If drivers aren't following the rules, how does it follow that those same rules "effectively handle all kinds of mixes in types of vehicular traffic"? It doesn't follow if drivers aren't following the rules. That's the point.

But that is irrelevant to the discussion we're having since this discussion presupposes that everyone is generally following the rules. The issue is whether bike lanes alleviate conflicts which only makes sense in the context of assuming that the rules, including cyclists slower than motor traffic keep right (and ride in bike lanes when applicable), are obeyed.

That's why examples from Asia and I-5 of drivers disobeying the rules are irrelevant to this discussion.

Oh yeah that "unlawful" part... like all of our drivers here are in strict compliance with the law... :rolleyes:
No one said anything based on the assumption that all of our drivers here are in strict compliance with the law.

:rolleyes: indeed

When was this removed from the CVC?

"21654. (a) Notwithstanding the prima facie speed limits, any vehicle proceeding upon a highway at a speed less than the normal speed of traffic moving in the same direction at such time shall be driven in the right-hand lane for traffic or as close as practicable to the right-hand edge or curb, except when overtaking and passing another vehicle proceeding in the same direction or when preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a private road or driveway."

Why are there still signs on the freeways that read "Slower Traffic Keep Right"? It's not entirely clear to me that someone going 70 in the fast lane with posted speed of 65 is obligated to move right by this law or such a sign.

I would argue that it does apply to them, but Gene, and many others, would probably disagree, perhaps arguing that "70 in a 65" is inherently not "a speed less than the normal speed of traffic", especially if there is just one jerk flashing his lights who is trying to go 90.

Other states and Europe have rules about this that are stated less ambiguously.

Now, if you're talking about someone going 55 in the fast lane of 70 mph posted freeway, I'd agree that both the law and the sign clearly apply.

"Disorganized" is a subjective term. Disputing a position based on a differing implicit use of the definition of "disorganized" is semantic sophistry.

The fact is that organization can be measured on a spectrum, and where "organized" becomes "disorganized" is a matter of opinion.

What's relevant to our discussion is whether traffic is sufficiently organized to be efficient and safe.

It would probably be useful to define "disorganized" as being the lower area on the "organization" spectrum where traffic is made unsafe and/or inefficient due to the lack of organization.

Given that definition, I don't think it's fair to characterize U.S. traffic as "disorganized". But perhaps you have a different definition in mind?

So, Mr. Facts & Reason, why did you use a subjective term? Nevermind, we already know the answer...you do it so you can then proceed to tell us how we misunderstand you, play semantic games, don't have good reading comprehension and also to then frame your own wacky definitions on-the-fly. :rolleyes:

Traffic is not efficient, organized or safe in this country...the traffic accident and fatality rates are all the evidence I need. Now maybe you consider those numbers as an indication of safe, organized, efficient traffic, but I don't.

If you're talking about the Texas study that indicates that many cyclists seem to ride further from the curb between intersections when there is a bike lane stripe than when there is not, that's the same study that shows that motorists tend to pass cyclists with less passing distance when there is a stripe, so it's kind of a wash, at best.

Anything else?

We've got two years worth of talking about this subject. Search function, please.

Are you after studies? If so, search for "bike lane studies" and you will get a list of all the studies we've talked about. There's at least one other out of Florida.

Then this discussion is meaningless, since it is based upon a false premise (that all drivers generally follow the rules).
Pete, we are all aware of how many of HHs arguments are based on presuppositions. He calls them circular dependences.

As Schopenhauer said:
Another plan is to beg the question in disguise by postulating what has to be proved, either (1) under another name; for instance, "good repute" instead of "honour"; "virtue" instead of "virginity," etc.; or by using such convertible terms as "red-blooded animals" and "vertebrates"; or (2) by making a general assumption covering the particular point in dispute: for instance, maintaining the uncertainty of medicine by postulating the uncertainty of all human knowledge. (3) If, vice versâ two things follow one from the other, and one is to be proved, you may postulate the other. (4) If a general proposition is to be proved, you may get your opponent to admit every one of the particulars. This is the converse of the second.<A href="http://coolhaus.de/art-of-controversy/erist06.htm#f12c1">12
And now, we have found a reason for HHs proclivity to make up his own definitions and terms.

Speed segregation is automatically built into the vehicular rules of the road via the speed positioning principle (slower traffic keeps right).

Often, the 5 and 99 freeways north of L.A. are about half/half truck/car traffic, but the car drivers are not slowed down to the speed of trucks, for the most part, because, for the most part, the truckers keep right.

There is nothing new here. The vehicular rules of the road have evolved over a hundred years to effectively handle all kinds of mixes in types of vehicular traffic.

In Cambodia, there is also this "natural" speed segregation you talk about. It doesn't help much in town. People still have to make left turns (they drive on the right there).

I don't see the following as "ambiguous" or "not clearly stated"

Notwithstanding the prima facie speed limits, any vehicle proceeding upon a highway at a speed less than the normal speed of traffic moving in the same direction at such time shall be driven in the right-hand lane for traffic...

You claim that "the laws in CA no longer clearly state that marginally slower traffic is required to keep to the right lanes." When did this change in California law, that you allude to above, actually occur?
I don't know. It was my impression that we had more clearly stated rules about keeping right before the freeways days, but I might be mistaken. Anyway, that's what I was referring to. Did not mean to be misleading, but I might have been.

My impression is based on the obervation that in most other western states, and in Europe, drivers are a lot better about using the fast lane only for passing, and the assumption that this is so because the laws are more clear on that being the purpose of the fast lane.

We've got two years worth of talking about this subject. Search function, please.

Are you after studies? If so, search for "bike lane studies" and you will get a list of all the studies we've talked about. There's at least one other out of Florida.

We are not looking for studies about bike lanes. We are asking for those who advocate bike lanes, such as yourself, Brian, to point out the studies that you think provide good evidence for net benefits produced by bike lane stripes, and to tell us why you think that they do. I haven't seen any such studies, and I have a fairly good knowledge of the field.

Then this statement is fallacious:

"The vehicular rules of the road have evolved over a hundred years to effectively handle all kinds of mixes in types of vehicular traffic."


Then this discussion is meaningless, since it is based upon a false premise (that all drivers generally follow the rules).

What did you mean by "Plus, the laws in CA no longer clearly state that marginally slower traffic is required to keep to the right lanes"?
Take it up with Ratliff and those who applauded his gambit in post #28.


If cycling is (say) 50% of the traffic volume (without some sort of speed segregation), then all traffic either slows to bicycling speeds or faster traffic resorts to illegal maneuvers to maintain speeds above 15mph. Space on an asphault road is limited. This is exactly what happens in Asia, where bicyclist concentration is still high.

VC is how one bicycles in the limit as the number of bicyclists approach a dilute concentration. Raise the percentage enough, and free and unrestricted travel for everyone is reduced to a common denominator.

How do you know what I wish to do? I've never stated this; it seems you are putting words in my mouth. A straw man is easier to beat up, for sure.
[/quote]
For the "some sort of speed segregation" to work, the laws, whether it's "slower traffic keeps right", or "bicycle traffic stays in bike lanes", mandating the segregation have to be generally followed.

He did not state this explicitly, but it's implied. That's why examples from Asia or elsewhere of drivers not obeying the rules are irrelevant to this discussion.

I don't know. It was my impression that we had more clearly stated rules about keeping right before the freeways days, but I might be mistaken. Anyway, that's what I was referring to. Did not mean to be misleading, but I might have been.

My impression is based on the obervation that in most other western states, and in Europe, drivers are a lot better about using the fast lane only for passing, and the assumption that this is so because the laws are more clear on that being the purpose of the fast lane.
Helmet Head,

You are correct, but it has nothing to do with freeways. It has to do with horses and buggies, tractors and farm equipment, using the same road as autos. The only thing is, those roads were normally one-lane each direction. Therefore, you stayed to the right in order to facilitate passing in the opposite lane. I learned this before I got my driver's license, but spent a summer driving a tractor around town (which was legal as long as you had a learner's permit and were at least 15 years old in Oregon in the 1950s).

He did not state this explicitly, but it's implied. That's why examples from Asia or elsewhere of drivers not obeying the rules are irrelevant to this discussion.

Concerning your talk about drivers in Asia "not obeying the rules," you are speaking from ignorance. Asia is a huge place, prone in the West to steriotyping. You will find a very wide variance in how people drive in different countries, and how it has evolved since the 1980s. Hong Kong, Singapore, Seoul, Toyko and a lot of other areas have very sophisticated highway systems. You cannot generalize as you did above.

John

We are not looking for studies about bike lanes. We are asking for those who advocate bike lanes, such as yourself, Brian, to point out the studies that you think provide good evidence for net benefits produced by bike lane stripes, and to tell us why you think that they do. I haven't seen any such studies, and I have a fairly good knowledge of the field. Exactly. 3 pages and almost 70 posts, and still nuthin'. Nada. Zippo. Nothing except the typical semantic sophistry that is all the bike lane supporters seem to be able to produce.

My impression is based on the obervation that in most other western states, and in Europe, drivers are a lot better about using the fast lane only for passing, and the assumption that this is so because the laws are more clear on that being the purpose of the fast lane.
A lot of well-respected people suggest that it is driver education that is the difference here. Including the stringent processes required to obtain a driver's licence in the first place. What do you think?

The licensing requirements are more stringent and enforcement is more vigorous in the parts of Europe that I have driven in. That leads to much better lane discipline.
You beat me to it.

We are not looking for studies about bike lanes. We are asking for those who advocate bike lanes, such as yourself, Brian, to point out the studies that you think provide good evidence for net benefits produced by bike lane stripes, and to tell us why you think that they do. I haven't seen any such studies, and I have a fairly good knowledge of the field.

Again. We've talked about this. In the upper right corner is a "search" function. If you want to "challenge" anyone, at least get yourself up to date about what we've talked about previously on this forum.

I don't see anywhere in that post where he states, let alone implies, that "all drivers generally follow the rules."

Unless you're using Headspeak™ definitions and "without some sort of speed segregation" now has the same meaning as "with some sort of speed segregation." Brian's argument is that WITHOUT some sort of speed segregation, you have Asia-like disorder.
The logical implication is that WITH some sort of speed segregation, you have (more) order (otherwise, what would be his point)?
But for that speed segregation to have any effect, general following of the rules would have to be implied, no?

Edit: Again, that's why examples of problems due to lack of general following of the rules are irrelevant to this discussion.

Exactly. 3 pages and almost 70 posts, and still nuthin'. Nada. Zippo. Nothing except the typical semantic sophistry that is all the bike lane supporters seem to be able to produce.

HH. Search. You'll find all your answers. You were there, those last couple years, right? Use the search function, find one of my arguments, start from there on new ground that we didn't previously cover.

Again. We've talked about this. In the upper right corner is a "search" function. If you want to "challenge" anyone, at least get yourself up to date about what we've talked about previously on this forum. Even if you search forever you will still not find something that is not there.
That's why the onus must be on those who claim it is there to produce it
In the upper right corner is a "search" function. I use it frequently to produce links to posts and threads that support my position. You should try it.

Brian's argument is that WITHOUT some sort of speed segregation, you have Asia-like disorder.
The logical implication is that WITH some sort of speed segregation, you have (more) order (otherwise, would be his point)?
But for that speed segregation to have any effect, general following of the rules would have to be implied, no?

Actually, I was pointing out that the "natural" speed segregation was already followed in Asia, to no help. Your argument is that Asia doesn't apply because this "natural" speed segregation doesn't occur, and is simply false.

You are trying to pick a fight and doing it badly. Next time, start an argument where one left off and genuinely engage people. I'm done with this one. Science, my ass. You are looking for scoring debate points is all. Toodles.

Oh yea, this thread is an example (you asked, remember) of you just wanting to score points in a debate. If you truly care about this subject and want to learn, you should engage people in conversation instead of challenging them to a debate.

And... please, to answer the OP, use the search function. We've talked about this subject more times than I can count.

Even if you search forever you will still not find something that is not there.
That's why the onus must be on those who claim it is there to produce it
In the upper right corner is a "search" function. I use it frequently to produce links to posts and threads that support my position. You should try it.

Then state clearly what you want to know. What are you after here? What little wrinkle of this little debate would you like to discuss? If you want insight into the broad topic of "the science of bike lane advocacy", then do your own research. Many people just on this board have written many thousands of words on the subject. Otherwise, be more specific.

Then state clearly what you want to know. What are you after here? What little wrinkle of this little debate would you like to discuss? If you want insight into the broad topic of "the science of bike lane advocacy", then do your own research. Many people just on this board have written many thousands of words on the subject. Otherwise, be more specific.
See the OP.


Is there any science, or even pseudo science, supporting the advocacy of bike lanes?


If so, where is it?

In the upper right corner is a "search" function. I use it frequently to produce links to posts and threads that support my position. You should try it.

I'm not the OP who's posted an enflamatory one liner and acting like the previous two years of discussions on this very topic didn't happen. I'm not requesting information. You are.

See the OP.



If so, where is it?

I'm tell'n you, dude. Do your own research. Report back what you find, and we'll all comment on your analysis. Jeez. I assume there is a university library somewhere around San Diego? One of the UC universities, isn't there? Go there, pay the $20 or whatever to gain access to interlibrary loan, and sit down and do some research. It's your hobby. Not mine. I ride my bike more than talk about it.

Brian's argument is that WITHOUT some sort of speed segregation, you have Asia-like disorder.
The logical implication is that WITH some sort of speed segregation, you have (more) order (otherwise, would be his point)?
But for that speed segregation to have any effect, general following of the rules would have to be implied, no?
Actually, I was pointing out that the "natural" speed segregation was already followed in Asia, to no help. Your argument is that Asia doesn't apply because this "natural" speed segregation doesn't occur, and is simply false.

You are trying to pick a fight and doing it badly. Next time, start an argument where one left off and genuinely engage people. I'm done with this one. Science, my ass. You are looking for scoring debate points is all. Toodles.

Oh yea, this thread is an example (you asked, remember) of you just wanting to score points in a debate. If you truly care about this subject and want to learn, you should engage people in conversation instead of challenging them to a debate.

And... please, to answer the OP, use the search function. We've talked about this subject more times than I can count. Brian, I'm trying to engage you or anyone else in discussion, not in a debate. Look at the words of mine you quoted. They are not "fighting words". I am honestly stating my understanding of the situation.
Now look at your words, they are "fighting words".

There is no animosity in my post, there is plenty in yours.

By the way, back in post #28 (and vicinity), which is what I'm referring to above as where this discussion that is based on the assumption that general following of the rules is presupposed, you were not pointing out that "natural" speed segregation was already followed in Asia, to no help. You made that claim much later (#62).

If you are looking for discussion, offer something up. You offered a "challenge." Even JF interpreted it as such.

If you are looking for discussion, offer something up. You offered a "challenge." Even JF interpreted it as such.

I see no reason to change my view of the science of bicycle transportation. I have never seen a study that demonstrates significant benefit from bike-lane stripes, and those on this forum who advocate bike-lane stripes have not advanced any study that demonstrates such benefits with an explanation of why they think it does demonstrate such benefit. In other words, all the advocacy of bike lanes is nothing but useless twaddle, hot air, and disturbed electrons. You bike-lane advocates ought to shut up.

Brian's argument is that WITHOUT some sort of speed segregation, you have Asia-like disorder.
No it isn't. Once again you've done a great job of confusing yourself.
Well, perhaps you can unconfuse me by explaining how the following excerpt from post #28 does not argue that without some sort of speed segregation you have "traffic either slows to bicycling speeds or faster traffic resorts to illegal maneuvers", wich is arguably disorder (and what I meant), and is "exactly what happens in Asia".


If cycling is (say) 50% of the traffic volume (without some sort of speed segregation), then all traffic either slows to bicycling speeds or faster traffic resorts to illegal maneuvers to maintain speeds above 15mph. Space on an asphault road is limited. This is exactly what happens in Asia, where bicyclist concentration is still high.


The logical implication is that if cycling is 50% of the traffic volume, with some sort of speed segregation, you have (more) order (otherwise, what would be his point)?

But for that speed segregation to have any effect, general following of the rules would have to be implied, no? Hence, general following of the rules has been the implied assumption in this discussion since at least post #28, and why supposed counter-examples of drivers not obeying the rules are irrelevant.

I'm tell'n you, dude. Do your own research. Report back what you find, and we'll all comment on your analysis. Jeez. I assume there is a university library somewhere around San Diego? One of the UC universities, isn't there? Go there, pay the $20 or whatever to gain access to interlibrary loan, and sit down and do some research. It's your hobby. Not mine. I ride my bike more than talk about it. Brian, I have no reason to believe that any such information exists. Certainly, nothing you've ever written has ever given me any such reason. I'm not going to waste my time looking for something for which I have every reason to believe does not exist, and for which I have no reason to believe does exist. That's the point of this thread, and 4 pages of nothing only makes the point.

I see no reason to change my view of the science of bicycle transportation...

Good for you. But it was HH who was asking, not you, so I'm not seeing the point. If you've done the research and are not convinced, then good on you. But if there is no hope of holding a reasonable discussion on the subject, then why are you here?

I have never seen a study that demonstrates significant benefit from bike-lane stripes, and those on this forum who advocate bike-lane stripes have not advanced any study that demonstrates such benefits with an explanation of why they think it does demonstrate such benefit. In other words, all the advocacy of bike lanes is nothing but useless twaddle, hot air, and disturbed electrons. You bike-lane advocates ought to shut up.

Enough with the insults already. Damn man, are you off your meds? Tell you what. I'll just repeat your words back to you, they have as much relevence.

In other words, all the advocacy of VC'ism is nothing but useless twaddle, hot air, and disturbed electrons. You VC'ists ought to shut up.

Now then, did that convince you to shut up? Why do you think it would convince me to shut up?

And don't you go thinking that I cannot produce an argument for bike lanes. I've produced countless arguments. None have been refuted. Use the search function to look up previous discussions. I don't care to repeat them to a person who is unable to have a reasonable discussion on the subject.

Why don't you just read Brian's description of his argument above, in his reply to you in post 76?

At this point, I don't think that it's possible to "unconfuse" you. Brian was confused. He was thinking about what he started to argue only in #62, not #28.
In fact, in #28 he was explicitly talking about a situation "without some sort of speed segregation" which is "exactly what happens in Asia".

Later, in #62 and above in #76 he refer to the "the 'natural' speed segregation [that] was already followed in Asia".

So the "some sort of speed segregation" which is "exactly what happens in Asia" in #28 is something beyond the "natural speed segregation" "already followed in Asia" he speaks of in #76.

In any case, regardless of what he meant by "some sort of speed segregation", it would be ineffective if the rules are not being generallly followed.

Hence, general following of the rules has been the implied assumption in this discussion since at least post #28, and why supposed counter-examples of drivers not obeying the rules are irrelevant.

Brian, I have no reason to believe that any such information exists. Certainly, nothing you've ever written has ever given me any such reason. I'm not going to waste my time looking for something for which I have every reason to believe does not exist, and for which I have no reason to believe does exist. That's the point of this thread, and 4 pages of nothing only makes the point.

If you don't want to use your time on the subject (which you evidently care about), then why should I care? You are just some guy...

You really ought to expect by now that nobody will seriously answer to such a contrived "challenge" as you've made in the OP.

I'm kind of getting the impression that you are simply lazy and enjoy arguing. Otherwise, you'd do your own legwork regarding your own curiosities and quit trying to get others to do it for you. And BTW, you expressed surprise that I "got" your position on bike lanes. What is that? First of all it's because I understand what I read, and also because I did do my own legwork in the past and you have had very few unique things to say on the subject. It is very easy to state the position of a person if that person refuses to take a unique position on the subject. All one has to do is verify that the argument is on the party line or not, and you're done. It has very rarely, for you, strayed from the party line.

HH: I also noticed that when you repeated back my position, you couldn't resist putting in some of your own counter-arguments. How bold of you.

Okay, I'll stop posting here. FWIW HH, on the fact that you will not accept the last two years of discussions as valid; I'm not going to waste any more of your time on this subject. Have fun with your research. I am interested in hearing what comes of it. Start a thread when you are through and provide your thesis as an attachment.

In other words, all the advocacy of bike lanes is nothing but useless twaddle, hot air, and disturbed electrons. You bike-lane advocates ought to shut up.
In other words, all the advocacy of VC'ism is nothing but useless twaddle, hot air, and disturbed electrons. You VC'ists ought to shut up.

Now then, did that convince you to shut up? Why do you think it would convince me to shut up?
The difference is that Forester has written a book, Bicycle Transportation Engineering, that has hundreds of pages supporting his position, and there are zero pages anywhere, including this thread, supporting the opposite position.

Okay, I'll stop posting here. FWIW HH, on the fact that you will not accept the last two years of discussions as valid; I'm not going to waste any more of your time on this subject. Have fun with your research. I am interested in hearing what comes of it. Start a thread when you are through and provide your thesis as an attachment.
The discussion is valid, But none of it constitutes scientific reasons supporting the advocacy of bike lanes.

If you don't want to use your time on the subject (which you evidently care about), then why should I care? You are just some guy...

You really ought to expect by now that nobody will seriously answer to such a contrived "challenge" as you've made in the OP.

I'm kind of getting the impression that you are simply lazy and enjoy arguing. Otherwise, you'd do your own legwork regarding your own curiosities and quit trying to get others to do it for you. And BTW, you expressed surprise that I "got" your position on bike lanes. What is that? First of all it's because I understand what I read, and also because I did do my own legwork in the past and you have had very few unique things to say on the subject. It is very easy to state the position of a person if that person refuses to take a unique position on the subject. All one has to do is verify that the argument is on the party line or not, and you're done. It has very rarely, for you, strayed from the party line. Brian,

I posted a simple question in the OP. Everyone, including you, were free to respond in any way you wished. You could have posted scientific evidence that supported the advocacy of bike lanes. You could have left the whole thread blank. But you and many others chose to respond with irrelevant nonsense about Asian traffic disorder. You took time to argue about nothing, but produced not one reference to any scientific evidence that supports the advocacy of bike lanes. That speaks volumes.

The discussion is valid, But none of it constitutes scientific reasons supporting the advocacy of bike lanes.

why?

And where is the science supporting WOLs? No logic, remember, you've ruled that out the validity of logical argument with your comment above. But science. The texas study and the florida studies both find that WOLs significantly reduce the presence of cyclists on the streets, forcing them into the gutter or on the sidewalk. We've talked about those before, I know that. That's science. In fact, nowhere except some logical exercises have I heard that WOLs trump bike lanes in any way.

Don't hold up those videos. That's not science either. Or "Street Smarts" or "Effective Cycling" (actually, Effecive Cycling says very little on the subject). How about some choice quotes from "Bicycle Transportation"? What's in there that supports WOLs? Science, remember. No anecdotes, no logic, no supposition. Just recorded observation. And sources too; and if it is JF as the source, sorry, but I'm going to have to require validating sources as well - his books are not peer reviewed. The only peer reviewed article he has (and, for a study to be scientific, it must be peer reviewed. That's how it works in the science community), is one, probably invited, paper which merely reports the controversy. That's not science either.

You took time to argue about nothing, but produced not one reference to any scientific evidence that supports the advocacy of bike lanes. That speaks volumes.

Shifting the burden of proof

The burden of proof is always on the person asserting something. Shifting the burden of proof, a special case of Argumentum ad Ignorantiam (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html#ignorantiam), is the fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the person who denies or questions the assertion. The source of the fallacy is the assumption that something is true unless proven otherwise.

For further discussion of this idea, see the "Introduction to Atheism (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/intro.html#assertions)" document."OK, so if you don't think the grey aliens have gained control of the US government, can you prove it?"



Argumentum ad ignorantiam

Argumentum ad ignorantiam means "argument from ignorance." The fallacy occurs when it's argued that something must be true, simply because it hasn't been proved false. Or, equivalently, when it is argued that something must be false because it hasn't been proved true.

(Note that this isn't the same as assuming something is false until it has been proved true. In law, for example, you're generally assumed innocent until proven guilty.)

Here are a couple of examples:

"Of course the Bible is true. Nobody can prove otherwise."

"Of course telepathy and other psychic phenomena do not exist. Nobody has shown any proof that they are real."

In scientific investigation, if it is known that an event would produce certain evidence of its having occurred, the absence of such evidence can validly be used to infer that the event didn't occur. It does not prove it with certainty, however.

For example:

"A flood as described in the Bible would require an enormous volume of water to be present on the earth. The earth doesn't have a tenth as much water, even if we count that which is frozen into ice at the poles. Therefore no such flood occurred."

It is, of course, possible that some unknown process occurred to remove the water. Good science would then demand a plausible testable theory to explain how it vanished.

Of course, the history of science is full of logically valid bad predictions. In 1893, the Royal Academy of Science were convinced by Sir Robert Ball that communication with the planet Mars was a physical impossibility, because it would require a flag as large as Ireland, which it would be impossible to wave. [Fortean Times Number 82.]

See also Shifting the Burden of Proof.



http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html#shifting

I read Brian's post (#28) and understood the point he was making, as described in his reply to you in post #76.

Why do you think that Brian was able to effectively communicate his point to me, yet you could not understand that very same point? I don't know.

This is what he said in #28:

If cycling is (say) 50% of the traffic volume (without some sort of speed segregation), then all traffic either slows to bicycling speeds or faster traffic resorts to illegal maneuvers to maintain speeds above 15mph. Space on an asphault road is limited. This is exactly what happens in Asia, where bicyclist concentration is still high.

This is what he said in 76:

Actually, I was pointing out that the "natural" speed segregation was already followed in Asia, to no help.
How you understood the #76 point that speed segregation was already followed in Asia from the contradictory #28 post that was talking about the exactly what happens in Asia situation without some sort of speed segregation is certainly beyond me.

Brian,

I posted a simple question in the OP. Everyone, including you, were free to respond in any way you wished. You could have posted scientific evidence that supported the advocacy of bike lanes. You could have left the whole thread blank. But you and many others chose to respond with irrelevant nonsense about Asian traffic disorder. You took time to argue about nothing, but produced not one reference to any scientific evidence that supports the advocacy of bike lanes. That speaks volumes.

I don't have to prove myself to everyone who issues a challenge. We've talked at length about the science and logic about bike lane advocacy. If you want to re-open threads talking about various studies, be my guest.

Because, Helmie, you created a "distinction" between "artificial" speed segregation and "natural" speed segregation.

Here is where you bring up the idea of "natural" speed segregation
Speed segregation is automatically built into the vehicular rules of the road via the speed positioning principle (slower traffic keeps right).

I don't know.

This is what he said in #28:

This is what he said in 76:

How you understood the #76 point that speed segregation was already followed in Asia from the contradictory #28 post that was talking about the exactly what happens in Asia situation without some sort of speed segregation is certainly beyond me.

How about you quite quibbling about the details of an illustrative example and answer the argument I was putting forth. Remember? Limited space, everything slows down to a common denominator if we have human powered transportation mixed vehicularly with motorized transportation? You keep dancing and trying to undermine my example (which is merely illustrative, nothing more), and avoid the salient point.

The burden of proof is always on the person asserting something. Shifting the burden of proof, a special case of Argumentum ad Ignorantiam, is the fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the person who denies or questions the assertion. The source of the fallacy is the assumption that something is true unless proven otherwise.
For further discussion of this idea, see the "Introduction to Atheism" document.

Exactly.

The assertion in question is "cycling advocacy should advocate for bike lanes".
The burden of proof is on anyone who asserts that. That's what this thread is for; for those who assert this to meet their burden. Here we are at 5 pages and over 100 posts, and still nothing.

Just as the burden of proof is on anyone who asserts that "cycling advoacy should advocate for vehicular cycling".

Of course it's beyond you. Your numerous posts prove that.

It was apparent to me that when he included the "without some sort of speed segregation" qualifier he was referring to legislated speed segregation and/or enforced speed segregation, as we allegedly have here in the US.
That was my take too (in #28).

I'm familiar with the "natural" speed segregation that occurs in parts of Asia so his post made sense to me. Well, I'm still lost.

What is "natural" speed segregation?

Because, Helmie, you created a "distinction" between "artificial" speed segregation and "natural" speed segregation.

Here is where you bring up the idea of "natural" speed segregation

Ah, the mystery is solved. Yes, my original post was before this distinction was made. HH made this distinction in a response. See, it wasn't until post #34 by HH that this distinction was made. My original use of the term was in post #28. HH, you really are confusing yourself. I'm just trying to adapt to changing and splitting definitions.

Helmet Head, and JF,

Look at this:

Title: EVALUATION OF BLUE BIKE-LANE TREATMENT IN PORTLAND, OREGON
Accession Number: 00798925
Record Type: Component
Language 1: English
Record URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.3141/1705-16
Abstract: Many European cities use colored markings at bicycle-motor vehicle crossings to reduce conflicts. To determine whether such colored markings help improve safety at American bicycle-motor vehicle crossings, the city of Portland, Oregon, studied the use of blue pavement markings and a novel signage system to delineate selected conflict areas. The University of North Carolina Highway Safety Research Center (HSRC), under contract to the Federal Highway Administration, analyzed the project data. From 1997 to 1999, Portland marked 10 conflict areas with paint, blue thermoplastic, and an accompanying "Yield to Cyclist" sign. All of the sites had a high level of cyclist and motorist interaction, as well as a history of complaints. The crossings were all at locations where the cyclist travels straight and the motorist crosses the bicycle lane in order to exit a roadway (such as an off-ramp situation), enter a right-turn lane, or merge onto a street from a ramp. The study used videotape analysis and found most behavior changes to be positive. Significantly higher numbers of motorists yielded to cyclists and slowed or stopped before entering the blue pavement areas, and more cyclists followed the colored bike-lane path. However, the blue pavement also resulted in fewer cyclists turning their heads to scan for traffic or using hand signals, perhaps signifying an increased comfort level. The overwhelming majority of cyclists and close to a majority of motorists surveyed felt the blue areas enhanced safety. Colored pavement and signage should continue to be used and evaluated in bicycle-motor vehicle conflict areas. (Emphasis added, jcr)
Supplemental Notes: This paper appears in Transportation Research Record No. 1705, Pedestrian and Bicycle Transportation Research 2000.
TRIS Files: HRIS
Pagination: p. 107-115
Authors: Hunter, W W; Harkey, D L; Stewart, J R; Birk, M L
Features: Figures (8); Photos (3); References (5); Tables (3)

Monograph Info: See related components
Corporate Authors: Transportation Research Board
500 Fifth Street, NW
Washington, DC 20001 USA


Availability: Transportation Research Board Business Office
500 Fifth Street, NW

From:

http://pubsindex.trb.org/document/view/default.asp?lbid=667814

HH, I think if you only looked, did a bit of research, you'd find your answers. Let's see, that makes two scientific studies that I've posted which reinforce the need for bike lanes, one in Singapore and one in Portland, Oregon. Do you want more?

John

Exactly.

The assertion in question is "cycling advocacy should advocate for bike lanes".
The burden of proof is on anyone who asserts that. That's what this thread is for; for those who assert this to meet their burden. Here we are at 5 pages and over 100 posts, and still nothing.

Just as the burden of proof is on anyone who asserts that "cycling advoacy should advocate for vehicular cycling".

Who is arguing against you? I have before, but I'm not now. If you are truly curious and not trying to score debate points, do better than a one liner challenge - do some research, find some stuff, report your observations on such stuff. Then we can discuss.

Because, Helmie, you created a "distinction" between "artificial" speed segregation and "natural" speed segregation.

Here is where you bring up the idea of "natural" speed segregation
Speed segregation is automatically built into the vehicular rules of the road via the speed positioning principle (slower traffic keeps right).

So are "bike lanes" and "slow truck lanes" "artificial" speed segregation?
And "slower traffic keeps to the right" rules are natural speed segregation?


It was apparent to me that when he included the "without some sort of speed segregation" qualifier he was referring to legislated speed segregation and/or enforced speed segregation, as we allegedly have here in the US.

I'm familiar with the "natural" speed segregation that occurs in parts of Asia so his post made sense to me.

If so, then what is Peter talking about? Sounds like he thinks "'natural' speed segregation" is something different from the "legislated speed segregation and/or enforced speed segregation, as we allegedly have here in the US.", which are the "slower traffic keeps to the right" rules.

How about you quite quibbling about the details of an illustrative example and answer the argument I was putting forth. Remember? Limited space, everything slows down to a common denominator if we have human powered transportation mixed vehicularly with motorized transportation? You keep dancing and trying to undermine my example (which is merely illustrative, nothing more), and avoid the salient point. I agree that with limited space everything slows down. And it's not just to the lowest common denominator.

For example, freeways with all vehicles capable of 65+ mph regularly slow down to speeds below that due to limited space.

Just because there are bikes mixed in in slow traffic doesn't mean they are causing the slowing.

Edit: the natural flow is that when there is sufficient space for motor traffic to move at faster speeds, cyclists tend to keep right. When there is insufficient space for fast motor speeds, bicyclists tend to merge into the mix. This is just as true on southern Cal arterials, Asian urban centers, and bike messengers doing deliveries in Manhattan.

Who is arguing against you? I have before, but I'm not now. If you are truly curious and not trying to score debate points, do better than a one liner challenge - do some research, find some stuff, report your observations on such stuff. Then we can discuss. There were two general possible outcomes of this thread. I would consider either outcome to be a success.

No or little evidence for science supporting the advocacy of bike lanes is cited, making the point that such evidence probably does not exist.
Significant evidence is cited, making the point that there is significant scientific basis for advocating bike lanes.Note that neither one is about arguing or debating. The fact that bike lane advocates like you chose to turn this into yet another meaningless semantic sophistfest speaks volumes.

Ah, the mystery is solved. Yes, my original post was before this distinction was made. HH made this distinction in a response. See, it wasn't until post #34 by HH that this distinction was made. My original use of the term was in post #28. HH, you really are confusing yourself. I'm just trying to adapt to changing and splitting definitions.

Congratulations. I pointed this out back in #82:

By the way, back in post #28 (and vicinity), which is what I'm referring to above as where this discussion that is based on the assumption that general following of the rules is presupposed, you were not pointing out that "natural" speed segregation was already followed in Asia, to no help. You made that claim much later (#62).