrives at a compromise after considerable discussion amongst a group of people.

An extremist is necessary to get the discussion into a certain particular ball park. For example, nothing but an extremist can get the public discourse off the view of "get bikes off the road" to the view of "bikes belong." After that though, the extremists need to step back and let the moderates work out the details.

There are some of us who have been labeled as 'extremists' in BF who are OK with bike lanes on intersectionless faster roads. Who also support practical MUPs with well designed intersections (as long as they are infrequent)

I think one of the best things that could be done to improve bicycle facilities across most of the US is if those across the spectrum of support/unsupport of the sub set of bicycle facilities known as bike lanes worked together to eliminate the stripe where they have been implemented in clearly dangerous or inappropriate ways as agreed by 'everyone.' - examples as seen in threads such as "Bike Lake Follies"

Eliminating these stripes will benefit all cyclists and would also strenghen the pro-bike lane stance greatly.

Al


I would agree that some bike facilities are poorly designed and might be better off eliminated (like those on Country Club Way, a 25mph road here in Tempe); however, I think bike lanes can be useful and of benefit to cyclists in more cases than you do; but still there's some common ground.

I would agree that some bike facilities are poorly designed and might be better off eliminated (like those on Country Club Way, a 25mph road here in Tempe); however, I think bike lanes can be useful and of benefit to cyclists in more cases than you do; but still there's some common ground.
I am not even talking about removing bike lanes on intersectionless 25mph roads. (although the Country Club BLs are fully in the door zone, but fortunately on street parking is spotty)

I am talking about the worst of the worst:
-2ft wide BL on Chandler Blvd just east of I-10
-BL to the right of a RTOL in Mesa on Guadelupe (I forgot x-street but I ride by it often during weekend club rides)
And many more worst case examples that no one (at least that particpates in BF) would agree should remain.

Al

what would be great is for city planners and engineers to consult daily cyclists like you and many others on this board in their local communities so that dangerous facilities like those never get built in the first place. How can we get That to happen? those are the kinds of issues we all need to be involved with locally I think.

what would be great is for city planners and engineers to consult daily cyclists like you and many others on this board in their local communities so that stupid facilities like those never get built in the first place. How can we get That to happen?
Standards that go beyond AASTHO.
I think in metro-phx it is very difficult seeing how developers rule. For example, when a developer puts in a new shoppping center, who is responsible to ensure their access points re-adjust the existing BL? I never see these things go for public review or even review by transport commitee. I've read/heard that the developer is responsible to meet, but meet what? from what I've seen a lesser standard than is currently required for new streets being built by city.
Like the apartments put in on University west of Mill avenue on the south side. They added on street parking just inside the bike lane, now the BL is fully in a door zone. What process would have stopped this?
Al

Like the apartments put in on University west of Mill avenue on the south side. They added on street parking just inside the bike lane, now the BL is fully in a door zone. What process would have stopped this?
Al

It's usually called "design review" and is typically the responsibility of the planning board/commission, often assigned to a committee. Sometimes major projects must also be approved by the local legislative body (e.g. city council, county commissioners/supervisors), and planning decisions can generally be appealed to such bodies.

Almost always, the plans are available for public inspection and comment.

If you don't catch the problems at this early stage, fixing them gets much harder.

It's usually called "design review" and is typically the responsibility of the planning board/commission, often assigned to a committee. Sometimes major projects must also be approved by the local legislative body (e.g. city council, county commissioners/supervisors), and planning decisions can generally be appealed to such bodies.

Almost always, the plans are available for public inspection and comment.

If you don't catch the problems at this early stage, fixing them gets much harder.
Oh I understand this, I just don't see how cycling interest can review the thousands of projects yearly. At least with the system as it is today.

For (somewhat related) example a private drive was added entering the arterial I ride on every morning. It started as a dirt drive heavily used by trucks. Debris and soon severe pavement damage occured. I called city (bike coordinator) to get problem addressed (made entire outside lane unusable by bike). City rep called me and said it was the responsibilty of the private drive owner, etc. They were notified, they cleaned up, then 1wk later it was back to bad, repeat. Eventually construction was over, but replacement pavement is 1.5" lower than road. Bike lane continues across (now heavily used) private drive, thru cuts, drop and rough pavement. Call by me were responded that it meets. I know 90% of this was not a planning issue, maybe lack of post work inspection?
Al

The difference between a moderate and an extremist is that an extremist already knows exactly what he or she will compromise for and not compromise for. A moderate arrives at a compromise after considerable discussion amongst a group of people.

An extremist is necessary to get the discussion into a certain particular ball park. For example, nothing but an extremist can get the public discourse off the view of "get bikes off the road" to the view of "bikes belong." After that though, the extremists need to step back and let the moderates work out the details.
As the lobsters are moved from the trap to the net to the bucket and finally the pot, there are the extremists who are pointing out that this is not good, the other extremists claiming it's wonderful, and the moderates asking the extremists to step back and let the moderates work out the details. Meanwhile, the water is getting warmer, so slowly that most of the lobsters don't even notice, and ignore the warnings of the first group of extremists as just uttering Henny Penny nonsense.

Indeed, it is easy to look at an existing hybrid system and say, "see, it works".
But the more useful observation is to look back 20-30 years, remember the attitudes about cyclists riding vehicularly in the road back then, compare them to today, and extrapolate to 20-30 years from now.

The water is getting warmer. But don't listen to me, I'm just an "extremist".

Oh I understand this, I just don't see how cycling interest can review the thousands of projects yearly. At least with the system as it is today.
As you suggest, it's really difficult. One helpful procedure, in communities with "bicycle and pedestrian advisory commissions" (or similar titles), is to route new projects through those groups for review before planning approval.


For (somewhat related) example a private drive was added entering the arterial I ride on every morning. It started as a dirt drive heavily used by trucks. Debris and soon severe pavement damage occured. I called city (bike coordinator) to get problem addressed (made entire outside lane unusable by bike). City rep called me and said it was the responsibilty of the private drive owner, etc. They were notified, they cleaned up, then 1wk later it was back to bad, repeat. Eventually construction was over, but replacement pavement is 1.5" lower than road. Bike lane continues across (now heavily used) private drive, thru cuts, drop and rough pavement. Call by me were responded that it meets. I know 90% of this was not a planning issue, maybe lack of post work inspection?
Al
Yep, crummy inspection process -- and officials who have lots to do and don't see that issue as high-priority. Gotta up the ante.

In similar situations, when initial contact doesn't bring a useful response, I include photos with my subsequent messages to public works, send copies to (1) city manager and/or mayor, (2) city attorney, (3) local news editor of the local paper. I point out, not very subtly, that death, serious injury and/or expensive property damage are predictable consequences of failure to correct the situation, for which the municipality will likely be liable. I also remind them that my messages may well be determined, in possible future litigation with injured parties, to constitute "notice" of the defect(s), in the legal sense.

Usually, this is sufficient to spur them to take corrective action in a reasonable period of time. Of course, I'm not on their holiday card lists. :)

EDIT: OTOH, they usually totally ignore me when I tell them to stop painting bike lane stripes.

As the lobsters are moved from the trap to the net to the bucket and finally the pot, there are the extremists who are pointing out that this is not good, the other extremists claiming it's wonderful, and the moderates asking the extremists to step back and let the moderates work out the details. Meanwhile, the water is getting warmer, so slowly that most of the lobsters don't even notice, and ignore the warnings of the first group of extremists as just uttering Henny Penny nonsense.

Indeed, it is easy to look at an existing hybrid system and say, "see, it works".
But the more useful observation is to look back 20-30 years, remember the attitudes about cyclists riding vehicularly in the road back then, compare them to today, and extrapolate to 20-30 years from now.

The water is getting warmer. But don't listen to me, I'm just an "extremist".

:rolleyes:

30 years ago perhaps. San Diego perhaps. I love analogies. It makes a person seem smarter. Where to start responding to this one. Should I respond, seems to be a one-off zinger to make me feel bad. Perhaps if I point out that we are not lobsters. No, he'll just attack me for being difficult. Perhaps if I show that he's wrong with his analogy. I guess...

Okay, here goes: The analogy is wrong because there was no net. There is no pot, and there is no water getting warmer. We used to be in the pot. Some fighting got us out of the pot and now we are cooling off.

And again: What if the water wasn't getting hot due to it being a boiling pot, but because the sun came out. Should we rush out of the water to dry up on the beach because of the minisule possiblity that we might have been part of a conspiricy theory that might have put us in a pot without our knowing it and who might now have turned up the flame to make the pot boiling? Perhaps I just stay aware of the temperature and my surroundings in a way that humans are capable of but lobsters are not and just jump out when it really does appear that we are getting boiled. At least then we don't jump prematurely and end up dried up on the beach.

I dunno how to fight this analogy. Is it right? Is it wrong? Is it even relevent? I dunno. I guess I just keep riding the way I do and keep seeing things get better as the years go by (I did mention that it is noticeably easier to ride here than it was 8 years ago, didn't I?), and keep out of the crossfire. I haven't seen a road be rebuilt to make it worse for bicyclists, I guess that is something. Bicycles are making the newspaper on a regular basis, and the local advocates here raise a stink to get bicyclists considered on major new road developments, so I guess that is good. Shoot, I haven't even been honked at or yelled at for the last month of commuting; I only commute two or three days a week, but I guess that's something. 8 years ago, I used to get honked at on a regular basis. Even got lectured by some redfaced man who got out of his car and didn't care if I called the police or not. My coworkers seem to accept that I commute. The customers at the restaurant I work at once a week don't seem to mind, at least the regulars I talk to and have gotten to know. You know, I don't even feel like cycling is such a big deal anymore, just something I do, like driving, except I get a bit sweaty, so I wear bike cloths, since, well, I have to change cloths anyway, might as well wear stuff that is comfortable, since I have it already.

Gosh, is the sky falling? Is the bad guys coming with the pot and the net and the water boiling to cook me. How do lobsters fight that anyway? Don't the cooks tie up their claws and put lids on the pots? Hard to fight when the bad men tie your hands and lock you up, but we've got lawyers. Some even work especially on bike cases, so if the bad men arrest the good cyclist, they fight to get them released. I dunno. I guess I'll just bike and let that be my advocacy.

IMO there isn't even enough information available to argue about bike lanes. Everybody has an opinion but nobody really knows anything. We need a lot more studies before authoritive statements can be made. Meanwhile, each rider owes it to him/herself to learn to ride effectively in the many situations we face on a daily basis.

And the real truth is that over 90 % of the cyclists in America aren't riding on either bike lanes or riding VC. They're riding on the sidewalks. Shut up for a minute and look around you and you'd see that this is true. This is wnere advocacy needs to start--education of cyclists to get them off the sidewalks and riding effectively in the streets AND in the bike lanes.

I love analogies. It makes a person seem smarter.
Are you speaking for yourself? Smarter than what? Anyway, yeah, I guess you do have to have a certain level of intelligence to create, understand and use analogies. But in computer science, we use them all the time, so it seems like regular stuff to me.


Should I respond, seems to be a one-off zinger to make me feel bad.
I never want anyone to feel bad, certainly not you. By the way, for future reference, referring to people as "extremists" probably doesn't make them feel good, in case you're interested.


I dunno how to fight this analogy. Is it right? Is it wrong? Is it even relevent? I dunno.
Now you're thinking. That's the point. If I'm right, we can't really know, but by the time we figure it out, it will be too late.

I just believe that marginalizing a behavior - and make no mistake that that's exactly what bike lanes do with respect to cycling - can only lead to more expectations for more marginalizing. It becomes the norm. Marginalizing becomes officially sanctioned. There may be short-term exceptions to this general trend here and there, but in the long run, it can only go one way, and that way is not good. If you don't want to believe me, fine, but please stay alert.

I just believe that marginalizing a behavior - and make no mistake that that's exactly what bike lanes do with respect to cycling - can only lead to more expectations for more marginalizing. It becomes the norm. Marginalizing becomes officially sanctioned.
You are wrong in so many ways it's not even funny.

IMO there isn't even enough information available to argue about bike lanes. Everybody has an opinion but nobody really knows anything.

Actually, we know quite a lot about bike lanes. And those of us who value our right to use the roads, especially those who live in one of the six or seven states where the law mandates that we use them where "provided," are quite likely to continue arguing, energetically, against them.

Did I call anyone an extremist? :)

What's the net? What's the pot? Who's the bad man turning up the heat slowly? Why do it slowly? Don't cooks usually boil the water then throw the lobster in? Perhaps I am slow, please, spell out just what the analogy is here.

You can make mistakes, arguing by analogy. Very, serious mistakes. Like those guys who argued over a bike lane in front of the city government and got the worse of all worlds, the bike banned from the road and a restriction to a 3 foot wide sidepath shared with pedestrians. Apparently, it's happened before, or something similar, as chipcom has documented during his time in politics; is this good? Did your guys win?

I don't feel marginalized. I ride where I want on the road without harassment. I take the lane in the midst of exactly no honks or threats. I don't get tickets for not using the bike lane. I certainly benefit from bike lanes; did I mention that they get swept? I see lots more cyclists than I used to. Cycling is in the papers regularly, for good reasons. Just last Saturday, there was a nice article in our local paper about the proposed bike rentals in downtown Portland. When roads are rebuilt, they are easier to bike on, yes, with bike lanes, at that. Even on those roads, with big, wide bike lanes that are swept and respected by cars, I leave the bike lane to make left turns and narry a person turns their head; I get treated like ordinary traffic.

Bottom line, lobsters are dumb, people are smart. You're analogy is not right... Not where I live.


I just believe that marginalizing a behavior - and make no mistake that that's exactly what bike lanes do with respect to cycling - can only lead to more expectations for more marginalizing. It becomes the norm. Marginalizing becomes officially sanctioned. There may be short-term exceptions to this general trend here and there, but in the long run, it can only go one way, and that way is not good. If you don't want to believe me, fine, but please stay alert.

I love this; this just after saying you cannot know if you are right. Then this... like you are a guru of some sort or another. Is 8 years "short term"? It's almost a third of the thirty that VC has been around in its current form. Come to think of it, 22 years before the 8, it was worse off than 8 years ago! It sounds like things are kinda getting better, doesn't it?

But there are consequences of your analogy being wrong. You expend so much time and energy fighting popular projects that you set yourself back 30 years. You are disassembling the whole car just so that you can use all metric fasteners here. What's the point? If the terrible Bike Lanes marginalize cyclists, then so do your beloved Wide Outside Lanes, as they, too, put a cyclist off to the side, and furthermore, force a cyclist to share a lane with another vehicle; a truly unique spectre when compared to all other vehicle types.

Your hedge carries consequences. My guess is that the so-called "auto-centric" cities like LA and Pheonix are suffering because your advocates refuse to stand in the way of the expansion of automobiling facilities, in favor of doing nothing but asking all cyclists to buy a $40 book and take a $80 class (or two!) in order to set wheel to the road before they have a chance to even decide whether they want to ride or not!

There are consequences to underreacting, yes, but there are also consequences to overreacting as well. You forgot that part.

One thing I'd like to see......

A Coast to Coast touring trail away from auto traffic. Now, before I get blasted..this is NOT to avoid the road because I'm nervous about traffic. Instead, I'd like to see a trail that you can run a road bike down and not even see smell or hear a car! Camping facilities along the way and services available. I realize it's totally impractical, but wouldn't it be a great ride?:D

I think a trail like that would be .....BORING...boring...BORING....

Who wants to ride through the middle of nowhere and see nothing? That's one reason rail-trails suck so badly. They are always constructed in a valley.

You are wrong in so many ways here it's not even funny.

women have been marginalized so long they don't even recognize it any more....

1+ On certain roads, cyclists benefit from bike lanes. On other roads, not. Sometimes banning cars from certain roads helps both the neighborhood and cyclist alike. And, by golly, sometimes a bike path or MUP is the best of all options.

Hence, the hybrid part of "hybrid system."

By golly just ride your bike down the road and be done with all this nonsense..... even the mentally challenged can do it.

Actually, a hybrid is what I would find to be the ideal. I want a choice, not to be stuck with either one or the other. I think most people want to have choices.

And I like the idea of a coast-to-coast bike trail. Kinda like the Pacific Crest Trail for bikes.

I think a trail like that would be .....BORING...boring...BORING....

Who wants to ride through the middle of nowhere and see nothing? That's one reason rail-trails suck so badly. They are always constructed in a valley.
Well, it could run through some terrain, and give Natl Park access with minimal impact....a lot of advantages here if conceptualized right!:D

I think a trail like that would be .....BORING...boring...BORING....

Who wants to ride through the middle of nowhere and see nothing? That's one reason rail-trails suck so badly. They are always constructed in a valley.
I don't think it would be boring at all, Perhaps not practical or much used, but hardly boring.

I love wilderness, wide open places. A path thru an uninhabited valley would be a wonderful place to be. Although a path would make it a wilderness no more, which is why I'd much rather have the path adjacent to an existing interstate freeway.

Al

1+ On certain roads, cyclists benefit from bike lanes. On other roads, not. Sometimes banning cars from certain roads helps both the neighborhood and cyclist alike. And, by golly, sometimes a bike path or MUP is the best of all options.

Hence, the hybrid part of "hybrid system."
Brian, it is a good thing you and I live where we do. :)

I think a trail like that would be .....BORING...boring...BORING....

Who wants to ride through the middle of nowhere and see nothing? That's one reason rail-trails suck so badly. They are always constructed in a valley.
And you actually think the view from the highway is any better? :rolleyes:

And you actually think the view from the highway is any better? :rolleyes:

Nobody said anything about a 'Highway' (other than you) but there you go again....

Existing roads connect towns. Towns are fun. There are things to do in towns and things to see. Historic buildings. Nice resturants. B & B's. Existing roads go over mountains. Incidentally, most people like the view from on top better than at the bottom. Wilderness is fun too for camping or fishing but to unnecesarily add additional infrastructure to wilderness areas just to accommodate cyclists is dumb.