who says cycling is increasing faster than motoring? that is not anyone's claim.

worldwide, efforts are underway to INCREASE bicycling as transportation. bike infrastructure works to increase bicycling in communities.

how ol' mossy can attempt to skew it otherwise really is astounding in its' blind denial.

maybe Johns' POV and talk at Google should have been titled
"John F's marginalization of bicycling transportation"

or "efforts to ****** american bicycling"

Ah, so any increase justifies your efforts? Why? I think it a far better thing to improve the quality of cyclists' behavior and cyclists' status in society, along with the reduction in car-bike collisions that such changes would likely produce, than it is to create an infrastructure that is based on the opposite policies just because ignorant people such as yourself have a superstitious belief in its value.

mossy, you honestly think something you purport happened in 1940 actually has some impact on 21st century american redesign of public rights of way with cyclists in mind as road users? :roflmao:

Well, yes, history carries itself along from past to present. Those who do not know the past will suffer from the same problems time after time.

I repeat what you should know, but evidently refuse to believe. By 1940, American society thought of cyclists as road users inferior to motorists, allowed to use the roads only to the extent that motorists allowed them, and incapable of operating as drivers of vehicles. Starting in 1970, political conditions enabled motorists to institutionalize those attitudes in the form of bikeways. These are historical facts, bekologist.

Today, bekologist, you are demanding the same facilities that motorists designed 35 years ago to keep you and yours out of motorists' way, and justified on the basis that you and yours are incompetent road users. Don't you find that demeaning and patronizing? Wouldn't you rather stand up on your own feet for your rightful place among road users? If you and yours did so, we might well get the improvements in roads that we deserve. Instead of which, you and yours advocate a program of incompetent cycling on bikeways, to the harm of all cyclists.

not to mention the fact that VC has done such a stellar job of getting large numbers of all kinds of people out there on roadways, riding vehicularly!:rolleyes: I suggest mass hypnosis to try and exorcize the demons of inferiority from the public's minds.

Well, yes, rando, you are one very active part of the reasons why so few Americans cycle, with your constant refrain that cyclists are so inferior to motorists that they have to have special protection, in other words be shoved aside so that motorists "won't run over them", or some such, and that good old average Americans are too dumb to be able to learn how to ride in the safe and effective manner. That's what's wrong with American bicycle transportation, far too many who oppose safe and effective cycling, not those vehicular cyclists who are trying to put things right against the effort of the unknowing multitude of bicycle advocates.

:roflmao:

put things right against the unknowing multitude of bicycle advocates?

hilarious, mossy. your denial about the efficacy of bike infrastructure runs deep.

:roflmao:

put things right against the unknowing multitude of bicycle advocates?

hilarious, mossy. your denial about the efficacy of bike infrastructure runs deep.

Bekologist, neither you nor your associates have demonstrated a system that provides just as short travel times with lower accident rate than does vehicular cycling on good roads. You keep repeating the assertion that something provides better service, but you have never been able to show it to us.

Put up or shut up.
Very diplomatic of you. :rolleyes:

I could say the same. Your move...

:)

If most people reject vehicular cycling on non-accommodated roadways without even trying it, how does promoting vehicular cycling and non-accommodated roadways do anything for bicycling?

Nobody thinks vehicular cycling is wrong, but if nobody will be the first one in their town to give it a whirl, and if those who do decide to give it a whirl find they are punished by motorists for their efforts, what good does it do all by itself?

what mossy is prattling on about like a broken record, I've no idea. claims bike infrastructure provides faster travel times than road cycling is a strawman argument and one no bike infrastructure advocate is endorsing.

bike infrastructure in communities can be used by vehicular cyclists. bike infrastructure built on public roads increases on-road cycling, encourages more visible road position than wide lanes, and decreases the indexed crash rate for bicyclists.

ask bonafide traffic engineers about bike infrastructure, and the consensus is 'build it, and they will ride.'

this is not an empty platitude nor is it unproven.

bike commuting rates are on the rise in cities, around the world, that support bicycling as transportation via bike infrastructure. mossy claims there's nothing better than the american auto-centric status quo, and just about every bike advocacy organization disagrees with him.

anyway, a vehicular cyclist can use bike infrastructure. it should be no big deal to mossy if cities in the US or around the world are increasing bike transportation rates thru the use of bike infrastructure.

like I said earlier, mossy's talk to google should have been titled something like "john f's skewed attempts to minimize bicycle transportation"

While there is a lot of benefit in empowering the individual to keep on truck’n as it were. It does seem that this “I’m only going to deal with the half of the problem I can control.” has evolved to “there is no other half to this problem,” or at best “there is nothing we can do about the other half.” and that is a shame. Continuing to operate as though cyclists are inferior road users will only continue to erode cyclists' rights to use the roadways as vehicle drivers. Cycling as if you are not inferior, and ignoring the current trend for motorists to consider to cyclists as inferior, is a lot more practical than accepting that cyclists are inferior and operating as such, that is, if you feel that your rights to the road are important.
My reference to the other half meant non-cyclists or specifically motorist. The notion that motorists do not need to know where a cyclist needs to ride both legally and safely is extremely detrimental to the welfare of society and treats cyclists as inferior to other road users. Maintaining that motorists are allowed to assault cyclists without repercussions treats cyclists as inferior. And I can go on.

If most people reject vehicular cycling on non-accommodated roadways without even trying it, how does promoting vehicular cycling and non-accommodated roadways do anything for bicycling?

Nobody thinks vehicular cycling is wrong, but if nobody will be the first one in their town to give it a whirl, and if those who do decide to give it a whirl find they are punished by motorists for their efforts, what good does it do all by itself?

Punished by motorists for cycling properly? If cycling properly caused motorists to punish cyclists I would have been punished frequently throughout my life. Doesn't happen.This is one more bogus argument justifying the cyclist-inferiority (and in your case it really does seem to be a phobia).

We need to fight the cyclist-inferiority policy, rather than bow down to it.

what mossy is prattling on about like a broken record, I've no idea. claims bike infrastructure provides faster travel times than road cycling is a strawman argument and one no bike infrastructure advocate is endorsing.

bike infrastructure in communities can be used by vehicular cyclists. bike infrastructure built on public roads increases on-road cycling, encourages more visible road position than wide lanes, and decreases the indexed crash rate for bicyclists.

ask bonafide traffic engineers about bike infrastructure, and the consensus is 'build it, and they will ride.'

this is not an empty platitude nor is it unproven.

bike commuting rates are on the rise in cities, around the world, that support bicycling as transportation via bike infrastructure. mossy claims there's nothing better than the american auto-centric status quo, and just about every bike advocacy organization disagrees with him.

anyway, a vehicular cyclist can use bike infrastructure. it should be no big deal to mossy if cities in the US or around the world are increasing bike transportation rates thru the use of bike infrastructure.

like I said earlier, mossy's talk to google should have been titled something like "john f's skewed attempts to minimize bicycle transportation"

Can't read, can you? I asked whether there was any bikeways system that provided trip times as short as normal riding on the road. In general, using bikeways increases travel time.

Your argument is that bikeways appeal to people who do not know how to ride safely. I agree that that is the effect, and I think that that is a bad effect. That is a bad effect in two ways. It does what you argue, puts people on the road without the skills to ride safely, by making them feel that the bikeways protect them. And, therefore, it discourages learning of safe cycling practice. It cannot do anything else, because these unknowing people have been persuaded that bikeways make cycling safe.

Better for society to acknowledge that riding safely is the best way to operate, and to encourage that rather than discouraging it.

And you, bekologist, are applying yourself to doing this harm to the cycling population.

Well, yes, history carries itself along from past to present. Those who do not know the past will suffer from the same problems time after time.

I repeat what you should know, but evidently refuse to believe. By 1940, American society thought of cyclists as road users inferior to motorists, allowed to use the roads only to the extent that motorists allowed them, and incapable of operating as drivers of vehicles. Starting in 1970, political conditions enabled motorists to institutionalize those attitudes in the form of bikeways. These are historical facts, bekologist.

Today, bekologist, you are demanding the same facilities that motorists designed 35 years ago to keep you and yours out of motorists' way, and justified on the basis that you and yours are incompetent road users. Don't you find that demeaning and patronizing? Wouldn't you rather stand up on your own feet for your rightful place among road users? If you and yours did so, we might well get the improvements in roads that we deserve. Instead of which, you and yours advocate a program of incompetent cycling on bikeways, to the harm of all cyclists.

John if historical precedent meant anything in this regard, cycling in a vehicular manner, as it was done when cyclists first demanded the paving of roads, should have carried over until now. But in fact the auto and the system of auto superiority based design has overshadowed the past, displacing the vehicular system by cyclists that was in wide use.

This thread has gone off along the usual tangents. I hoped the video would provide new fodder and new insight for discussion. (Some people learn better from the spoken word than from the written word.) Please take one hour to view and listen to the presentation and the Q&A that followed, then use this thread to further clarify those particular issues.

If you haven't invested a few hours to study the VC literature, and you haven't even invested one hour on the video of Forester's recent public presentation of his ideas, then you're arguing here against a caricature of the man and the concepts.

john, your misleading diatribe is transparent.

John if historical precedent meant anything in this regard, cycling in a vehicular manner, as it was done when cyclists first demanded the paving of roads, should have carried over until now. But in fact the auto and the system of auto superiority based design has overshadowed the past, displacing the vehicular system by cyclists that was in wide use.

That is a reasonably accurate statement. The motorist superiority system devised the bikeway system that is based on cyclist-inferiority cycling. That is exactly why I am encouraging you bicycle activists that you should be fighting the motorist-superiority, cyclist-inferiority system of bikeways and standing up for your rights and safety as drivers of vehicles, instead of accepting the status that motorists assign to you.

more quixotic ludicrous rantings. john, accomodating bikes on public rights of way with bike infrastructure has nothing to do with motorist superiority. bike infrastructure is about moving more bikes in public space and encouraging bicycling. why you even continue to beat that broken drum is pathetic.

Bollocks to your skewed assertions that people have to be trained, lawful bicyclists to use public space. THAT foresterism is a reflection of the motorist superiority complex.


sending up tired, weak smoke screens about bike infrastructure really erodes what little credibility you retain.

Bollocks to your skewed assertions that people have to be trained, lawful bicyclists to use public space. THAT foresterism is a reflection of the motorist superiority complex.


Bicycle advocates such as yourself are some of the nastiest people I have ever had discussions with. Advocating that people should use the roads without any knowledge of how to do so safely is one of the nastiest proposals I have seen, all for the cause of anti-motoring.

That is a reasonably accurate statement. The motorist superiority system devised the bikeway system that is based on cyclist-inferiority cycling. That is exactly why I am encouraging you bicycle activists that you should be fighting the motorist-superiority, cyclist-inferiority system of bikeways and standing up for your rights and safety as drivers of vehicles, instead of accepting the status that motorists assign to you.

'Bikeways' were proposed, designed, and heavily used long before automobiles became popular. For instance, the very popular Coney Island path which opened in 1895. Also, the Pasadena-L.A. elevated bikeway, which was never entirely completed, because one railway refused to let it cross over their tracks. Auto-culture did not spawn these and other bikeways, quite the opposite; this project was abandoned when the automobile came on the scene.

Robert

This thread has gone off along the usual tangents. I hoped the video would provide new fodder and new insight for discussion.
What was the new fodder or insight?:rolleyes: It was the same old, same old, from John Foreter.http://www.majordickwinters.com/phpBB2/images/smiles/015.gif

'Bikeways' were proposed, designed, and heavily used long before automobiles became popular. For instance, the very popular Coney Island path which opened in 1895. Also, the Pasadena-L.A. elevated bikeway, which was never entirely completed, because one railway refused to let it cross over their tracks. Auto-culture did not spawn these and other bikeways, quite the opposite; this project was abandoned when the automobile came on the scene.

Robert

More lying, that's what it is, lying, to support opposition to vehicular cycling. Whatever they were called, the bicycle paths laid out before the automobile ere, were not bikeways as were started about 1970.

Lies, all lies! :roflmao:

quixotic rants.

john, your credibility is eroding rapidly here.

Well, yes, rando, you are one very active part of the reasons why so few Americans cycle, with your constant refrain that cyclists are so inferior to motorists that they have to have special protection, in other words be shoved aside so that motorists "won't run over them", or some such, and that good old average Americans are too dumb to be able to learn how to ride in the safe and effective manner. That's what's wrong with American bicycle transportation, far too many who oppose safe and effective cycling, not those vehicular cyclists who are trying to put things right against the effort of the unknowing multitude of bicycle advocates.

I've never said any of this!

what I said was that Bicycles are inferior to other vehicles on the road in terms of size, weight and speed.

I also don't oppose safe and effective cycling. I don't oppose Vehicular cycling.

I've never said any of this!

what I said was that Bicycles are inferior to other vehicles on the road in terms of size, weight and speed.

I also don't oppose safe and effective cycling. I don't oppose Vehicular cycling.
Rando, I suspect John is beginning to feel like he's being attacked from multiple directions, which he is. Given the atmosphere of a lot of the posts recently, I can understand a bit of misinterpretation on his and others parts.
This parts not directed at you Rando, but just some general observations on my part:
Just a proposal to all, and no,I'm not a moderator before anyone says that:

Let's think about dropping names like "Mossy John" and other forms of attack. I enjoy debate, but namecalling and personal attacks have no place on a debate and that's what this really is.

All of you, including John, make various valid points and maybe trying to arrive at a consensus instead of ripping each other apart might serve advocacy better.

Just my opinion, of course and you can all accept it or ignore it at your leisure.

I think the main difference is that most bike facilites advocates also advocate for/use VC as well but some of the VCers will not accept even the possibility that the existence of bike lanes might be good for cyclists. That's what I'm getting.... If I'm wrong, please tell me so!

I've never said any of this!

what I said was that Bicycles are inferior to other vehicles on the road in terms of size, weight and speed.

I also don't oppose safe and effective cycling. I don't oppose Vehicular cycling.

Why advance the irrelevant fact that bicycles are lighter, smaller, and slower than most other vehicles on the road, unless you thought it to be relevant. I repeat the substance of what I wrote earlier. That is, that these irrelevant facts have been advanced for decades as demonstrating that cyclists need to act in the inferior manner. I see little other reason for you to introduce them into this discussion.

There is considerable relevance to the twin characteristics of narrowness and slowness, because one assists in ameliorating the other, but that was not the context of your words and, note, you introduced weight, which is completely irrelevant even in the relevant discussion.

I think the main difference is that most bike facilites advocates also advocate for/use VC as well but some of the VCers will not accept even the possibility that the existence of bike lanes might be good for cyclists. That's what I'm getting.... If I'm wrong, please tell me so!

Might I suggest that you first provide a good argument as to why bike-lane stripes provide more benefit than the disbenefit they create?

Why advance the irrelevant fact that bicycles are lighter, smaller, and slower than most other vehicles on the road, unless you thought it to be relevant. I repeat the substance of what I wrote earlier. That is, that these irrelevant facts have been advanced for decades as demonstrating that cyclists need to act in the inferior manner. I see little other reason for you to introduce them into this discussion.

There is considerable relevance to the twin characteristics of narrowness and slowness, because one assists in ameliorating the other, but that was not the context of your words and, note, you introduced weight, which is completely irrelevant even in the relevant discussion.

OK, I said this originally in the context of the raging cyclist inferiority debate, to introduce the concept that it would be natural to be a little intimidated by the other vehicles on the road that are larger and faster and heavier than the bicycle. those are just facts. I think it is reasonable to have a certain amount of healthy respect and even fear about those differences. I think to not have these observations and fears would be unnatural and delusional. I then went on to say that faced with these fears many would choose to not ride in traffic at all or would choose less busy routes... AND that some would even decide to "Take the lane"... (perhaps bouyed by books like yours or websites like this one.)

I guess my contention is that this is a natural reaction and/or preference, and not a phobia that necessarily needs to be "Overcome" to be an effective, healthy, happy cyclist.

.....the irrelevant fact that bicycles are lighter, smaller, and slower than most other vehicles on the road.....

that's hilarious! your denial is astounding.

Might I suggest that you first provide a good argument as to why bike-lane stripes provide more benefit than the disbenefit they create?

I think you just might!

OK, I said this originally in the context of the raging cyclist inferiority debate, to introduce the concept that it would be natural to be a little intimidated by the other vehicles on the road that are larger and faster and heavier than the bicycle. those are just facts. I think it is reasonable to have a certain amount of healthy respect and even fear about those differences. I think to not have these observations and fears would be unnatural and delusional. I then went on to say that faced with these fears many would choose to not ride in traffic at all or would choose less busy routes... AND that some would even decide to "Take the lane"... (perhaps bouyed by books like yours or websites like this one.)

I guess my contention is that this is a natural reaction and/or preference, and not a phobia that necessarily needs to be "Overcome" to be an effective, healthy, happy cyclist.

Now I understand the nuance to your argument, but I am still unconvinced. Just as a starting position, I think we recognize the real enjoyment in cycling an interesting rural road with little traffic, and recognize that cycling an arterial at rush hour does not present that enjoyment. Motorists recognize the same difference.

Certainly I feel respect for the other items of traffic; I certainly will not steer into the path of a vehicle that is so close as to constitute a danger. But the weight of the vehicle is immaterial; not much difference between being hit by a dump truck or a Prius, or, for that matter, by an unlawful cyclist. Two of the most frightening experiences I have had on the road have been nighttime near head-on collisions with unlighted cyclists. Almost the same thing goes for size, except that one must take account of the space usage of wide and long vehicles, particularly when turning. Speed of vehicles, again, requires estimation if the cyclist is planning to enter the path of one of them, but otherwise its magnitude doesn't matter much. But none of this is any different than for a motorist. You seem to think that a person should feel different about traffic when he is driving a car than when he is driving a bicycle, but that is not the case with me.

Why the difference between what I think you believe and what I know I feel?

I think that it is partly in the way we look at traffic when cycling. You probably think of vehicles, but I don't; I think of drivers driving vehicles, and we are all in this dance together. Thank God, the automated roadway is not yet upon us. And that goes back, I think, to the different ways in which we were probably raised. I was raised with the vehicular cycling attitude, that all drivers should respect each other and all drivers should obey the rules of the road. You were probably raised in the typical American way of staying out of the way of cars. I don't say that either way is right or wrong, but I do say that having the vehicular-cycling attitude is far better for a person who rides a bicycle than is the cyclist-inferiority attitude.

I know many American-born cyclists who have acquired the vehicular-cycling attitude through their experience on the road, or from instruction plus experience. They are also, I have reason to believe, among the safer of cyclists because they obey the rules of the road. Therefore, I do consider it valuable for a cyclist to acquire the vehicular-cycling attitude, no matter his attitude when he started cycling.

Now I understand the nuance to your argument, but I am still unconvinced. Just as a starting position, I think we recognize the real enjoyment in cycling an interesting rural road with little traffic, and recognize that cycling an arterial at rush hour does not present that enjoyment. Motorists recognize the same difference.

Certainly I feel respect for the other items of traffic; I certainly will not steer into the path of a vehicle that is so close as to constitute a danger. But the weight of the vehicle is immaterial; not much difference between being hit by a dump truck or a Prius, or, for that matter, by an unlawful cyclist. Two of the most frightening experiences I have had on the road have been nighttime near head-on collisions with unlighted cyclists. Almost the same thing goes for size, except that one must take account of the space usage of wide and long vehicles, particularly when turning. Speed of vehicles, again, requires estimation if the cyclist is planning to enter the path of one of them, but otherwise its magnitude doesn't matter much. But none of this is any different than for a motorist. You seem to think that a person should feel different about traffic when he is driving a car than when he is driving a bicycle, but that is not the case with me.

Why the difference between what I think you believe and what I know I feel?

I think that it is partly in the way we look at traffic when cycling. You probably think of vehicles, but I don't; I think of drivers driving vehicles, and we are all in this dance together. Thank God, the automated roadway is not yet upon us. And that goes back, I think, to the different ways in which we were probably raised. I was raised with the vehicular cycling attitude, that all drivers should respect each other and all drivers should obey the rules of the road. You were probably raised in the typical American way of staying out of the way of cars. I don't say that either way is right or wrong, but I do say that having the vehicular-cycling attitude is far better for a person who rides a bicycle than is the cyclist-inferiority attitude.

I know many American-born cyclists who have acquired the vehicular-cycling attitude through their experience on the road, or from instruction plus experience. They are also, I have reason to believe, among the safer of cyclists because they obey the rules of the road. Therefore, I do consider it valuable for a cyclist to acquire the vehicular-cycling attitude, no matter his attitude when he started cycling.
I hope Rando and others have read this, and given it some thought. I think it really gets to the heart of the matter. The bolded parts capture exactly what I learned from studying and applying Effective Cycling; they were not true for me before I read the book, and became true for me shortly (a few weeks) after reading it. I consider the last paragraph to be describing a cyclist like me.

you mean a cyclist that drives more than he bikes?

I hope Rando and others have read this, and given it some thought. I think it really gets to the heart of the matter. The bolded parts capture exactly what I learned from studying and applying Effective Cycling; they were not true for me before I read the book, and became true for me shortly (a few weeks) after reading it. I consider the last paragraph to be describing a cyclist like me.

Good luck with that - spoken like a true believer....

You seem to think that a person should feel different about traffic when he is driving a car than when he is driving a bicycle, but that is not the case with me.

.......

I think that it is partly in the way we look at traffic when cycling. You probably think of vehicles, but I don't; I think of drivers driving vehicles, and we are all in this dance together.

Two TOTALY different things... you can say you feel the same all you want in a car and on a bike in heavy traffic, but I don't buy it. Then again, I'm OK with that. Dang it HH, why did you have to become an atheist? You make a great religous man!

you can say you feel the same all you want in a car and on a bike in heavy traffic, but I don't buy it.
A key aspect of learning vehicular cycling is feeling the same when in traffic - like a driver - whether driving a car or riding a bike. In fact, realizing that you do feel the same way regardless (which, by the way, is often accompanied by realizing that you've become a better driver when driving a car) is a significant way in which really learning VC manifests itself.

A key aspect of learning vehicular cycling is feeling the same when in traffic - like a driver - whether driving a car or riding a bike. In fact, realizing that you do feel the same way regardless (which, by the way, is often accompanied by realizing that you've become a better driver when driving a car) is a significant way in which really learning VC manifests itself.


sort of like scientology, I get it now!

A key aspect of learning vehicular cycling is feeling the same when in traffic - like a driver - whether driving a car or riding a bike. In fact, realizing that you do feel the same way regardless (which, by the way, is often accompanied by realizing that you've become a better driver when driving a car) is a significant way in which really learning VC manifests itself.

When I ride a bike in traffic, I feel superior to motorists, that doesn't mean I feel my bicycle is superior to their vehicle - that would be just silly - it seems to me you guys don't separate the two - that's dangerous for people who are just getting into to cycling and read this stuff

When I ride a bike in traffic, I feel superior to motorists, that doesn't mean I feel my bicycle is superior to their vehicle - that would be just silly - it seems to me you guys don't separate the two - that's dangerous for people who are just getting into to cycling and read this stuff
What do you think makes you feel superior to motorists when riding a bike in traffic? I've never experienced that.

What do you think makes you feel superior to motorists when riding a bike in traffic? I've never experienced that.


Something about the fact they are sitting in a large "safe" vehicle and I'm on my fuel efficient bicycle in all weather makes me feel damn superior to any of them - but I still respect the vechicle mass difference.

..... realizing that you do feel the same way regardless (which, by the way, is often accompanied by realizing that you've become a better driver when driving a car) is a significant way in which really learning VC manifests itself.

interesting......'often accompanied' by 'significant' feelings about driving a car......

compelling evidence Head DOES drive more than he bicycles.

I've become a driver that sometimes stops and goes at red lights when there's no cross traffic. I call your bluff about bicycling, head. you sure do drive a lot.

interesting......'often accompanied' by 'significant' feelings about driving a car......

compelling evidence Head DOES drive more than he bicycles.

I've become a driver that sometimes stops and goes at red lights when there's no cross traffic. I call your bluff about bicycling, head. you sure do drive a lot.
Do you have anything of substance to say, Bek? Or are pointless ad hominem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem) attacks all you've got?


An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the person", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim. It is most commonly used to refer specifically to the ad hominem abusive, or argumentum ad personam, which consists of criticizing or personally attacking an argument's proponent in an attempt to discredit that argument.

...
On the other hand, the theory of evidence depends to a large degree on assessments of the credibility of witnesses, including eyewitness evidence and expert witness evidence. Evidence that a purported eyewitness is unreliable, or has a motive for lying, or that a purported expert witness lacks the claimed expertise can play a major role in making judgements from evidence.
Argument ad hominem is the converse of appeal to authority, in which the arguer bases the truth value of an assertion on the authority, knowledge or position of the person asserting it. Hence, while an ad hominem argument may make an assertion less compelling, by showing that the person making the assertion does not have the authority, knowledge or position they claim, or has made mistaken assertions on similar topics in the past, it cannot provide an infallible counterargument.

A third way, not another stage as I would see it, is to become active in influencing professional traffic-engineering opinion at either, or both, the local and the highest levels. This involves arguing the engineering principles that bikeways contradict known standard traffic-engineering practices while wide outside lanes do not have that disadvantage. And arguing, particularly at the local level, that the public should expect bicycle traffic on all roadways except freeways, so that all roadways should be designed to accommodate some expected level of bicycle travel. That accommodation might be wide outside through lanes or it might be just acceptance that cyclists will take a narrow outside through lane when that is what is supplied. The local traffic engineer needs to make it clear to the local politicians that these are the only reasonable options, and that wide outside through lanes take no more space than do bike lanes without the disadvantages of bike lanes. It is up to the politicians to decide how best to accommodate bicycle traffic, either with wide outside lanes or with narrow lanes and a possibly a reduced speed limit.

At this point, it is up to the local cyclists to persuade some politicians that this is the best course, and to then generate support for the politicians who accept this view, so that this gets into the official local planning documents.

This has been our strategy in Cary. At the moment, the planners and engineers are attempting to be all things to all people, providing of-road greenways where they function reasonably well as interconnected linear parks, providing better street connectivity and land use planning for easier nonmotorized trips, providing wide outside lanes on thoroughfares, providing wide sidewalks in areas where sidewalk cycling is expected, and adding bike lane striping to some roads.

We have been successful in limiting the degree of government endorsement of sidewalk cycling in Cary; the city has not signed its new wide "MUP" sidewalks as bikeways as they have in nearby cities, and the city has resolved to always provide wide outside lanes on road improvements regardless of sidewalk width (previously there was an attempt in Cary to eliminate wide outside lanes on roads with "MUP" sidewalks to be designated as bike paths, a common problem in nearby cities). The city planners have also been sensitized to the magnitude of the local collision rate affecting sidewalk cyclists compared to the low rate for local roadway cyclists operating with traffic. The city planning department recently came to cyclists' aid and contacted the police department to settle a problem with the police stopping cyclists for "impeding traffic" on roads with narrow lanes. Lastly, more of our traffic signals have started to detect bicycles.

Our main problem as of late has been the planners' push to add more bike lane striping to local roads, particularly in places where it causes problems. Numerous low-volume collector roads have had their 16' wide lanes restriped with narrow bike lanes that now collect debris. In the last week or so, the city striped and signed its first thoroughfare bike lane on a short section of newly widened road. When the bike lane meets a right turn only lane, where do you think they striped the bike lane? You bet, on the right side of the right turn only lane. There are some bike lane proponents here that remain convinced that badly designed, debris-filled bike lanes are better than leaving good roads alone with wide through lanes.

I became an LCI just this spring, but I am scheduling a Road 1 course soon with local planners and engineers in Raleigh and Cary. I have been surprised at how receptive they are to taking the class. They seem convinced that understanding vehicular cycling will help them understand designing for bicycle traffic, or at the very least, they think the Road 1 certificate will give them a useful credential. I hope that if enough of them come to see the elegance of vehicular traffic skills combined with adequate pavement width on the busier roads, and see the problems with some of their existing bike lanes, they will become disillusioned with the goal of providing more stripes on roads that don't need them.

-Steve Goodridge

head, the fact you don't ride much needs to be continually reiterated. your statements like the one i quoted only make it more clear to the forum you're quite the car driver.

steve, you still characterize most cyclists thru your town the 'recreational' high speed type, i believe. striping roads with wide outside lanes alone does NOT encourage bicycling, just vehicular blowhards to mistakenly think their communities are encouraging bicycling.

you need to work with your roads department and city planners, to get those bike lanes cleaned more often, and wide outside lanes on arterials striped with bike lanes to the LEFT of intersection RTOLs, if you have any desires to grow beyond the high speed 'recreational riders' you state Cary is filled with.

you do want more bicycling, don't you, steve? or just limited numbers of vehicular cyclists?

Here's a valid plan, steve, to encourage greater cycling in Cary. wide outside lanes on slow speed, low traffic roads, and bike lanes on the arterials - striped well and cleaned regularily, if you expect cycling to catch on in cary. or else you're continuing to marginalize bicycling with the 'unaccomodations' wide outside lanes provide.

substance?

LAB stats: Boulder, CO: 97 percent of arterials striped with bike lanes, 21 percent of commuters commute by bicycle.

Davis, CA 95 percent arterials striped with bike lanes, 17 percent commuters commute by bike.

What does a vehicular bicyclist do in Boulder? ride in bike lanes on arterials except when needing to leave the lane when turning or for hazards.

what does a vehicular bicyclist do in davis? ride in bike lanes on arterials except when needing to leave the bike lane for turns or hazards.

What does a vehicular cyclist in San Diego do? ride in the bike lanes on arterials, except when needing to leave the lane for turns or for hazards.

Vehicular cyclists CAN use a bike lane. Vehicular cyclists CAN advocate for bike lanes, for accomodations for bikes along public rights of way.

substance?

LAB stats: Boulder, CO: 97 percent of arterials striped with bike lanes, 21 percent of commuters commute by bicycle.

Davis, CA 95 percent arterials striped with bike lanes, 17 percent commuters commute by bike.

What does a vehicular bicyclist do in Boulder? ride in bike lanes on arterials except when needing to leave the lane when turning or for hazards.

what does a vehicular bicyclist do in davis? ride in bike lanes on arterials except when needing to leave the bike lane for turns or hazards.

What does a vehicular cyclist in San Diego do? ride in the bike lanes on arterials, except when needing to leave the lane for turns or for hazards.

Vehicular cyclists CAN use a bike lane. Vehicular cyclists CAN advocate for bike lanes, for accomodations for bikes along public rights of way.

You describe this as substantive information, Bekelogist? While these statements are largely true, you do not know what you are talking about. In a couple of college towns we have lots of cyclists and lots of bikeways. Yes, indeed, the many cyclists influenced politicians to produce bikeways. Sort of natural, that, and indicates nothing except the power of the bikeway superstition and the money for building them.

As for your claim that vehicular cyclists can advocate for bike lanes, it is equally valid to say that airliner pilots can advocate for bike lanes, as can preachers, or motorists, or grocery clerks. That is to say, your statement is only an indication of the political process in America, and as such has no relevance in this forum.

What I say, and what you have not yet understood, is that vehicular cyclists should never advocate systems of bike lane stripes (there may be a few special locations where bike lanes are valuable) because bike-lane theory, practice, and policy are based on incompetent cycling and false promises of safety, while being opposed to vehicular cycling. Therefore, if vehicular cyclists advocate bike-lane stripes, they are adding credibility to the superstitious policy and practice that they are trying to overcome.

More lying, that's what it is, lying, to support opposition to vehicular cycling. Whatever they were called, the bicycle paths laid out before the automobile ere, were not bikeways as were started about 1970.

'Lying?' Stop the childish tantrums. I am not completely unsympathetic to your anti-bike lane diatribes, but you'd do well to reconcile your sloganeering with the historical record, at least.

Robert

steve, you still characterize most cyclists thru your town the 'recreational' high speed type, i believe. striping roads with wide outside lanes alone does NOT encourage bicycling, just vehicular blowhards to mistakenly think their communities are encouraging bicycling.

you need to work with your roads department and city planners, to get those bike lanes cleaned more often, and wide outside lanes on arterials striped with bike lanes to the LEFT of intersection RTOLs, if you have any desires to grow beyond the high speed 'recreational riders' you state Cary is filled with.

you do want more bicycling, don't you, steve? or just limited numbers of vehicular cyclists?

Here's a valid plan, steve, to encourage greater cycling in Cary. wide outside lanes on slow speed, low traffic roads, and bike lanes on the arterials - striped well and cleaned regularily, if you expect cycling to catch on in cary. or else you're continuing to marginalize bicycling with the 'unaccomodations' wide outside lanes provide.

We have a typical number of casual, family, and unenthusiast cyclists for an affluent suburb of our size. maybe a little more than typical. We have an unusually high number of road cycling enthusiasts (including fitness-oriented bike commuters) on our roadways because of the exceptionally high education levels in the area, particularly in science/technical/engineering fields, with the associated combination of high disposable incomes, flexible work hours, and non-conformist culture that is comfortable with using an unusual means of transportation and dressing contrary to social norms.

My intent is to educate the city planners and engineers about proper traffic cycling technique, so they stop desiging and building foolish bike lanes to the right of right-turn-only lanes and where they only collect debris because of the planners' unwillingness to plan and fund the increased level of maintenance they require. The cause of badly designed and unmaintained bike lanes is a lack of the designers and planners understanding of vehicular cycling and the inherent problems with vehicle-class separation striping. The reason I oppose such striping is because the state and local engineers continually prove, through bad installations, that they are incapable of providing such striping without causing more problems than they could possibly solve.

I always try to promote cycling, and take lots of beginning cyclists out for rides, just not on the roads with bike lane stripes, because these have become less desirable and safe for cycling than similar roads that have not had such striping added. However, I will probably take the Road 1 class of planners and engineers out onto the roads with debris-lane, door-zone lane and right-side-of right-turn-only lane bike lanes at the end of the class to see how they respond to these problems, and to provide a teaching opportunity.

What I say, and what you have not yet understood, is that vehicular cyclists should never advocate systems of bike lane stripes (there may be a few special locations where bike lanes are valuable) because bike-lane theory, practice, and policy are based on incompetent cycling and false promises of safety, while being opposed to vehicular cycling. Therefore, if vehicular cyclists advocate bike-lane stripes, they are adding credibility to the superstitious policy and practice that they are trying to overcome.
What I say, and what you have not yet understood, is that cyclists should never advocate systems of specialized education (there may be a few special locations where specialized education is valuable) because specialized education theory, practice, and policy are based on ignorant cyclist and false promises of reaching those who need it, while being opposed to anything that effectively deals with the ignorant cyclist. Therefore, if cyclists advocate for specialized education, they are adding credibility to the superstitious policy and practice that they are trying to overcome.
It should be obvious what I am attempting to do in the above paragraph while it is not my POV it does seem that the logic of the argument comes down to if this is valid “since road engineering for cyclist has been lame in the past we should oppose road engineering.” Then this should also be valid “since education for cyclists has been lame in the past we should oppose education for cyclists.”

I would like to point out that the main thrust of road engineering comes down to accommodating the incompetent motorist. Should motorist oppose highways because of medians, rumble strips, guard rails and other motorists are incompetent features? Any argument that uses the Cyclists Inferiority/ Incompetent as part of the proof in this manner is laughable IMHO.

The holistic approach to any road safety issues has always come down to Engineering, Education and Enforcement. Many of us believe just because these issues were lame in the past does not mean that we should oppose any of the E’s from getting the full attention that they deserve. The only thing inherent in any of the E’s that would prevent them from serving cyclists well is cyclists opposing efforts in a particular area.

Punished by motorists for cycling properly? If cycling properly caused motorists to punish cyclists I would have been punished frequently throughout my life. Doesn't happen.This is one more bogus argument justifying the cyclist-inferiority (and in your case it really does seem to be a phobia).

We need to fight the cyclist-inferiority policy, rather than bow down to it.
Ya, right. We don’t get any complaints about bus drivers trying to run cyclists off the road and of course none of our motorized road fellows shouts “Get on the sidewalk” at us and if they do it is our fault for not having thick enough skin or not riding properly.

And I’m sorry but a motorist laying on a horn while passing a kid on a bike is darn scary for the kid. I don’t buy that the best solution is just to ignore these kinds of problems and say they don’t exist or if they do exist the problem lies solely with the cyclists.

Most bike accidents involve wrong way riding and/or kids and nothing you have but forth has or will significantly reduce those statistics. I’m convinced that a component of wrong way riding is motorists “punishing” cyclists and that needs to be dealt with on both sides. This is not bowing down to cyclists-inferiority policy this is claiming equal rights.

Most bike accidents involve wrong way riding and/or kids and nothing you have but forth has or will significantly reduce those statistics. I’m convinced that a component of wrong way riding is motorists “punishing” cyclists and that needs to be dealt with on both sides. This is not bowing down to cyclists-inferiority policy this is claiming equal rights.

After this weekend at the Jersey shore, I'm convinced that it's the hordes of incompetent non-enthusiast cycling parents who ride the wrong way and even do so with their kids in tow on a trailer cycle (helmetted of course) that have caused wrong way riding child cyclists to be the problem that they are.