Vehicular Cycling (VC) - VC vs. Hurst's "Art of urban cycling"

Maybe the problem isn't you getting all of us to understand and agree with your viewpoint afterall, have you ever though that the bigger problem is that you won't understand other viewpoints?

Oh wait, of course that isn't the problem! Haha I'm an idiot :rolleyes:
I resent this. I try very hard to understand other viewpoints. In a thread like this, I read every post, most posts multiple times. When I find something that doesn't make sense to me, I ask about it, all in an effort to understand other viewpoints. If I'm not understanding another viewpoint, it is not due to my lack of trying to understand.

Maybe the problem isn't you getting all of us to understand and agree with your viewpoint afterall, have you ever though that the bigger problem is that you won't understand other viewpoints? i'm with natelutkjohn on this one, head. he illuminates one of your character flaws.

HH, a smug and nasty tone is difficult enough to take from someone who is right.

No, you and Forester are saying completely different things, which you would know if you had read this thread as carefully and mind-numbingly as I did.

First of all, he noted that lane marking is irrelevant, not in terms of bikelanes, but for the action of passing on the right, citing the UVC's explicit use of the term "lines of traffic" rather than "lanes of traffic."

More importantly, he interpreted the requirement to ride as near as practicable within a single lane very differently than you do with respect to lane-splitting cyclists. He wrote: "The purpose of this statute is to prevent a driver from simultaneously occupying two lanes and blocking traffic in both of them. When the lanes are not narrow, a cyclist riding between two lines of vehicles does not occupy two lanes simultaneously. This is quite evident when the motor traffic is going faster than the cyclist, because the traffic in both lanes is overtaking him without delay."

You are saying that the lane-splitter passing traffic in both lanes while riding on the line is occupying both lanes, is afoul of the law, and is non-vehicular. He is saying the lane-splitter isn't occupying either lane, and the law is irrelevant.

So now you should morph your definition of 'vehicular' to match his. Or are you going to start arguing with Einstein about Relativity?

Robert
I apologize for the tone. You are also correct about what Forester meant. I misunderstood. I was wrong. Thank you for taking the time to explain this to me. I hope others are taking note. I sure am. This is how these discussions should go.

So, Mr. Forester considers lane splitting on or near the stripe, while in one lane and encroaching at least partially into another, to be vehicular, because it is consistent with the spirit of the law, whose purpose is to prevent occupation of two lanes by one driver. So on those few occasions when I lane-split the rules and am thus breaking the rules of what I consider to be VC, I'm not breaking the rules of what Mr. Forester considers to be VC. The real difference between these views is not about lane splitting, but hair splitting.

The larger point remains: contrary to the depiction of vehicular-cycling that you criticize in your book, and the one to which you still seem to adhere in this thread, lane-splitting is not inherently inconsistent with the principles of vehicular-cycling.

i'm with natelutkjohn on this one, head. he illuminates one of your character flaws.
I don't know what to tell you Bek. I try, I really try to understand the viewpoints of others. Do you?

maybe you shouldn't try so hard, and just accept people have different points of view from yours, instead of incessantly trying to prove fallibility in others and impeccability in yours.

I split lanes, quite often, a lot more often than you, mr. head. I split traffic at lights after they've turned green like you did, and don't consider that move a 'vehicular' one. neither do several of the other posters.

do you dig? some vehicular cyclists think splitting lanes of traffic after the light has turned green to advance on two cars is NOT vehicular, it is selfish cyclist expediency.

maybe you shouldn't try so hard, and just accept people have different points of view from yours, instead of incessantly trying to prove fallibility in others and impeccability in yours.

I split lanes, quite often, a lot more often than you, mr. head. I split traffic at lights after they've turned green like you did, and don't consider that move a 'vehicular' one. neither do several of the other posters.

do you dig? some vehicular cyclists think splitting lanes of traffic after the light has turned green to advance on two cars is NOT vehicular, it is selfish cyclist expediency.
I don't have a problem with this view.

I do have a problem with saying this view is consistent with Forester's, when it's not.

I'm not saying that. john forester doesn't define 'vehicular cycling' unless you take his POV as gospel and dogma.

riding vehicularily is riding on the road like a vehicle, same rights, same rules. splitting at lights after they've turned green to advance on two cars is selfish cycling behavior. the commonly accepted vehicular position is to slow your advance and wait behind the two cars until traffic has picked up speed and continue on your way.

doesn't trad wisdom on riding in traffic often have vehicular cyclists waiting in lines of traffic? now it's okay to split lanes to advance on a couple of cars- after the light has turned green- to get to the front of the queue?

I honestly think you've argued the contrary point in this forum before.....that cyclists should dutifilly wait their turn in traffic, and line up behind the stopped traffic at lights, and not split......are you becomming a better traffic cyclist, mr. head? getting more skillsets to be an adaptive cyclist, split some lanes in the door zones, expediency first?

regardless, this thread is about a pedantic, acerbic, emotionally dishonest author that's out of print; and comparing his works to a author that's provides a contemporary, concise, well written analysis of riding in flow with 21st century traffic dynamics.

I do have a problem with saying this view is consistent with Forester's, when it's not.

I'm not saying that.

I know, but Robert is. And most of his criticism in his book for what he describes as Forester's concept of vehicular-cycling is based on this kind of misunderstanding of it.


john forester doesn't define 'vehicular cycling' unless you take his POV as gospel and dogma.
John Forester coined the phrase. He is cited by Hurst as the definer of the term and source for what the practices and techniques are. Then he criticizes that. When he steps into the ring wearing red, he shouldn't be surprised when the bull attacks. No one asked him to step into the ring and take up the cause of criticizing something he does not understand.


riding vehicularily is riding on the road like a vehicle, same rights, same rules. splitting at lights after they've turned green to advance on two cars is selfish cycling behavior.
Splitting at lights after they've turned green to pass a slow right turner on the left (which is what we've been talking about) is normal vehicular behavior for drivers of vehicles narrow enough to do this (motorcycles, motorscooters, bicycles and even cars when the right lane happens to be wide enough).


doesn't trad wisdom on riding in traffic often have vehicular cyclists waiting in lines of traffic? now it's okay to split lanes to advance on a couple of cars- after the light has turned green- to get to the front of the queue?

I honestly think you've argued the contrary point in this forum before.....that cyclists should dutifilly wait their turn in traffic, and line up behind the stopped traffic at lights, and not split......are you becomming a better traffic cyclist, mr. head? getting more skillsets to be an adaptive cyclist, split some lanes in the door zones, expediency first?

There are many reasons to wait your turn. In this case, I wasn't splitting lanes in order to pass anyone except the slow right turner to my right who I was passing whether I stayed in the left lane or moved right. I was moving right because I was turning right at the next block, and I didn't want to unnecessarily hold up faster through traffic in the left lane. I could have waited until I was in the intersection or passed the intersection to move right, but there was empty space to my right, so I used it now. Why wait?



egardless, this thread is about a pedantic, acerbic, emotionally dishonest author that's out of print; and comparing his works to a author that's provides a contemporary, concise, well written analysis of riding in flow with 21st century traffic dynamics.

Nope. Per the OP:


The topic of this thread is to compare the style/practice/methods/techniques/philosophy of vehicular cycling to both vehicular cycling as described in Hurst's book, and to the style/practice/methods/techniques/philosophy that he advocates.
This is exactly what we've been talking about.

comparing forester's version of cycling to hurst's.

remember, mr. head- although he pontificates an awful lot, john forester does NOT possess the holy grail on how to ride vehicularily.

Forester is apparently no longer a transportational cyclist. Sounds like he long ago traded his bike in for an SUV where he can drive down to the big box mall and fill up with cases and crates of stuff. Nothing wrong with that, except how can one call himself a bicycle advocate but not know if the autocentric development one embraces is even bikable? Similarly, if one has not cycled in an area with modern cycling facilities, like Portland, how can one criticize its bikeability, design or usefulness?

Finally, in the USA we have democracy, and if the people of Portland want this for their community, witness the results, and want more, how is this a bad thing? To me this speaks more to the success of what they have accomplished than 1000 Forester Internet logic exercises.

And finally, why does the word of someone whose empirical evidence consists mostly of driving an automobile on modern, auto-centric roadways, and who speaks for auto-centric roadway promoters whenever he can, carry so much weight among any cyclists at all? The words of such a person are not even worth discussing.

...in the USA we have democracy, and if the people of Portland want this for their community, witness the results, and want more, how is this a bad thing?
good point


Forester is apparently no longer a transportational cyclist. Sounds like he long ago traded his bike in for an SUV where he can drive down to the big box mall and fill up with cases and crates of stuff.
Bad call. Judgemental. I should be lucky enough to be able to ride a bike at 77.

My dad had to cut way back on walking, got osteoarthritis in his hip. He's 82. He used to ride/walk religiously in the 70's, we never had a second car, and my mom never really drove the one we had. Their parents didn't own cars at all.

The spirit is still willing, but the body has it's issues. And for many of us, that's right around the corner.

And finally, why does the word of someone whose empirical evidence consists mostly of driving an automobile on modern, auto-centric roadways, and who speaks for auto-centric roadway promoters whenever he can, carry so much weight among any cyclists at all? The words of such a person are not even worth discussing.
When another poster mentioned the American Dream Coalition, I thought he was kidding. Lo, and behold, there was the website. So I took a gander.

I couldn't believe suburbia needed promoting by anyone. That would be like running behind a truck and pushing it to make it go faster.

But something occurred to me. Cycling was a very good form of transportation that these people should know about, other than just the automobile. But I couldn't see how I could influence them, so I forgot about it.

When I heard JF had spoken to them, I had to step back and wonder if I was missing out on opportunities.

ok, I have read hurst's book but not forresters... I want to know what are the real differences between the two?

Hurst has a few techniques for some situations but mostly seems to point out what to watch for...
and some of his solutions seem to be old approaches. A book written by John Allen about bicycle commuting describes different levels of ability and how to recognize traffic within your capability and alternatives from a straight VC approach (presumably as I have forrester's book on order...). Its an older book and describes a similar approach to a "submissive" left turn (for Allen's level 2 rider).

- the other stuff like the "fake right turn" is so limited in application that I haven't used it...
- the 4 way stop handling, I don't see it as any better than if you approached as a "vehicle" and stopped...
- the technique to help with "the gap effect", limited because I am in a suburban type of environment and you don't always have a vehicle you can use as a "shield" going straight...

The larger point remains: contrary to the depiction of vehicular-cycling that you criticize in your book, and the one to which you still seem to adhere in this thread, lane-splitting is not inherently inconsistent with the principles of vehicular-cycling.

What happened to that whole thing about riding 'predictably' for motorists? Can something which royally freaks them out be called predictable? I'd say no.

Robert

comparing forester's version of cycling to hurst's.

remember, mr. head- although he pontificates an awful lot, john forester does NOT possess the holy grail on how to ride vehicularily.
That depends on your definition of what it means "to ride vehicularly".

Just like you possess the holy grail on what Bekologist means by vehicular-cycling, I posses the holy grail on what I mean by vehicular-cycling, and Robert possesses the holy grail on what he means by vehicular-cycling, Mr. Forester possesses the holy grail on what Mr. Forester means by vehicular-cycling.

This issue is relevant to the many comments and passages in Robert's book where he criticizes vehicular-cycling with respect to whether he is criticizing what Mr. Forester means by vehicular-cycling, as Robert claims he is doing. I think Robert is actually criticizing what he understands to be vehicular-cycling, which is substantially different from what Mr. Forester means by vehicular-cycling. As just one example, Robert believes lane-splitting is contrary to the principles of vehicular-cycling; Mr. Forester does not.

A wet, collapsing soapbox.

I know, but Robert is. And most of his criticism in his book for what he describes as Forester's concept of vehicular-cycling is based on this kind of misunderstanding of it.

I seem to have been explaining his concept to you, not the other way around. If there is misunderstanding, there is plenty to go around. BTW, it's easy to 'misunderstand' the esoteric implications of an individual's reading of a set of written laws.



There are many reasons to wait your turn. In this case, I wasn't splitting lanes in order to pass anyone except the slow right turner to my right who I was passing whether I stayed in the left lane or moved right. I was moving right because I was turning right at the next block, and I didn't want to unnecessarily hold up faster through traffic in the left lane. I could have waited until I was in the intersection or passed the intersection to move right, but there was empty space to my right, so I used it now. Why wait?


Why not stay in the right lane in the first place? Slow down a bit then move around the right turners when you get your chance. If you want to ride like a messenger, become a messenger.

Robert

What happened to that whole thing about riding 'predictably' for motorists? Can something which royally freaks them out be called predictable? I'd say no.

Robert Not all forms of lane-splitting royally freak out motorists. First, there are two kinds of lane splitting:
Splitting one lane into two lines of traffic by "lane sharing".
Splitting two lanes into two halves by riding on or near the stripe that separates them.Lane-splitting per (1) rarely if ever freaks any one out. In fact, the most common form of lane sharing is initiated by motorists when they pass cyclists in wide lanes.

I will agree that IF your lane-splitting is done in a manner that is unpredictable to others, or royally freaks them out, then that arguably is not vehicular cycling. But I think that applies to the type of crazed messenger lane-splitting popularily distributed in a video clip of a NYC bike messenger race a few years ago.

The other factor is whether you're obeying the speed limit "for conditions". If you slowly ride down the middle of cars stopped in congested traffic at or near ped speeds, that doesn't freak them out. If you zoom down the middle at 20 mph, that's something else again.

Lane-splitting can be fast, crazy, dangerous, unpredictable and nonvehicular, as well as slow, cautious, safe, predictable and vehicular.

head, blowing thru a traffic signal after it's turned green by lane splitting to advance on two cars in the left lane and get ahead of the cars in the right lane is NOT vehicular. its expedient, selfish, adaptive cycling. I do it often :D

and what the heck are you talking about?
But I think that applies to the type of crazed messenger lane-splitting popularily distributed a few years ago.

armchair cycling.

john, can you explain why portland is widely considered 'america's most bikeable city', how bicycling has flourished there, how indexed accident rates have declined for bicyclists in portland, concurrent with the addition of bike infrastructure?

I understand cause and effect, I know what makes cities and communities more bikeable by more people. I see the clear as day effects in communities that have encouraged massive increases in bicycling as transportation via the use of bike-specific enhancements to the transportation network.

I clearly understand why Portland is widely considered to be America's most bikeable city. Because Portland has done what bicycle advocates want, they declare it to be extremely bikeable. Obvious cause and effect. But this has nothing to do with actually improving conditions for bicycle transportation. It is largely the product of accommodating the desires of those who don't cycle properly, and look at some of the results, like the bike lanes that are so dangerous that they have been painted blue. When I cycled in Portland, back when all this was in the talking stage, I saw no problems that the proposed bike-lane system would fix. If I remember correctly, I did see a grate that needed fixing, maybe more than one. If I remember correctly, this is the city where, on a ride with other cyclists, I carefully lowered my front wheel into the grate and spun the rear wheel, just as if there had been an accident, and waited for the crowd to collect.

You assert that the reduction in accident rate (an attempt at a reasonable estimate) is related to what you describe as "concurrent with the addition of bike infrastructure". If you have (about which I have never heard) reduced the rate of cyclists getting caught in defective drain grates, then it is reasonable to conclude that this is the result of either reducing the number of defective grates or of increase in skill by cyclists in avoiding such, or some mixture of both. However, and this is the point, since there is no engineering reason for believing that bike lanes decrease car-bike collisions (and some reason, as in the blue bike-lane situations, for increasing them), there is no reason to attribute the reduction in accidents to the bike lanes rather than to other concurrent factors.

I notice, of course, that, while your claim referred to "cities in America and around the globe", the only supporting evidence that you have advanced is this spurious claim about Portland. This is exactly the attitude that I have been criticizing throughout this discussion, the results of which demonstrate the failings of the bikeway advocacy pursued by bicycle advocates.

:roflmao:

you spun your wheel in a grate, and waited for a crowd to gather?

you also insist that 'nothing has been done to actually improve conditions for bicycling' in portland?

john, you are seriously deluding yourself with that Quixotic facilities danmnification. Cities across the globe are putting cyclists back into the transportation mix with bike specific infrastructure and on-road enhancements for cycling.

I clearly understand why Portland is widely considered to be America's most bikeable city. Because Portland has done what bicycle advocates want, they declare it to be extremely bikeable. Obvious cause and effect. But this has nothing to do with actually improving conditions for bicycle transportation. It is largely the product of accommodating the desires of those who don't cycle properly, and look at some of the results, like the bike lanes that are so dangerous that they have been painted blue. When I cycled in Portland, back when all this was in the talking stage, I saw no problems that the proposed bike-lane system would fix. If I remember correctly, I did see a grate that needed fixing, maybe more than one. If I remember correctly, this is the city where, on a ride with other cyclists, I carefully lowered my front wheel into the grate and spun the rear wheel, just as if there had been an accident, and waited for the crowd to collect.

You assert that the reduction in accident rate (an attempt at a reasonable estimate) is related to what you describe as "concurrent with the addition of bike infrastructure". If you have (about which I have never heard) reduced the rate of cyclists getting caught in defective drain grates, then it is reasonable to conclude that this is the result of either reducing the number of defective grates or of increase in skill by cyclists in avoiding such, or some mixture of both. However, and this is the point, since there is no engineering reason for believing that bike lanes decrease car-bike collisions (and some reason, as in the blue bike-lane situations, for increasing them), there is no reason to attribute the reduction in accidents to the bike lanes rather than to other concurrent factors.

I notice, of course, that, while your claim referred to "cities in America and around the globe", the only supporting evidence that you have advanced is this spurious claim about Portland. This is exactly the attitude that I have been criticizing throughout this discussion, the results of which demonstrate the failings of the bikeway advocacy pursued by bicycle advocates.
To the extent that there is a "bicycling movement", and apparently there has been one in Portland for the last 10 or 15 years (with respect to increasing the number of people using bicycling for transportation) it is arguable that cycling-specific infrastructure plays an effective symbolic role, much as the ubiquitous peace sign did for the anti-war movement in the 60s.

If so, the question is whether effective pro-bicycling symbolism is an appropriate justification for roadway engineering.

If I remember correctly, I did see a grate that needed fixing, maybe more than one. If I remember correctly, this is the city where, on a ride with other cyclists, I carefully lowered my front wheel into the grate and spun the rear wheel, just as if there had been an accident, and waited for the crowd to collect.


John didn't you also, in another area, ride a bike path and declare that it was unsafe?

You have a interesting way of looking at things in an idealized way and seeing only your view.

Have you been back to Portland since to see if the grates had been modified... or do you still hold this solitary view of Portland?

Have you ever tried to ride a bike path like the typical student or utilitity rider to see if it works for them?

...bike lanes...so dangerous...have been painted blue.
:roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao:

I clearly understand why Portland is widely considered to be America's most bikeable city. Because Portland has done what bicycle advocates want, they declare it to be extremely bikeable. Obvious cause and effect.
So how do you explain why they have 4% commuting rate of bicycles when most places only have 1/2 of a percent? Even Santa Barbara only has 2% and we have a major university, 2 colleges and lots of environmentalists. And Portland doesn't even have good weather!

So how do you explain why they have 4% commuting rate of bicycles when most places only have 1/2 of a percent? Even Santa Barbara only has 2% and we have a major university, 2 colleges and lots of environmentalists. And Portland doesn't even have good weather!
Isn't it much easier to get around in a car in Santa Barbara than in Portland?
I thought parking in downtown Portland was a pain, and expensive.
Also, Portland has that concentrated high density downtown where parking is a problem. Santa Barbara is considerably more sprawled out.

So how do you explain why they have 4% commuting rate of bicycles when most places only have 1/2 of a percent? Even Santa Barbara only has 2% and we have a major university, 2 colleges and lots of environmentalists. And Portland doesn't even have good weather!
Don't forget Tempe, AZ with a 3.5% non-student bicycle commuter rate. 165mi of bike ways/lanes. Silver level LAB awarded (http://bicyclefriendlycommunity.org/AllBicycleFriendlyCommunities.htm). (only 17 cities in US are equal or better) Doesn't match with reality on the ground: sub-standard BL widths, standard, but still too narrow, 4' BLs along arterials, a few rememenant BLs to the right of RTOLs, BL striped thru major intersections, 5' door zone bike lanes, no sensors in BLs at intersections.

Oh, I know, BLs on 25mph streets enourage more riders and get them on the street instead of the wrong way on the sidewalk.

Al

I seem to have been explaining his concept to you, not the other way around. If there is misunderstanding, there is plenty to go around. BTW, it's easy to 'misunderstand' the esoteric implications of an individual's reading of a set of written laws.
You explained one relatively minor concept to me that I misunderstood about what Mr. Forester was saying. Thank you again for that.

The text of my copy of your book still has passages in it referring to a concept of vehicular-cycling with which lane-splitting is inherently incompatible, and implies that that concept of vehicular-cycling is what Forester means by the term. And that's just one example. How are you going to fix that?



Why not stay in the right lane in the first place? Slow down a bit then move around the right turners when you get your chance. If you want to ride like a messenger, become a messenger.

The right lane was backed up with right turners who were stopped. Slowing down was not an option to stay in the right lane - I would have had to stop, or pass on the right in the bike lane. Also, if I stayed in the right lane, I probably would have missed the next green cycle. The left lane was empty (except for the two cars way up at the light itself), so I merged left, rode up to the front (behind the 2nd/last car in the left lane), then merged right back into the right lane, to the left of all the right turners.

By the way, here is a diagram illustrating predictable VC merging incorporating lane-splitting positioning from John Allen's Street Smarts:

http://www.bikexprt.com/streetsmarts/images/np15.gif

http://www.bikexprt.com/streetsmarts/usa/chapter3a.htm

Isn't it much easier to get around in a car in Santa Barbara than in Portland?
I thought parking in downtown Portland was a pain, and expensive.
Also, Portland has that concentrated high density downtown where parking is a problem. Santa Barbara is considerably more sprawled out.

You are describing traits of most older cities... based on your comments, I would expect Boston to be a great biking city too.

ok, I have read hurst's book but not forresters... I want to know what are the real differences between the two?

Hurst has a few techniques for some situations but mostly seems to point out what to watch for...
and some of his solutions seem to be old approaches. A book written by John Allen about bicycle commuting describes different levels of ability and how to recognize traffic within your capability and alternatives from a straight VC approach (presumably as I have forrester's book on order...). Its an older book and describes a similar approach to a "submissive" left turn (for Allen's level 2 rider).

- the other stuff like the "fake right turn" is so limited in application that I haven't used it...
- the 4 way stop handling, I don't see it as any better than if you approached as a "vehicle" and stopped...
- the technique to help with "the gap effect", limited because I am in a suburban type of environment and you don't always have a vehicle you can use as a "shield" going straight... You are obviously someone who reads with high comprehension. You will do well with Forester's book.

Your summary of Hurst's book is spot on: "Hurst has a few techniques for some situations but mostly seems to point out what to watch for...". Indeed, he has few specific techniques. It is in this sense that I describe Hurt's approach as much more reactive than VC, with which he takes issue. Indeed, the "what to watch for" is arguably proactive - in that you're actively looking for "what to watch for". But what I mean by "reactive" is that the primary factor that determines what you do, per Hurst, is that which you've noticed. So you notice, say, someone pulling out of a driveway up ahead, and you react by moving left. But the VC approach, which I use, seems much more proactive. That is, since there are driveways on this street, I'm already further left before I even notice the guy pulling out of the driveway. That, to me, seems much more proactive.

Forester and Allen are very much consistent with each other, but the information is presented quite differently. The techniques described are essentially the same, but Allen is mostly nuts and bolts, while Forester explains the underlying principles and philosophy.

Hurst's main criticism of VC seems to be the lack of emphasis on vigilance (in the books and the courses). But I think he goes overboard in his book, seemingly putting all of the cyclist's eggs in the one basket of vigilance. He certainly scoffs at the value of following VC best practices. Like you said, he "has a few techniques ... but mostly seems to point out what to watch for..."

I look forward to hearing what think after reading Forester's book. If you post about it, and can remember to PM me with a link to it, I would appreciate it.

You are describing traits of most older cities... based on your comments, I would expect Boston to be a great biking city too. Well, Boston's weather is less conducive to cycling than Portland's, is it not? But when I was there a couple of years ago, I saw cyclists everywhere. It seemed very bike friendly to me. But, then, I don't measure "bike friendliness" by how many bike lanes I see...

John didn't you also, in another area, ride a bike path and declare that it was unsafe?

You have a interesting way of looking at things in an idealized way and seeing only your view.

Have you been back to Portland since to see if the grates had been modified... or do you still hold this solitary view of Portland?

Have you ever tried to ride a bike path like the typical student or utilitity rider to see if it works for them?

Yes, indeed, I have found several bike paths to have unsafe locations. Why do you think that that is some valid criticism of me, as you put it "an interesting way of looking at things in an idealized way and seeing only [my] view." Do you consider a bike path that leads a rider over a 3-foot vertical drop to be safe? Would you not criticize me if I failed to mention such? There is such in Austin. The bike path runs along the concrete trough that is sometimes a river, then through a rectangular tunnel under a road bridge, and then ... the 3-foot drop. The cyclist is supposed to know that this is present, and to make a 90 degree turn on about 1-foot radius onto a maybe 4-foot ledge that runs alongside the bridge structure.

So, what's your point in making the comment that you did? Makes no sense to me.

John didn't you also, in another area, ride a bike path and declare that it was unsafe?

You have a interesting way of looking at things in an idealized way and seeing only your view.

Have you been back to Portland since to see if the grates had been modified... or do you still hold this solitary view of Portland?

Have you ever tried to ride a bike path like the typical student or utilitity rider to see if it works for them?

Returned to Portland to see whether or not the drain grates have been modified? Don't be silly. I can leave that up to those close by.

John didn't you also, in another area, ride a bike path and declare that it was unsafe?

You have a interesting way of looking at things in an idealized way and seeing only your view.

Have you been back to Portland since to see if the grates had been modified... or do you still hold this solitary view of Portland?

Have you ever tried to ride a bike path like the typical student or utilitity rider to see if it works for them?

Have I ever tried to ride a bike path like the typical student or utility rider? Of course not; I ride competently and safely. What's the point of your question?

Have I ever tried to ride a bike path like the typical student or utility rider? Of course not; I ride competently and safely. What's the point of your question?

"Competently and safely" as defined how... no doubt as the driver of a vehicle on an open road. But does that application fit all models of bicyling... or does a bicycle as a unique vehicle lend itself to other uses and locations other than on an open street. Cannot a bicycle be ridden in the manner of a rolling pedestrian? Cannot a bicycle be a toy to a youngster, and entertainment to a off roading pre-teen? Cannot a bicycle be art in some eyes? Since you chose to only view a bicycle in the Effective Cycling manner, could your eyes be closed to other common uses of a bicycle?

Could a class II bike path be used by you in a "competent and safe manner?" Or would the lack of signage and stripes and readily written rules on the use of such a path render it unrideable, to you?

Does a messenger delivering a message riding against the flow of gridlocked traffic not ride "effectively," and yet is this not a violation of the vehicular laws and thus the vehicular way?

My point sir is that accomodation can be made to facilitate transportation by bicycle that does not fit into your mindset of Effective Cycling, yet quite readily is indeed "effective cycling."

Have I ever tried to ride a bike path like the typical student or utility rider? Of course not; I ride competently and safely. What's the point of your question?
I have to agree; what's the point of directing any questions to John Forester?

In his opinion, he provided the one true answer to all bicycling scenarios 30 years ago; and has been repeating them ever since.

The John Forester answer to all questions boils down to repitition of the same Forester Brand truisms, over and over and over, no matter how untrue, unproven or irrelevant.

Returned to Portland to see whether or not the drain grates have been modified? Don't be silly. I can leave that up to those close by.

But this obviously forms the basis of your view of that city... perhaps you need to enhance and update that view with a new visit. Perhaps a new model of "bicycle transportation in an urban setting" can be generated by such a visit.

So how do you explain why they have 4% commuting rate of bicycles when most places only have 1/2 of a percent? Even Santa Barbara only has 2% and we have a major university, 2 colleges and lots of environmentalists. And Portland doesn't even have good weather!

Portland OR is a very peculiar city. It has been running a very strong anti-motoring campaign for many years, one of whose results is that its streets have become congested with motor traffic. City planning efforts very frequently produce quite unexpected results, and this is particularly so when they attempt to prevent many people from making their preferred choices.

It is not my obligation to provide an explanation for the bicycle transportation mix in Portland; it is you who keep claiming that this is produced by bikeways, the point about which you and I differ. The explanation that I just gave is quite reasonable and possibly sufficient.

However, I am quite prepared to believe that Portland's inhabitants have as silly ideas about bicycle transportation as the rest of the nation, and maybe even sillier, considering the bicycle advocacy that's been going on there and has been reported on this list. Therefore, I am quite prepared to believe that the entirely erroneous belief that bike lanes and bike paths make cycling safe for beginners can cause a few more people to take up bicycle transportation, but never enough to significantly reduce motoring, which is the claim that is made.

John - can you please describe in detail the nature of Portland's 'anti-motoring campaign' and how it is the cause of motor traffic congestion?

Thanks, I anxiously await your answer.

:)

Could a class II bike path be used by you in a "competent and safe manner?" There is no such thing as a "class II bike path".

Perhaps you meant a "class II bikeway", which is a bike lane?

There is no such thing as a "class II bike path".

Perhaps you meant a "class II bikeway", which is a bike lane?

I meant a class 1 Bike PATH. Not "bikeway," a term that is interchanged to mean all classes of path or lane. While Paths are a subset of bikeways, interchanging the terms is not equal.

Originally Posted by John Forester
Have I ever tried to ride a bike path like the typical student or utility rider? Of course not; I ride competently and safely. What's the point of your question?


"Competently and safely" as defined how... no doubt as the driver of a vehicle on an open road. But does that application fit all models of bicyling... or does a bicycle as a unique vehicle lend itself to other uses and locations other than on an open street. Cannot a bicycle be ridden in the manner of a rolling pedestrian? Cannot a bicycle be a toy to a youngster, and entertainment to a off roading pre-teen? Cannot a bicycle be art in some eyes? Since you chose to only view a bicycle in the Effective Cycling manner, could your eyes be closed to other common uses of a bicycle?

Could a class II bike path be used by you in a "competent and safe manner?" Or would the lack of signage and stripes and readily written rules on the use of such a path render it unrideable, to you?

Does a messenger delivering a message riding against the flow of gridlocked traffic not ride "effectively," and yet is this not a violation of the vehicular laws and thus the vehicular way?

My point sir is that accomodation can be made to facilitate transportation by bicycle that does not fit into your mindset of Effective Cycling, yet quite readily is indeed "effective cycling."

We are discussing bicycle transportation, traveling from one place to another, by bicycle, to obtain the benefits of being at the new location. Bicycles as art are irrelevant to that discussion. So is the use of a bicycle as a child's toy. So is the entertainment value for a teen-ager riding off-road. Talk about being irritated; discussing bicycle transportation with some of you is enough to irritate quite rational people.

Could I use a class II bike path in a competent and safe manner? That's impossible, because there is no such facility. However, the phrasing of your question suggests that you are referring to a Class I bike path. Can I ride competently and safely on the typical bike path? Yes, and where those paths cross motor traffic I can usually proceed competently and safely, though sometimes on foot. Yes, just as I can ride competently and safely across a children's playground, or on many dirt paths. I have never claimed to ride competently and safely over the kind of rock-strewn path that many off-road enthusiasts enjoy.

However, we have been discussing bicycle transportation, a subject about which you seem to be typically uninformed. Bicycle paths are largely irrelevant to bicycle transportation, because there are very few locations where bicycle paths can meet a significant transportational need better than a roadway. The major reason for this situation is topographical, including the presence of frequent crossing motor traffic. However, the minor reason is that the chaotic behavior of much of the traffic on such paths prohibits one from cycling with the speed and safety that one has on the road.

Any cyclist riding the unlawful way for traffic is disobeying the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles.

But this obviously forms the basis of your view of that city... perhaps you need to enhance and update that view with a new visit. Perhaps a new model of "bicycle transportation in an urban setting" can be generated by such a visit.

I am thoroughly irritated by your nastiness. I find that I cannot say it in any milder form, not today at any rate. My knowledge that some drain grates in Portland some years ago were not bicycle-safe is not the basis of my view of Portland. Just how stupid do you think that I am?

However, I am quite prepared to believe that Portland's inhabitants have as silly ideas about bicycle transportation as the rest of the nation, and maybe even sillier...

So in your mind, the population of China that depends on cycling for everyday commerce, and the population of Holland that regularly depend on cycling for transportation in their modern western country are just as "silly;" while using approximately 335 CU feet of an enclosed metal structure, buring hydrocarbons at a 45% or less efficency rate, to go a mile for a quart of milk, IS sane?

OK got that all cleared up. Thanks. No problem.

you're not competant enough to ride a path safely, john? wow. a stunning admission.

...whew! I don't know how everyone else's afternoons' been, but I just got back from a 45 mile ride with a buddy, big metro loop, topping out at 47 MPH on one of our bigger hills, thru the industrial district, mixing it up with freeway traffic, a lot of lane grabbing,

and we also rode a path and a bike lane or two. :eek: Safely. competantly. we even rode a gravel path next to puget sound for about a half mile. competantly. safely.


its not that tough, john. you're blocking, dude.

Well, Boston's weather is less conducive to cycling than Portland's, is it not? But when I was there a couple of years ago, I saw cyclists everywhere. It seemed very bike friendly to me. But, then, I don't measure "bike friendliness" by how many bike lanes I see...

I lived and cycled in the Boston metro area for some years. I now have several cycling friends and associates there. Since then, I have several times traveled by air into or out of Boston and have then cycled while there or on a trip that ended or began there. Boston's motorists are worse than any of those that I have seen in other parts of the nation; I think that the cow-path city plan and the congestion makes them that way. But, Boston and New England generally provide some of the most interesting cycling anywhere.

John - can you please describe in detail the nature of Portland's 'anti-motoring campaign' and how it is the cause of motor traffic congestion?

Thanks, I anxiously await your answer.

:)

No, I am not going to get into the details of city planning as practiced in Portland. Takes far too much time and effort. I suggest that you read Randal O'Toole's accounts; try "The Vanishing Automobile".

I suggest that you read Randal O'Toole's accounts; try "The Vanishing Automobile".
http://www.americandreamcoalition.org/otoole.html
http://ti.org/va.html

So in your mind, the population of China that depends on cycling for everyday commerce, and the population of Holland that regularly depend on cycling for transportation in their modern western country are just as "silly;" while using approximately 335 CU feet of an enclosed metal structure, buring hydrocarbons at a 45% or less efficency rate, to go a mile for a quart of milk, IS sane?

OK got that all cleared up. Thanks. No problem.

How dead is your head? The issue concerns bikeway programs as producers of bicycle transportation. Both China and Holland had enormous amounts of bicycle transportation for decades before bikeways were invented.