Vehicular Cycling (VC) - Foreign cycling infrastructure

ILTB,

What form would you like to see cycling infrastructure take in your area (if it needs any improvement, if not, what do you like about it?)

We have seen several descriptions of urban designs that their proponents think preferable to what exists in America, or to the later parts of what exists. But at this time, these are no more than dreams. But to achieve any of these would require enormous amounts of effort on many fronts. I suggest that nothing that cyclists could do would either contribute significantly to the large-scale product or to the process of achieving it. The subject is largely irrelevant to the issue of how best cyclists should operate.
Of course, the American Dream Coalition has already achieved their dream - domination of urban and suburban form and streetscape by motor vehicles and motor-vehicle oriented development - and at this point they fear change and are reluctant to share.

ILTB,

What form would you like to see cycling infrastructure take in your area (if it needs any improvement, if not, what do you like about it?)
Paving the shoulders on highways that currently are unpaved (at least 99% in Iowa) and covered everywhere with so much river rock as to be unrideable for practical cycling. That would improve the cycling environment on 55mph highways outside of the city by a 1000%. The lack of rideable shoulders on narrow high speed busy highways is the reason why I never see another commuter on my route, even when the weather is good.

What is the cultural and practical norm in the Netherlands seems to be in stark contrast to the norm where I live in the US. While I am treated with respect by motorists, for the most part, I am more of an intruder upon the autocentric system. It's cultural, reinforced by the practical nature of our transportation system that motorists dominate.

My feeling (though it's only a feeling, not a proven assumption,) is that to pattern the US cycling infrastructure model after that in Amsterdam would result in reinforcing the dominance of motorists on our existing roads. But as I said, I can't prove that assumption, just a gut feeling. After all, you can adopt the Dutch system, but you can't transplant it's culture.

While I understand the simple reasons why so many Americans would prefer a Dutch model for cyclists, the fact is that our culture is so dominated by motoring that I think it would not create more respect for cyclists, but the opposite. I would prefer that any cycling infrastructure we implement in the US is paralleled by an equally concerted effort to establish the rights of cyclists to use any road we choose with equal status to motorists (I say "equal status," that does not necessarily mean "equal numbers" or "equal abilities.")
you're giving up without even trying...IMO it's pretty depressing to see otherwise intelligent people rationalize the status quo when clearly there are better choices available, as has already been clearly demonstrated by the Dutch and others

:o

as for your last point, no one here wants to see cyclists' rights diminished in any way, I think that's already been firmly established, you're beating a dead horse with this comment

you're giving up without even trying...IMO it's pretty depressing to see otherwise intelligent people rationalize the status quo when clearly there are better choices available, as has already been clearly demonstrated by the Dutch and others

:o

as for your last point, no one here wants to see cyclists' rights diminished in any way, I think that's already been firmly established, you're beating a dead horse with this comment
As for your last point, there isn't a horse left living in the VC forum. ;)

Again, cutting and pasting the Dutch model into American society might only give motorists more dominance over cyclists than they have now. You say it's been clearly demonstrated in Holland, but as I said, they don't have the American autocentric culture, as Buzzman pointed out.

You saw in my comments only what you were looking to see. I clearly pointed out that cycling facilities in this country must only be implemented alongside an equally vigorous cyclist-equality stance. That's not depressing, that's biting the bullet and facing the challenge.

And I don't see much in the way of "great" facilities. Bike lane clogged on one side of the street, No BL on the other side (those cyclists are "taking the lane")

So from the picture I would have to surmise that it isn't the facilities "facilitating" the cycling culture.

[edit]

And Peds standing in the BL OMG!

-D

Yeah. Not a good example. Not having been to Amsterdam, I can't really comment on the facilities there. But the point was, from what others have said and my own experiences in Denmark, 'facilities' do not slow bikers down all that much.

As for facilities 'facilitating' the cycle culture, it's hard to say which came first, as cycling is so ingrained in society here. You've seen the pictures of train stations with piles of bikes, but you see the same thing at the schools and work places. I find it hard to believe that so many children would be cycling to school without some kind of facilities (regardless of their actual merit -- they are certainly perceived as safer). In turn, the Danes learn at a young age that cycling is viable means of transportation, a feeling that they seem to carry with them their whole lives.

Whether or not it's an appropriate model for the US, I'll address in another post.

[I would like to see] Paving the shoulders on highways that currently are unpaved (at least 99% in Iowa) and covered everywhere with so much river rock as to be unrideable for practical cycling. That would improve the cycling environment on 55mph highways outside of the city by a 1000%. The lack of rideable shoulders on narrow high speed busy highways is the reason why I never see another commuter on my route, even when the weather is good.
It would seem highly favorable to implement your suggestions, indeed, imperative. Thanks for your post.

I think if I had to put up with conditions like that, I'd want exactly the same thing. Sharing the road with motorists in residential areas and on connecting arteries is one thing, but sharing a narrow, busy highway with 18-wheelers is another. I had one slip past me in my lane once without sufficient space. Time froze, and as I waited for what seemed like an eternity for the trailer to slip past, all my concentration was focused like a warrior on holding a narrow, perfect line. When we reached the next light together, I held back my desire to murder the driver (I would have lost that battle anyway ;) ) and held up my hands in a measuring gesture. Talk about feeling completely impotent...one of those things can feel like they would just suck you up and spit you back out.

Of course, the American Dream Coalition has already achieved their dream - domination of urban and suburban form and streetscape by motor vehicles and motor-vehicle oriented development - and at this point they fear change and are reluctant to share.


you're giving up without even trying...IMO it's pretty depressing to see otherwise intelligent people rationalize the status quo when clearly there are better choices available, as has already been clearly demonstrated by the Dutch and others

:o

as for your last point, no one here wants to see cyclists' rights diminished in any way, I think that's already been firmly established, you're beating a dead horse with this comment


Randya, you are quite wrong abut the American Dream Coalition, and your error is just one more sign of your ideological method of thought rather then considering facts and reason. The ADC did nothing to produce the current modern city; that was well under way before the ADC even existed. The ADC exists to protect the modern city from the anti-motoring forces that oppose it through regulations, taxation, and limitation of highways, and thereby make living more difficult rather than easier. It is true that the modern city favors automobile transportation rather than bicycle transportation, but most people have chosen to spend their money on the modern city rather than the old cities. That's just a fact of current life.

You are quite clearly wrong when you state "it's pretty depressing to see otherwise intelligent people rationalize the status quo when clearly there are better choices available, as has already been clearly demonstrated by the Dutch and others." That depends on what you mean by "available". Quite clearly, if you prefer the kind of life lived in Amsterdam, then go there because that is available. You might, instead, find that living in downtown Boston or downtown Philadelphia would be the nearest approximation to that in the USA. Then go live in one of those places. However, the downtown Amsterdam lifestyle (not that in the newer suburbs) cannot reasonably be reproduced elsewhere in the USA, and it is foolish to complain about that in a discussion whose subject is the methods of cycling on roads in the cities that we have.

What is the cultural and practical norm in the Netherlands seems to be in stark contrast to the norm where I live in the US. While I am treated with respect by motorists, for the most part, I am more of an intruder upon the autocentric system. It's cultural, reinforced by the practical nature of our transportation system that motorists dominate.

My feeling (though it's only a feeling, not a proven assumption,) is that to pattern the US cycling infrastructure model after that in Amsterdam would result in reinforcing the dominance of motorists on our existing roads. But as I said, I can't prove that assumption, just a gut feeling. After all, you can adopt the Dutch system, but you can't transplant it's culture.

While I understand the simple reasons why so many Americans would prefer a Dutch model for cyclists, the fact is that our culture is so dominated by motoring that I think it would not create more respect for cyclists, but the opposite. I would prefer that any cycling infrastructure we implement in the US is paralleled by an equally concerted effort to establish the rights of cyclists to use any road we choose with equal status to motorists (I say "equal status," that does not necessarily mean "equal numbers" or "equal abilities.")

This is certainly a valid concern, and I make no claim to know how things would turn out were the system here to be transplanted to the US. Cyclists here are certainly 'respected' but they are also kept separated -- 'out of the way' -- from cars on major roads, and many minor ones.

But, I believe the facilities are a big reason why there are so many cyclists. I wrote in another post that cycling starts so young that it becomes part of the Danes' lives. I don't think this would happen without facilities. With such a large population of cyclists, car drivers are very aware of bikes, and this carries over to roads where there are no facilities, whether they're in town or out in the countryside. It's very much a compromise: we'll stay out of your way on Hjallesevej, and you don't run us over everywhere else ;)

So implementing Euro-style bike facilities in the US really depends on what your goal is (if you have one), and if you're willing to potentially sacrifice some of your 'rights' in order to change the status quo, or if you think you can improve things under the current 'system'.

Randya, you are quite wrong abut the American Dream Coalition, and your error is just one more sign of your ideological method of thought rather then considering facts and reason. The ADC did nothing to produce the current modern city; that was well under way before the ADC even existed. The ADC exists to protect the modern city from the anti-motoring forces that oppose it through regulations, taxation, and limitation of highways, and thereby make living more difficult rather than easier. It is true that the modern city favors automobile transportation rather than bicycle transportation, but most people have chosen to spend their money on the modern city rather than the old cities. That's just a fact of current life.
I made no errors and no claims that the ADC 'invented' the modern city, all I claimed is that they blindly defend the status quo and fear any change that reduces the current dominance of the automobile and auto-centric design and culture in the US. The easy motoring life in the US is a 20th century phenomenon, and IMO we need to move beyond that paradigm before it becomes an anachronistic parody of itself, not to mention the fact that it is a completely unsustainable lifestyle choice.


You are quite clearly wrong when you state "it's pretty depressing to see otherwise intelligent people rationalize the status quo when clearly there are better choices available, as has already been clearly demonstrated by the Dutch and others." That depends on what you mean by "available". Quite clearly, if you prefer the kind of life lived in Amsterdam, then go there because that is available. You might, instead, find that living in downtown Boston or downtown Philadelphia would be the nearest approximation to that in the USA. Then go live in one of those places. However, the downtown Amsterdam lifestyle (not that in the newer suburbs) cannot reasonably be reproduced elsewhere in the USA, and it is foolish to complain about that in a discussion whose subject is the methods of cycling on roads in the cities that we have.
America Love it or Leave it. Gotcha, John.

:rolleyes:

... to pattern the US cycling infrastructure model after that in Amsterdam would result in reinforcing the dominance of motorists on our existing roads. But as I said, I can't prove that assumption, just a gut feeling. After all, you can adopt the Dutch system, but you can't transplant it's culture.

While I understand the simple reasons why so many Americans would prefer a Dutch model for cyclists, the fact is that our culture is so dominated by motoring that I think it would not create more respect for cyclists, but the opposite. I would prefer that any cycling infrastructure we implement in the US is paralleled by an equally concerted effort to establish the rights of cyclists to use any road we choose with equal status to motorists (I say "equal status," that does not necessarily mean "equal numbers" or "equal abilities.")

LBM,

My personal account of my experiences in the Netherlands is not meant to endorse any blanket or "one size fits all" solutions to the US. The United States is a much larger and geographically diverse entity than the Netherlands and what works there would probably not work everywhere in the US. Different regions and urban/suburban/rural areas would also need to adapt in ways that would embrace cycling in unique ways as well.

I would make the point that the Dutch, who interestingly enough settled much of Manhattan (originally named New Amsterdam), have devised a model which could have more direct applications in a city like New York than a city like Los Angeles or Phoenix. The cycling "culture" has been transforming New York city in the past 30 years and New York is becoming increasingly less "auto-centric". Dare I predict we will see even more bike lanes and bike paths in New York and less emphasis on accomodating the private automobile in the next 10 years. I expect there would be a resultant increase in bicycle ridership and that the city will eventually give new meaning to the moniker "New Amsterdam".

B

LBM,

My personal account of my experiences in the Netherlands is not meant to endorse any blanket or "one size fits all" solutions to the US. The United States is a much larger and geographically diverse entity than the Netherlands and what works there would probably not work everywhere in the US. Different regions and urban/suburban/rural areas would also need to adapt in ways that would embrace cycling in unique ways as well.
I agree. Each area has it's unique problems and solutions. Matching solutions to problems should be tailored properly.

Solutions in my area has had mixed results. In some cases, the results have been wonderful. But in other cases, solutions have been put in place that added no benefit and that made cycling more impractical, even dangerous. From the perspective of a new cyclist, they might have seemed helpful. But from my perspective, that of a cyclist already using a bike for transportation, the impractical solutions were painfully obvious. So I just avoided using them.

That's not to say I look down on "incompetant cyclists," I was a newbie once, too. But there is something to be said for the benefit of experience, and I think new cyclists can benefit from the perspective of more experienced cyclists as opposed to meekly adopting whatever solutions traffic engineers or other city planners put forth. I would guess some of these solutions were not even planned by cyclists, but that's only a guess, I could be wrong.

Then again, some of the more impractical solutions, from my perspective, might be very practical for new cyclists who don't want to get from A to B. They might just want a huge sidewalk to ride on for 20 minutes or so. That's up to them, but personally, I'd suggest they put their bike on their car and drive to the Silver Comet trail if they want a better experience. I understand that solutions vary not only according to locale, but cycling preferences and purposes.

I can't fathom implementing any more of solutions, like the more impractical ones, for transportation in my area, but others would differ, I'm sure. The important thing is to get input from all cyclists to make sure solutions are really meeting their needs.

This is certainly a valid concern, and I make no claim to know how things would turn out were the system here to be transplanted to the US. Cyclists here are certainly 'respected' but they are also kept separated -- 'out of the way' -- from cars on major roads, and many minor ones.

But, I believe the facilities are a big reason why there are so many cyclists. I wrote in another post that cycling starts so young that it becomes part of the Danes' lives. I don't think this would happen without facilities. With such a large population of cyclists, car drivers are very aware of bikes, and this carries over to roads where there are no facilities, whether they're in town or out in the countryside. It's very much a compromise: we'll stay out of your way on Hjallesevej, and you don't run us over everywhere else ;)

So implementing Euro-style bike facilities in the US really depends on what your goal is (if you have one), and if you're willing to potentially sacrifice some of your 'rights' in order to change the status quo, or if you think you can improve things under the current 'system'.

Well, then, how was it that the Netherlands had one of the highest bicycle mode shares long before there were bikeways there? If bikeways are the cause of a high mode share, then the absence of bikeways must mean, as you and other argue, that without bikeways there will be only a small share. Of course, your argument is specious, because it ignores both history and urban design.

I made no errors and no claims that the ADC 'invented' the modern city, all I claimed is that they blindly defend the status quo and fear any change that reduces the current dominance of the automobile and auto-centric design and culture in the US. The easy motoring life in the US is a 20th century phenomenon, and IMO we need to move beyond that paradigm before it becomes an anachronistic parody of itself, not to mention the fact that it is a completely unsustainable lifestyle choice.


America Love it or Leave it. Gotcha, John.

:rolleyes:

Your earlier statement was "Of course, the American Dream Coalition has already achieved their dream ..."

I do not feel responsible for your errors in understanding the English that you use.

As for love it or leave it, why not? If you so dislike the motoring city and much prefer the cycling city, then go to such a city. Nobody that I know is stopping you.

What you should not do is to advocate the installation in a motoring city of bikeways suitable to a pre-motoring obsolete city, in the expectation that this will produce a cycling city. Not only will that not occur, but it will harm those cyclists who are operating in the modern city.

Well, then, how was it that the Netherlands had one of the highest bicycle mode shares long before there were bikeways there? If bikeways are the cause of a high mode share, then the absence of bikeways must mean, as you and other argue, that without bikeways there will be only a small share. Of course, your argument is specious, because it ignores both history and urban design.

I'd hazard a guess that bikeways were built in response to increased automobile traffic. Long before there were bikeways, there were also fewer cars.

As for love it or leave it, why not? If you so dislike the motoring city and much prefer the cycling city, then go to such a city. Nobody that I know is stopping you.


I pay taxes. I live here. There is no reason not to use the influence that I pay for to change the environment to what I'd like. Mine is only a little influence, as is yours, but if I can gather a group of likeminded people together and form a large influence, then that's my right.

This is how it works here. What USA do you live in? I'm not responsible for your lack of ability to get large numbers of people behind your politics of vehicular cycling.

What you should not do is to advocate the installation in a motoring city of bikeways suitable to a pre-motoring obsolete city, in the expectation that this will produce a cycling city. Not only will that not occur, but it will harm those cyclists who are operating in the modern city.

Who is advocating the blind application of European style bikeways to US cities? Obviously cities here are different than cities there, and not everything works and almost everything will have to be modified to some extent. But what's wrong with using their expertise for what it's worth?

What we should not do is to advocate the use of motoring specific infrastructure as a way to gain acceptance of cycling as a mode of transportation in the expectation that a show of vehicular cycling expertise by a few cyclists who bicycle for the wrong reasons will magically reduce all the barriers to bicycling for transportation to zero. Not only will that not occur, but it will harm those people who could economically benefit from cycling in the modern city.

They are not great at all. In Amersterdam, cycling traffic is very slow. A commuter is usually a person wearing street clothes, riding an upright bike with no helmet, in a bike lane or on a bike path. Germany is very similar. Lanes are generally much narrower than in the US, and most European countries have taken steps to discourage "vehiclular cycling."

What is different, however, is that most drivers respond better and drive more safely around bicyclists. Other than that, the infrastructure in far from ideal.

I find it interesting that the Netherlands, and Denmark/Copenhagen are both very popular bike countries---- and they are as flat as flat can get.


I've been there, many times during the ten years I lived in Europe. Yes it is great and not just Amsterdam but in the numerous other Dutch cities. I liked the cycling conditions almost as well in Germany where I lived and visited.

You find John Allen's critiques of more interest than I. Of course, I view Mr. Allen, with his sloppy use of "crash rates" to prove vehicular cycling effectiveness and "dangers" of bike lanes as John Forester's Number One Protégé/Disciple.

They are not great at all. In Amersterdam, cycling traffic is very slow. A commuter is usually a person wearing street clothes, riding an upright bike with no helmet, in a bike lane or on a bike path. Germany is very similar. Lanes are generally much narrower than in the US, and most European countries have taken steps to discourage "vehiclular cycling."
You and I have a different idea of what is great cycling.

1. I don't endorse undue restrictions on bicyclists' speed, but the only thing I saw slowing down any cyclist in Amsterdam (or Heidelberg where I worked) is one heck of a lot of traffic (motor, pedestrians and bikes). That and bicyclists commuting in a bicycling culture that does not worship looking and acting like they are in a dang race at all times with something to prove, no matter what the distance of the trip. Given the amount of traffic how would the speed boys recommend changing the environment in such a densely packed city, with so many bicyclists to make cycling "great?"

2. Your derisive comments about "wearing street clothes, riding an upright bike with no helmet" have nothing to do with facilities, great cycling conditions, or vehicular cycling, but rather indicates you are either North American and/or you have adapted its typical racer boy/club cyclist mindset about what constitutes Real Cycling.

Yes we do have different ideas of ideal biking. You are making my point for me- it is the other bikers that slow everything in Amsterdam.

Where did I write anything derisive about wearing street clothes for biking? My point is that the infrastructure is generally used by this demographic... and it probably ideal for it.


You and I have a different idea of what is great cycling.

1. I don't endorse undue restrictions on bicyclists' speed, but the only thing I saw slowing down any cyclist in Amsterdam (or Heidelberg where I worked) is one heck of a lot of traffic (motor, pedestrians and bikes). That and bicyclists commuting in a bicycling culture that does not worship looking and acting like they are in a dang race at all times with something to prove, no matter what the distance of the trip. Given the amount of traffic how would the speed boys recommend changing the environment in such a densely packed city, with so many bicyclists to make cycling "great?"

2. Your derisive comments about "wearing street clothes, riding an upright bike with no helmet" have nothing to do with facilities, great cycling conditions, or vehicular cycling, but rather indicates you are either North American and/or you have adapted its typical racer boy/club cyclist mindset about what constitutes Real Cycling.

Your earlier statement was "Of course, the American Dream Coalition has already achieved their dream ..."

I do not feel responsible for your errors in understanding the English that you use.

As for love it or leave it, why not? If you so dislike the motoring city and much prefer the cycling city, then go to such a city. Nobody that I know is stopping you.

What you should not do is to advocate the installation in a motoring city of bikeways suitable to a pre-motoring obsolete city, in the expectation that this will produce a cycling city. Not only will that not occur, but it will harm those cyclists who are operating in the modern city.
Your "this is the way it is and we've just got to live with it" attitude stinks, John. Shame on you, we can do better. Foresterology is an anachronism, 30 years old, 30 years out of date. You're an old-school motor-vehicles-first traffic engineer, John. You should step aside and let a younger generation take the next step.

PS - pre-motoring cities are not obsolete, pre-automobile inner cities are the most valuable pieces of real estate in the urban environment today. It's the suburban wasteland that is obsolete.

You are making my point for me- it is the other bikers that slow everything in Amsterdam.
...the elitist VC 'real cyclist' rears it's ugly head...

Yes we do have different ideas of ideal biking. You are making my point for me- it is the other bikers that slow everything in Amsterdam.

Where did I write anything derisive about wearing street clothes for biking? My point is that the infrastructure is generally used by this demographic... and it probably ideal for it.
And you and your VC buddies have just the solution too. Discourage cycling by all those other bicyclists with the inferior demographic profile with obstructionism at every possible opportunity, ala Forester and his wrecking ball crew. The goal being the ideal scenario where only the handful of Real Cyclists like yourself will rule the Roost, eh?

...the elitist VC 'real cyclist' rears it's ugly head...
Scratch the surface of almost everyone of 'em, with a few exceptions, and their Real Cyclist elitist pus will ooze out.

The goal being the ideal scenario where only the handful of Real Cyclists like yourself will rule the Roost, eh?
Mixin' it up with the 'big guys' in the four wheelers, how macho for a buncha guys dressed in ***** kit...

:rolleyes:

:p

:D

Mixin' it up with the 'big guys' in the four wheelers, how macho for a buncha guys dressed in ***** kit...

:rolleyes:


That reminds me. The only time I ever saw anybody on the street in Amsterdam wearing Lycra shorts was on Gay Pride Day, and they weren't on bikes.

Who is advocating the blind application of European style bikeways to US cities? Obviously cities here are different than cities there, and not everything works and almost everything will have to be modified to some extent. But what's wrong with using their expertise for what it's worth?

What we should not do is to advocate the use of motoring specific infrastructure as a way to gain acceptance of cycling as a mode of transportation in the expectation that a show of vehicular cycling expertise by a few cyclists who bicycle for the wrong reasons will magically reduce all the barriers to bicycling for transportation to zero. Not only will that not occur, but it will harm those people who could economically benefit from cycling in the modern city.

As has been explained before, the foreigners do not have any expertise that we do not have. In fact, we had more knowledge about bicycle transportation than they had. And what's all this about cycling for the wrong reasons? What's the matter with you, are you advocating some kind of elitism? And what is a "motoring specific infrastructure", except the freeway system? Do you think that we are cycling on roadways in order "to gain acceptance of cycling as a mode of transportation"? That's just about the silliest idea I've read in a long time. We don't have to do that, and we ride on roadways because they provide the best system that we have. And nothing that you propose "will [ever] reduce all the barriers to bicycling for transportation to zero." That's not merely silly, it's idiotically impossible.

Yeah. Not a good example. Not having been to Amsterdam, I can't really comment on the facilities there. But the point was, from what others have said and my own experiences in Denmark, 'facilities' do not slow bikers down all that much.

As for facilities 'facilitating' the cycle culture, it's hard to say which came first, as cycling is so ingrained in society here. You've seen the pictures of train stations with piles of bikes, but you see the same thing at the schools and work places. I find it hard to believe that so many children would be cycling to school without some kind of facilities (regardless of their actual merit -- they are certainly perceived as safer). In turn, the Danes learn at a young age that cycling is viable means of transportation, a feeling that they seem to carry with them their whole lives.

Whether or not it's an appropriate model for the US, I'll address in another post.

The Danes, inhabitants of a rather poor agricultural nation, have cycled for generations, long before bikeways were invented. Indeed, they used to be rather proud that their royal family went out on cycling trips. All that they are doing is to carry on the long tradition in urban areas in which that tradition was born and is eminently suitable.

I can't fathom implementing any more of solutions, like the more impractical ones, for transportation in my area, but others would differ, I'm sure. The important thing is to get input from all cyclists to make sure solutions are really meeting their needs.


How about instead of impractical solutions, road engineers and developers simply keep cycling in mind as part of an area transit system, and stop doing things that really cut us cyclists off. 55MPH mulilaned "urban freeways" with sweeping intersections are not bike friendly... traffic circles are another solution. Traffic signals that readily detect cyclists are another solution.

Roadways that calm traffic rather than entice it to move ever faster are solutions. Gated communities with isolated branches off of 55MPH boulevards are not bike friendly... tying such communities together with bike paths that ensure connections to the same areas as roads, is a bike friendly solution. Planning wide outside lanes and limiting traffic speeds are both friendly to peds and cyclists.

The thinking of cyclists as an afterthought that can be "remedied" with a stripe is not engineering... it is poor planning.

To expect the US to suddenly adopt a Holland like approach is not practical, but seeing such things such as "bike lanes along parked cars" in the document that most cities use as a planning guide, is also just as impractical.

It all comes down to approach... the planners need to consider cyclists as much as they do any and all other forms of transit when planning new developments.

As for facilities 'facilitating' the cycle culture, it's hard to say which came first, as cycling is so ingrained in society here.
One would have to go back in time to before the automobile gained preeminance. Cycling culture existed first, then cars came along.

So it might be safe to say that the cycling culture predated the motoring culture. Did cycle-specific facilities play a role in preserving cycling culture, or did they play a role in facilitating the popularity of motoring culture in an already cycling-rich society?

Mixin' it up with the 'big guys' in the four wheelers, how macho for a buncha guys dressed in ***** kit...


That reminds me. The only time I ever saw anybody on the street in Amsterdam wearing Lycra shorts was on Gay Pride Day, and they weren't on bikes.
These are quotes by those who would be ashamed of "intelligent people" falling short of their abilities.

I confess, I struggle between posting the preceding and ignoring the glaring misspeak.

sorry if it's not PC enuf for ya, what if I change it to 'gay kit'? And I forgot to mention the silly shoes....

:)

I wear the cheapest shoes that work the best for the application, but I won't tell you where I bought them...

...ok--"Fred's World." :D (hey, the chinese deserve a break, too.)

These are quotes by those who would be ashamed of "intelligent people" falling short of their abilities.

I confess, I struggle between posting the preceding and ignoring the glaring misspeak.
Misspeak? Baloney. Eyewitness report! I never saw anyone riding a bike and wearing Lycra shorts in The Netherlands except for English speaking foreigners at the VVV office in full tourist mode, or club cyclists in full clubie uniforms on weekend pelotons. Same goes for the wearing of Styrofoam cycling attire too.

But truth be told, while I saw plenty of Lycra shorts being worn by pedestrians on Gay Pride Day in Amsterdam, I did not see any Styrofoam Hats being worn.

...the elitist VC 'real cyclist' rears it's ugly head...

You saying this isn't a valid observation? How is it elitist?

Do you really need me to explain it to you?

Mixin' it up with the 'big guys' in the four wheelers, how macho for a buncha guys dressed in ***** kit...


That reminds me. The only time I ever saw anybody on the street in Amsterdam wearing Lycra shorts was on Gay Pride Day, and they weren't on bikes.

I confess, I struggle between posting the preceding and ignoring the glaring misspeak.

Misspeak? Baloney.
Hey, you're the one who said it, if you are sticking to your comments, fine with me.

Actually, Lycra is not just for bicycling, anymore... :D

Hey, you're the one who said it, if you are sticking to your comments, fine with me.

Actually, Lycra is not just for bicycling, anymore... :D
Sure. It's always been great for making a statement, though not necessarily a fashion statement when worn off the bike.

Well, then, how was it that the Netherlands had one of the highest bicycle mode shares long before there were bikeways there? If bikeways are the cause of a high mode share, then the absence of bikeways must mean, as you and other argue, that without bikeways there will be only a small share. Of course, your argument is specious, because it ignores both history and urban design.

:rolleyes: I'm not really arguing anything; I'm trying to have a discussion. If you choose to treat me as an enemy simply because I suggest a different opinion, then you and I aren't going to get anywhere.

Other than writing 'it's hard to say which came first', which I admit is silly, in that it isn't hard to say, I am in no way saying that cycling infrastructure created the cycling culture here. See my next post.

One would have to go back in time to before the automobile gained preeminance. Cycling culture existed first, then cars came along.

So it might be safe to say that the cycling culture predated the motoring culture. Did cycle-specific facilities play a role in preserving cycling culture, or did they play a role in facilitating the popularity of motoring culture in an already cycling-rich society?

This is a good question, so I posed it yesterday to a couple of Danes on our way to a bike 'race'. They were in agreement with Forrester, that because the automobile/industrialization came 'later' to Denmark, the cycling tradition is still strong, and still part of the culture.

But they also commented that there used to be much less car traffic and that it was 'easier' to ride on the streets back then. One of them specifically brought up Odense's campaign as Denmark's 'Cykelby' -- which I linked to in an earlier post -- and noted that it has helped maintain and promote cycling. In other cities, and before the campaign, children ride/rode less to school than they used to, their parents chauffeuring them instead in cars. But both of them (with six children between them) thought that the infrastructure here has helped to 'reinvigorate' cycling among youngsters. Most adults would have little problem riding in the streets, but many adults perceive cycling facilities as safer for their children.

This is just anecdotal evidence at best (and the conversation was held in Danish, so maybe I didn't here them say 'ikke' -- 'not' -- in every sentence and got it all backwards :rolleyes: ), but combined with the study linked above, at least in the minds of Danes, they are happy to have the cycling infrastructure, as it helps them 'maintain' their cycling tradition. And keep in mind that a 'decrease' in cycling means going from 75% of grocery store visits to 70% -- still astronomically higher than in the US. So, your mileage may vary. ;)

---

I am believing more and more that building a cycling tradition in the US (if that is your goal) has got to concentrate on cycling at an early age, when the kids' minds are still open to cycling propaganda and brainwashing. :rolleyes: Very few adults in the US take up utility cycling -- those that do ride are very much on the recreational side of things. But then that raises the huge question of how do you get kids to see their bikes as utility vehicles and not recreational ones.

I am believing more and more that building a cycling tradition in the US (if that is your goal) has got to concentrate on cycling at an early age, when the kids' minds are still open to cycling propaganda and brainwashing. :rolleyes: Very few adults in the US take up utility cycling -- those that do ride are very much on the recreational side of things. But then that raises the huge question of how do you get kids to see their bikes as utility vehicles and not recreational ones.
Funny, it occurred to me that sometimes young people get caught up at an early age in harmful activities, like drugs, unsafe sex, even gangs--why would it be difficult to get kids caught up in cycling? I thought maybe the answer was peer influence. Here in the US, one's teenage peers seem to lust after cars. That, and cars offer a new freedom from Mom and Dad. But to turn that power of influence toward a better use, like starting people cycling, there would have to be influential peer groups of cyclists that teens (or younger kids) wanted to emulate and participate in--the presence of a cycling culture in microcosm, if you will.

Just some thoughts.

If you want to encourage utility cycling among children, the main answer is bike paths between home and school, and to local shopping places. It's the only thing safe enough for parents to stop driving them around.

It amuses me in a sad way that the ADC celebrates "the greatest invention" as they do. I need to go to San Diego. To get there I have to go through Los Angeles and Orange County. This means I have to agonize over whether I will get stuck in worse traffic (in my stick-shift car, mind you) on the 5 or the 405, and try to pick a decent time to leave my house to avoid the worst traffic.

I thought maybe I would take the train. I could bring my bicycle and get around San Diego by bike, which would be advantageous for where I'm going because I don't need my car once I get to San Diego. It'll just be in the way. But the trains only leave San Diego in the PM. No trains leave San Diego in the AM. That's too late for me. There's not enough train infrastructure to have a decent schedule.

So, I'm stuck with having to drive through a traffic nightmare. The greatest invention has gotten in my way of getting anywhere.

If you want to encourage utility cycling among children, the main answer is bike paths between home and school, and to local shopping places. It's the only thing safe enough for parents to stop driving them around.

It amuses me in a sad way that the ADC celebrates "the greatest invention" as they do. I need to go to San Diego. To get there I have to go through Los Angeles and Orange County. This means I have to agonize over whether I will get stuck in worse traffic (in my stick-shift car, mind you) on the 5 or the 405, and try to pick a decent time to leave my house to avoid the worst traffic.

I thought maybe I would take the train. I could bring my bicycle and get around San Diego by bike, which would be advantageous for where I'm going because I don't need my car once I get to San Diego. It'll just be in the way. But the trains only leave San Diego in the PM. No trains leave San Diego in the AM. That's too late for me. There's not enough train infrastructure to have a decent schedule.

So, I'm stuck with having to drive through a traffic nightmare. The greatest invention has gotten in my way of getting anywhere.
Ya, it's a pretty pickle. No matter what the holdups elsewhere, I can always depend on getting home or work at the same predictable time on my bike (barring flats or mech failures.)

Funny, it occurred to me that sometimes young people get caught up ... unsafe sex ... why would it be difficult to get kids caught up in cycling?

Heh. Maybe if they knew what the translation of On-One's 'Il Pompino' meant...:D

If you want to encourage utility cycling among children, the main answer is bike paths between home and school, and to local shopping places. It's the only thing safe enough for parents to stop driving them around.

It amuses me in a sad way that the ADC celebrates "the greatest invention" as they do. I need to go to San Diego. To get there I have to go through Los Angeles and Orange County. This means I have to agonize over whether I will get stuck in worse traffic (in my stick-shift car, mind you) on the 5 or the 405, and try to pick a decent time to leave my house to avoid the worst traffic.

I thought maybe I would take the train. I could bring my bicycle and get around San Diego by bike, which would be advantageous for where I'm going because I don't need my car once I get to San Diego. It'll just be in the way. But the trains only leave San Diego in the PM. No trains leave San Diego in the AM. That's too late for me. There's not enough train infrastructure to have a decent schedule.

So, I'm stuck with having to drive through a traffic nightmare. The greatest invention has gotten in my way of getting anywhere.



"If you want to encourage utility cycling among children, the main answer is bike paths between home and school, and to local shopping places. It's the only thing safe enough for parents to stop driving them around." I suggest that the only reasonable basis for your statement is acknowledgment of two superstitions. First, that local streets are too dangerous for cycling. Second, that a system of safe bike paths from home to school and to local shopping places can be installed. I don't know why you feel the way that you do, but it is unreasonable. Work out something that can be achieved.

You comments on general transportation are equally uninformed. "There's not enough train infrastructure to have a decent schedule" is just plain false. There is insufficient demand for passenger train service to fill the infrastructure that we have. The reason that there is insufficient demand is precisely because the private car fills the need much better. You are an exception; in this case, a good exception, but one of the few, nevertheless. The trouble with any mass transportation system is that it requires high demand between ports. That's fine for the people whose origins and destinations are near the ports, but bad for others, who need transportation at each end. You carry your end transportation with you, most don't, and for many it would not be possible. Therefore, for most travelers for short to medium distances, the private car provides better transportation. That's why they use it.

If you think that the highway capacity between Santa Barbara and San Diego is insufficient, as you indicate that you do, then you should advocate fuel taxes set in proportion to highway cost and devoted only to highway purposes. If more voters insisted on that, capacity would become better adjusted to demand.

First, that local streets are too dangerous for cycling. Second, that a system of safe bike paths from home to school and to local shopping places can be installed. I don't know why you feel the way that you do, but it is unreasonable. Work out something that can be achieved.


John... have any kids?

I don't consider the streets dangerous... I consider the drivers using the streets dangerous.

I know you will point out shining examples of a child or two you have met who knows how to ride vehicularly... however this is not the case of most under 12 year olds...

And you are apparently expecting children to ride on 45MPH roads where motorists don't have enough personal responsibility to drive at less than 50MPH.

Tell you what, when those adults start acting like responsible adults, then I will believe that CHILDREN can be responsible enough to ride to school on roads with 30MPH speed limits. But as long as roads are designed for cars, and motorists drive as if they own the road, then children do not belong on those streets.

Funny, it occurred to me that sometimes young people get caught up at an early age in harmful activities, like drugs, unsafe sex, even gangs--why would it be difficult to get kids caught up in cycling? I thought maybe the answer was peer influence. Here in the US, one's teenage peers seem to lust after cars. That, and cars offer a new freedom from Mom and Dad. But to turn that power of influence toward a better use, like starting people cycling, there would have to be influential peer groups of cyclists that teens (or younger kids) wanted to emulate and participate in--the presence of a cycling culture in microcosm, if you will.

Just some thoughts.

We'll need a group of smoking, tatooed cyclists, and they'll have to mod their Fuji track bikes with loud mufflers and neon ground glow. Not sure where to put the speakers for the sound system - maybe pull a trailer? We'll also need a back seat (so maybe tandems?) for make out sessions. Handlebars will now hold the garters from prom. Helmets are out (unless the adults stop wearing them) or they look like those wild non-conformist black Harley types with stickers on them.

We'll need a group of smoking, tatooed cyclists, and they'll have to mod their Fuji track bikes with loud mufflers and neon ground glow. Not sure where to put the speakers for the sound system - maybe pull a trailer? We'll also need a back seat (so maybe tandems?) for make out sessions. Handlebars will now hold the garters from prom. Helmets are out (unless the adults stop wearing them) or they look like those wild non-conformist black Harley types with stickers on them.
Well, ya, but I remember why I wanted to ride a bike--I saw other kids doing it (we didn't have bike facilities back then, or helmets, gloves, etc.) and I wanted to, too.

The reason I went back to cycling was my happy memories of it from childhood. Now, I ride alone most of the time. but occasionally, if I come across another cyclist, I try to talk a little. I've made new friends that way (but I almost never see them on the road.)

We'll need a group of smoking, tatooed cyclists, and they'll have to mod their Fuji track bikes with loud mufflers and neon ground glow. Not sure where to put the speakers for the sound system - maybe pull a trailer? We'll also need a back seat (so maybe tandems?) for make out sessions. Handlebars will now hold the garters from prom. Helmets are out (unless the adults stop wearing them) or they look like those wild non-conformist black Harley types with stickers on them.
Sounds a little like ZooBomb, or Chunk666, or the MC3, or the Dead Baby Bicycle Club, or Black Label Bicycle Club, or the Rat Patrol, or....

;)

John... have any kids?

I don't consider the streets dangerous... I consider the drivers using the streets dangerous.

I know you will point out shining examples of a child or two you have met who knows how to ride vehicularly... however this is not the case of most under 12 year olds...

And you are apparently expecting children to ride on 45MPH roads where motorists don't have enough personal responsibility to drive at less than 50MPH.

Tell you what, when those adults start acting like responsible adults, then I will believe that CHILDREN can be responsible enough to ride to school on roads with 30MPH speed limits. But as long as roads are designed for cars, and motorists drive as if they own the road, then children do not belong on those streets.

Don't quibble when you know precisely what was meant. Nobody is arguing that the design of streets is dangerous absent any traffic on them. Such quibbling turns your arguments into mush.

You don't even ask politely if I have any kids, just make a silly remark as if you knew the answer. No, I don't have any kids, I live alone. How's that for you? Make you feel any better?

However, I had two biological children. One was killed by staphloccus aureus at the age of four, though by that time she had worn the tires off her pedal car. The other is alive and well, still a cyclist, though also a skin diver and a ski patrolman, and father of two. I acquired four other children by other means, three of whom became cyclists, two of whom raced in the national championships, one of whom is now a fairly highly rated racing official. Furthermore, I have taught and tested more than a hundred child cyclists. I suggest that I know far more about the cycling capabilities of children than you do.

Furthermore, I disagree entirely with your general opinions about motor traffic. That's more of the cyclist inferiority attitude in evidence.