Vehicular Cycling (VC) - Why do you agree/disagree with Forester?

but you're not just acknowledging what they wrote. you're tearing it apart, and arguing with it, writing hypothetical situations about it and writing multiple paragaphs about how it is wrong, wrong, wrong. it's incredibly superfluous. If that is not what a forum like this is for, then what is it for?

Why post something on a forum like this if you can't tell whether it makes sense to others, or whether they agree or not, and, if not, what their reasons are for disagreeing?

If this forum is not for sharing the reasons that form the basis for our opinions, then what is it for?

Tell you what, HH. I'll drop my objections to your posting if you can answer correctly here:

1) What is my position on bike lanes and WOLs? Why do I support bike lanes over WOLs? The whole argument, not a snide snippet or two. And free of your counter arguments. I already know your take on the whole ordeal, I don't need it repeated.

2) What is my riding style in traffic?

Answer those correctly and, well, I'm wrong, you are not just going for debate points. We've been talking for 2 years. You should know this.

Tell you what, HH. I'll drop my objections to your posting if you can answer correctly here:

1) What is my position on bike lanes and WOLs? Why do I support bike lanes over WOLs? The whole argument, not a snide snippet or two. And free of your counter arguments. I already know your take on the whole ordeal, I don't need it repeated.

2) What is my riding style in traffic?

Answer those correctly and, well, I'm wrong, you are not just going for debate points. We've been talking for 2 years. You should know this.
Will do, but I asked you first.

If that is not what a forum like this is for, then what is it for?

Why post something on a forum like this if you can't tell whether it makes sense to others, or whether they agree or not, and, if not, what their reasons are for disagreeing?

If this forum is not for sharing the reasons that form the basis for our opinions, then what is it for?

OK, can't argue with that.

Like I thought. A power play. I will not sift through hundreds or thousands of posts to find some words of yours. I am not asking for you to do that here. I am asking for you to state your impressions of me in your own words.

Like I thought. A power play. I will not sift through hundreds or thousands of posts to find some words of yours. I am not asking for you to do that here. I am asking for you to state your impressions of me in your own words. Power play? I'm just asking for some basic fairness. From last night, post #388:



As an example, despite the hundreds of posts we've had regarding bike lanes, see if you can summarize my position on bike lanes in a manner that doesn't twist my position. I believe you cannot, because you never seriously considered it. But, again, I leave myself wide open to be proven wrong.
Why should I comply with your request when you refuse to comply with mine? I have agreed to yours, if you agree to mine. No powerplay. No sifting required. Just basic win-win negotiation.

HH, you dislike bike lanes for several reasons.

reasons:

1) There is a social stigma against cyclists being equal road users which is amplified by bike lanes.

2) Bike lanes inhibit cyclists from learning proper VC lane positioning.

3) Bike lanes tend to put cyclists too far to the right in traffic and fix the lateral location of the cyclist (as opposed to letting the cyclist figure out the best lateral position on a dynamic basis).

4) Bike lanes enable faster and closer passing of cars.

5) Cyclists are more likely to be overlooked by drivers in a bike lane, because of the to-the-right lane positioning and because of the mental barrier put up by the bike lane line, making cyclists vulnerable to inadvertant drift.

6) Bike lanes, as a side effect of keeping cyclists to the right, make cyclists vulnerable to right hooks.

7) Bike lanes tend to attract debris

8) Bike lanes tend to place a cyclist in the door zone of parallel parked cars.


There might be others, but these are the main ones you've stated and we've talked about.

Your turn.

Why should I comply with your request when you refuse to comply with mine? I have agreed to yours, if you agree to mine. No powerplay. No sifting required. Just basic win-win negotiation.

nah, na, na, na, nah..."My dad can beat up yours" :rolleyes:

HH, you dislike bike lanes for several reasons.

reasons:

1) There is a social stigma against cyclists being equal road users which is amplified by bike lanes.

2) Bike lanes inhibit cyclists from learning proper VC lane positioning.

3) Bike lanes tend to put cyclists too far to the right in traffic and fix the lateral location of the cyclist (as opposed to letting the cyclist figure out the best lateral position on a dynamic basis).

4) Bike lanes enable faster and closer passing of cars.

5) Cyclists are more likely to be overlooked by drivers in a bike lane, because of the to-the-right lane positioning and because of the mental barrier put up by the bike lane line, making cyclists vulnerable to inadvertant drift.

6) Bike lanes, as a side effect of keeping cyclists to the right, make cyclists vulnerable to right hooks.

7) Bike lanes tend to attract debris

8) Bike lanes tend to place a cyclist in the door zone of parallel parked cars.


There might be others, but these are the main ones you've stated and we've talked about.

Your turn.
Very good. I'm impressed. Limiting #6 to right hook vulnerability is the only significant specific problem I can see. Encouraging cyclists to go straight from space to the right of straight-or-right lanes also makes them vulnerable to left and right crosses, and that threat is arguably more significant than the right hook threat, which already is nothing to sneeze at.

I also would not call these reasons that I "dislike" bike lanes, rather they are reasons that I oppose most of them. But that's a nit.

But overall my argument is that the advantages of bike lanes to cyclists do not outweigh the disadvantages, listed above, at least not in most urban/suburban areas where intersections (including midblock intersections with driveways, alleys, etc.) are relatively frequent.

I would also add:

9) I do not believe bike lanes make bicycling more popular by any significant degree.


My understanding of your position on bike lanes and WOLs is:

1) you believe WOLs are not vehicular because you don't see lane-splitting/lane-sharing as being vehicular (though I'm not sure why, except that lanes are of course rarely wide enough for car drivers to lane share/split safely).

2) you believe the BL stripe provides "order" to traffic that mixes motorists with bicyclists (though how you believe it provides order with crossing traffic has never been clear to me).

3) you believe bike lanes increase the popularity of bicycling.

(Ugh, gotta go right now, will complete later in separate post or by adding to this one... sorry).

Fascinating thread about an interesting fellow. I had the pleasure of deposing him in a litigation a few years ago. He had been hired as an expert witness by the other side in a really unfortunate bike accident case. My co-counsel rubbed him the wrong way and they got in a shouting match, but I found much of what he said was quite sensible. In the end I wasn't sure why the other side had hired him for their case, but I was impressed with his knowledge.

Sounds like your co-counsel wanted to engage in a debate rather than simply ask questions and listen to the answers.

Fascinating thread about an interesting fellow. I had the pleasure of deposing him in a litigation a few years ago. He had been hired as an expert witness by the other side in a really unfortunate bike accident case. My co-counsel rubbed him the wrong way and they got in a shouting match, but I found much of what he said was quite sensible. In the end I wasn't sure why the other side had hired him for their case, but I was impressed with his knowledge.
I am impressed with your backhanded compliment.

I am impressed with your backhanded compliment.

I'm not sure where either the backhand or the compliment is in the part you quoted. Seems like a simple reporting of this fellow's experience with our John Forester.

I'm not sure where either the backhand or the compliment is in the part you quoted. Seems like a simple reporting of this fellow's experience with our John Forester.
Save me from ever being the subject of similar "simple reporting."

Impressive. This sub-forum has only ten or twenty hard-core regulars, but between them, they can generate 400 responses in a thread.

Of course, 390 of them are from the "your mom wears army boots" school of discussion, but still, very impressive.