Vehicular Cycling (VC) - Forester's talk: The Management of Bicycle Transportation

So if you feel more like the driver of a car when you are riding your bicycle, then you must be feeling pretty grateful for all the bike lanes and bike paths pushing those incompetent cyclists out of your way.

What constitutes too close and too fast is very subjective. If one feels guilty, the intensity of the experience increases. And, when the situation warrants, take the lane, let the motorists honk, and don't increase the intensity of your emotions by feeling guilty about it.

I have often said that I prefer close overtaking by an 18-wheeler with a professional driver to being overtaken at somewhat greater distance by a passenger car towing a trailer. I trust the professional driver much more than the amateur driver who only occasionally tows a trailer.

John,

Of the half dozen or so daylight overtaking collisions that I am aware of in the Raleigh-Cary area over several years, over half of them involved trailers towed behind pickup trucks or SUVs driven by drivers without commercial licenses, on roads with narrow lanes.

According to witness statements and police reports, a common theme of these trailer collisions was the drivers' belief that the cyclist did not belong on the roadway. Some of the drivers honked at the cyclist before overtaking too closely. Some drivers complained to the police after the collision that the cyclist was in the roadway and should have been on the sidewalk. It appears that drivers who believe cyclists do not belong on the roadway end up engaging in greater risk-taking, and that in the case of wider vehicles this reduces their margin for error to particularly dangerous levels.

In the above collisions, the police ended up educating the motorists about cyclists' roadway rights and proper overtaking too late. What can/should we as cyclists expect the police, driver education programs, and other public or private organizations to do to (1) increase drivers' awareness of cyclists' right to the road, and (2) reduce risk talking by drivers overtaking cyclists, before collisions happen?

-Steve Goodridge

John,

Of the half dozen or so daylight overtaking collisions that I am aware of in the Raleigh-Cary area over several years, over half of them involved trailers towed behind pickup trucks or SUVs driven by drivers without commercial licenses, on roads with narrow lanes.

According to witness statements and police reports, a common theme of these trailer collisions was the drivers' belief that the cyclist did not belong on the roadway. Some of the drivers honked at the cyclist before overtaking too closely. Some drivers complained to the police after the collision that the cyclist was in the roadway and should have been on the sidewalk. It appears that drivers who believe cyclists do not belong on the roadway end up engaging in greater risk-taking, and that in the case of wider vehicles this reduces their margin for error to particularly dangerous levels.

In the above collisions, the police ended up educating the motorists about cyclists' roadway rights and proper overtaking too late. What can/should we as cyclists expect the police, driver education programs, and other public or private organizations to do to (1) increase drivers' awareness of cyclists' right to the road, and (2) reduce risk taking by drivers overtaking cyclists, before collisions happen?

-Steve Goodridge
(1) - there are many ideas; I have no idea which, if any, would be effective
(2) - ride further left. Ignore the honks. This will cause them to have to initiate their pass further left, make them much less likely to pass you closely (because they have given up on trying to squeeze in), and give you more room to move right in case they start cutting back in too early.

I observed dozens of cyclists riding on narrow rural winecountry roads this weekend. Every single one without exception (unless you count observing myself) rode as far right as possible inviting close within the too-narrow-lane passing, and got it.

I rode so far left as to clearly cause motorists to slow down most of the time, and move left before passing me, whether they were hauling trailers or not. Didn't get any honks or aggressive behavior.

Is your name John? :rolleyes:


If you ride too far left, they will try and pass you on the right...:)

Is your name John? :rolleyes:
Like I'm the first one to answer a post in an open forum that addresses someone else, as if there is something wrong with doing that. :rolleyes:


If you ride too far left, they will try and pass you on the right...:)
They might. So don't ride too far left.

If you ride too far left, they will try and pass you on the right...:)

The only time someone has ever tried to pass me on the right in a narrow lane it was another cyclist. I was centered in the lane when I saw them closing in on me so I moved off to the right to share the narrow lane, like I would if a motorcyclist wanted to pass (but not an RV :)). The cyclist was riding about 6 inches from the fog line which was about 6 inches from the road edge. He was very hesistant to pass on my left, even though I left him about 5 of the 9 feet available, and waited behind me right near the road edge for a while until I finally waved him around on my left. I caught up to him at the next traffic light where he was stopped in the debris strewn gore area in between the straight thru and right turn area.

Originally Posted by John Forester
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.

Reply by Robert Hurst
'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.

Which I, John Forester, labeled as a lie.



'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

Fine, Robert. Please provide your argument, together with facts and reason, that supports your belief that the bicycle facilities built in the 1890s are equivalent to the bike lane systems built after 1970.

So if you feel more like the driver of a car when you are riding your bicycle, then you must be feeling pretty grateful for all the bike lanes and bike paths pushing those incompetent cyclists out of your way.

I have come to believe that you mean what you write, so I will answer your statement on that basis.

No, I don't. I trust no strange cyclist I see on the road, regardless of a bike-lane stripe.

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.

Which I, John Forester, labeled as a lie.



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




Fine, Robert. Please provide your argument, together with facts and reason, that supports your belief that the bicycle facilities built in the 1890s are equivalent to the bike lane systems built after 1970.
I don't think Robert is lying. I think he simply missed the significance of your original words. In particular, when you wrote, "the bikeway system that is based on cyclist-inferiority cycling", I knew you meant the system that was spawned in the mid 1960s at the earliest (actually late 60s/early 70s).

The fact that there were other bikeways created for other reasons decades earlier is irrelevant to your point. But it's an honest mistake, not a lie, so far as I can tell.

John,

Of the half dozen or so daylight overtaking collisions that I am aware of in the Raleigh-Cary area over several years, over half of them involved trailers towed behind pickup trucks or SUVs driven by drivers without commercial licenses, on roads with narrow lanes.

According to witness statements and police reports, a common theme of these trailer collisions was the drivers' belief that the cyclist did not belong on the roadway. Some of the drivers honked at the cyclist before overtaking too closely. Some drivers complained to the police after the collision that the cyclist was in the roadway and should have been on the sidewalk. It appears that drivers who believe cyclists do not belong on the roadway end up engaging in greater risk-taking, and that in the case of wider vehicles this reduces their margin for error to particularly dangerous levels.

In the above collisions, the police ended up educating the motorists about cyclists' roadway rights and proper overtaking too late. What can/should we as cyclists expect the police, driver education programs, and other public or private organizations to do to (1) increase drivers' awareness of cyclists' right to the road, and (2) reduce risk talking by drivers overtaking cyclists, before collisions happen?

-Steve Goodridge

I have often thought that it is possible to describe the class of motorist whose members are more likely to believe in the motorist superiority side of the cyclist-inferiority superstition. It does not seem to be drivers of muscle cars or super-speed cars; these drivers appear to treat road traffic as a game in which all are playing. Is it drivers of vehicles that are large by passenger car standards, such as pickup trucks and SUV? In other words, do people choose to drive such vehicles because they see them as being kings of the road? I don't know. However, for decades we old-time cyclists passed around the caution to beware of passenger cars towing trailers, and, since pickup trucks have become owned by people who are not construction workers or farmers (the former owners), I think that the caution should be extended to them. Basically, it is the person who occasionally tows a trailer and feels uncomfortable about it whose acts should be scanned closely by other drivers. That may also be one reason for the response that cyclists don't have the right to use the road. A person who has just been in an accident because of the unfamiliar task of towing a trailer may well come out with that excuse as a coverup for other feelings of inadequacy.

All trailers are licensed; hence we know who owns them. For owner-towed trailers, some additional printed information might assist; for rented trailers, provision of some further instruction or advice by the rentor could well be required. I do not know whether either of these has been tried.

In other words, do people choose to drive such vehicles because they see them as being kings of the road? I don't know.
According to internal memos in the Auto Industry, yes SUV drivers are selfish and don't like to share the road.

I don't think Robert is lying. I think he simply missed the significance of your original words. In particular, when you wrote, "the bikeway system that is based on cyclist-inferiority cycling", I knew you meant the system that was spawned in the mid 1960s at the earliest (actually late 60s/early 70s).

The fact that there were other bikeways created for other reasons decades earlier is irrelevant to your point. But it's an honest mistake, not a lie, so far as I can tell.

I am not lying (??!), nor did I make a mistake. I was simply pointing out a bit of history that people on this forum might find relevant if not interesting: the 'bikeway' concept was not originally sprouted by motorists trying to get cyclists off the road. There was something of a 'bikeway program' before there was such a thing as a motorist (see Smith, A Social History of the Bicycle, pp. 215-19).

Of course there were no bike lanes in the 1890s. There weren't any lanes in the 1890s.

Robert

I have often thought that it is possible to describe the class of motorist whose members are more likely to believe in the motorist superiority side of the cyclist-inferiority superstition. It does not seem to be drivers of muscle cars or super-speed cars; these drivers appear to treat road traffic as a game in which all are playing. Is it drivers of vehicles that are large by passenger car standards, such as pickup trucks and SUV? In other words, do people choose to drive such vehicles because they see them as being kings of the road? I don't know. However, for decades we old-time cyclists passed around the caution to beware of passenger cars towing trailers, and, since pickup trucks have become owned by people who are not construction workers or farmers (the former owners), I think that the caution should be extended to them. Basically, it is the person who occasionally tows a trailer and feels uncomfortable about it whose acts should be scanned closely by other drivers. That may also be one reason for the response that cyclists don't have the right to use the road. A person who has just been in an accident because of the unfamiliar task of towing a trailer may well come out with that excuse as a coverup for other feelings of inadequacy.

All trailers are licensed; hence we know who owns them. For owner-towed trailers, some additional printed information might assist; for rented trailers, provision of some further instruction or advice by the rentor could well be required. I do not know whether either of these has been tried.

John,

I want to avoid stereotyping drivers of any particular type of vehicle. So, for the sake of argument, let's suppose that the percentage of drivers who do not know bicyclists roadway use rights is uniformly distributed across all vehicle types. Some of those vehicle types will make safe passing of bicyclists more difficult or inconvenient than others, and those drivers will have varying degrees of skill and exposure times to cyclists when operating those vehicles.

Shouldn't we want to educate all drivers adequately about cyclists' road rights, so that in the event they do operate a wide motor vehicle (be it always or a one-day rental), they are less likely to be willing to endanger the roadway cyclist under the assumption that the cyclist deserves whatever danger he gets for being in the wrong place?

Certainly, only a very small percentage of motorists are willing to knowingly endanger cyclists they believe to be operating unlawfully, but I would prefer to multiply this percentage by a smaller number of drivers ignorant about the law, rather than the large number of ignorant drivers we have now.

This is what I am curious about - how do we effectively create better public awareness of bicyclists' roadway rights, particularly where the lanes are not much wider than the vehicles, when the existing population of drivers who think bicyclists are legally required to get out of the way of motorists to allow same-lane passing is probably something like 25%?

How do we effectively communicate our legal rights to the driving population, beyond simply operating according to vehicular cycling and proper defensive driving, as many of us already are? Can we convince any part of government to help us with this in an effective way? Wouldn't vehicular cycling advocates obtain more attention and respect from the bicycling population at large if we could be effective and visible at accomplishing this?

-Steve Goodridge

i'm with you steve, there should be public awareness campaigns about bicyclists on the roads. ample, often, national campaigns, local campaigns, public service announcements, etc.

john is seriously out of touch with modern traffic dynamics.

cyclists get raged by bus drivers, moms in minivans, muscle cars, pickups WITHOUT trailers.

as if the only worry for bicyclists is inadverdant close passing by unskilled trailer pulling drivers.....

pathetic POV, john. are you sure you've ridden this century, John? (just kidding....not really)

John,

I want to avoid stereotyping drivers of any particular type of vehicle. So, for the sake of argument, let's suppose that the percentage of drivers who do not know bicyclists roadway use rights is uniformly distributed across all vehicle types. Some of those vehicle types will make safe passing of bicyclists more difficult or inconvenient than others, and those drivers will have varying degrees of skill and exposure times to cyclists when operating those vehicles.

Shouldn't we want to educate all drivers adequately about cyclists' road rights, so that in the event they do operate a wide motor vehicle (be it always or a one-day rental), they are less likely to be willing to endanger the roadway cyclist under the assumption that the cyclist deserves whatever danger he gets for being in the wrong place?

Certainly, only a very small percentage of motorists are willing to knowingly endanger cyclists they believe to be operating unlawfully, but I would prefer to multiply this percentage by a smaller number of drivers ignorant about the law, rather than the large number of ignorant drivers we have now.

This is what I am curious about - how do we effectively create better public awareness of bicyclists' roadway rights, particularly where the lanes are not much wider than the vehicles, when the existing population of drivers who think bicyclists are legally required to get out of the way of motorists to allow same-lane passing is probably something like 25%?

How do we effectively communicate our legal rights to the driving population, beyond simply operating according to vehicular cycling and proper defensive driving, as many of us already are? Can we convince any part of government to help us with this in an effective way? Wouldn't vehicular cycling advocates obtain more attention and respect from the bicycling population at large if we could be effective and visible at accomplishing this?

-Steve Goodridge


+10000 just for thinking about this.

+10000 just for thinking about this.

I hope that John will provide some relevant experiences in his response, so that we can learn from them, to better affect public policy and public awareness.

I already know this part:

1. Cycling according to the normal vehicular rules is the most safe and efficient means or reaching one's destination of choice by bicycle;
2. Increasing awareness of the operational benefits of vehicular cycling among motorists, police, and traffic engineers generates empathy/understanding and in some cases extra engineering accommodations for cyclists operating on the roadway according to vehicular rules.
3. Empathy for and understanding of cyclists on the roadway results in less risk-taking by motorists and better enforcement actions by police, and sometimes better engineering, making vehicular cycling an even safer means of reaching one's destination.

This is why vehicular cycling advocates are often so publicly vocal about the benefits of vehicular cycling.

My question is, which vocal public activity is most effective? Which government organizations are willing to listen and repeat the message, to build public understanding for roadway cyclists? Which are not? Why? The same goes for non-government organizations. How are the ideas most effectively presented to (a) these organizations, and (b) the motoring public?

NOTE: I'm using the term "bikeway" here to refer to any type of facility designed primarily for the use of bicyclists, i.e., a "bike path" (physically separate from road) or a "bike lane" (paint-demarcated space on road), and I assume others are too.


I am not lying (??!), nor did I make a mistake. I was simply pointing out a bit of history that people on this forum might find relevant if not interesting: the 'bikeway' concept was not originally sprouted by motorists trying to get cyclists off the road. There was something of a 'bikeway program' before there was such a thing as a motorist (see Smith, A Social History of the Bicycle, pp. 215-19).

Of course there were no bike lanes in the 1890s. There weren't any lanes in the 1890s.

Robert
I understand your point, Robert, and I think it's important and brings clarity to the discussion. However, I still think there is something confusing about post #68:




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
Forester is referring to something very specific with the phrase, the bikeway system that is based on cyclist-inferiority cycling.

Not all bikeways are based on cyclist-inferiority cycling. Whether the any of the early ones were based on it or not I do not know. Obviously, the earliest ones that were created prior to motoring could not have been.

You are effectively refuting the point that the original concept of a bikeway was sprouted by motorists in order to get cyclists off the road. That's fine, except I've never seen Forester or anyone else say anything to the contrary. So your comment either reflects a mistake about what Forester was saying, or is something of a non sequitur. Perhaps preceding it with a, "by the way" would have it made it less confusing.

In any case, whether there existed something to which one might refer to as "bikeway program" before there was such a thing as a motorist is largely a matter of semantics (what is the meaning of "bikeway program"?). In any case, whatever it was, it was not the bikeway system that is based on cyclist-inferiority cycling to which Forester referred in his original post.

The concept of a bikeway clearly existed prior to the late 60s. Bikeways existed, particularly in Europe. but in the U.S. too. But , so far as I know, there was no concerted effort to create a system of bikeways in any part of the U.S. prior to that point. That didn't happen until the political and economic weight of motorist interests were thrown in, motivated by the desire to get and keep bicyclists out of the way of motorists. The bikeway system that resulted from that, which is dominated by installing bike lanes, starting in the early 70s, is what Forester refers to as the bikeway system that is based on cyclist-inferiority cycling. In a sense, they took an existing concept, thought that it would serve their interests, and so began supporting it.

Are tautologies attracted to you like moths to a candle?

Are tautologies attracted to you like moths to a candle?
I'll bite. What do you think is the tautology in this case?

I'll bite. What do you think is the tautology in this case?
What specifically is the bikeway system to which JF refers?

What specifically is the bikeway system to which JF refers?
The bikeway system to which JF refers has nothing to do with the bikeways to which Hurst refers.

The bikeway system to which JF refers is the bikeway system that is based on cyclist-inferiority cycling; it was spawned in the early 70s in CA and spread from there.

What is the tautology?

The bikeway system to which JF refers is the bikeway system that is based on cyclist-inferiority cycling; it was spawned in the early 70s in CA and spread from there.
Can you please be more specific?

Is "the bikeway system" all of the bike paths, bike lanes, bike trails in the US since the early 1970s, or is it a subset of them?

Can you please be more specific?

Is "the bikeway system" all of the bike paths, bike lanes, bike trails in the US since the early 1970s, or is it a subset of them? I believe Forester is referring to all bike paths and bike lanes built since the early 70s as the "bikeway system that is based on cyclist-inferiority cycling".

By the way, that doesn't mean that none of the bikeways that are part of the system have legitimate transportational functions; many of the bike paths do.

But the bike lanes, which form the bulk of the system, do not have transportational purposes because the space and ability for cyclists to use it is there whether the bike lane stripe (which is what defines the bike lane) is there or not.

What is the tautology?

By the way, that doesn't mean that none of the bikeways that are part of the system have legitimate transportational functions; many of the bike paths do.
So are those legitimately transportational paths that you mention based on cyclist inferiority cycling?


What is the tautology?
Stating that RH could not have been referring to the same "bikeway system" as JF, because by definition JF was referring to the one based on cyclist inferiority.

Not every segregated facility is based on cyclist inferiority. The "system" therefore is not uniformly based on cyclist inferiority. In fact the "system" is just an arbitrary grouping. Tautological in nature.

So are those legitimately transportational paths that you mention based on cyclist inferiority cycling? Based entirely on cyclist inferiority? No.
Based partially on cyclist inferiority? Probably. And in many cases, if the support based on cyclist inferiority was not there, I bet there would not be enough support to build the bike path. Some so-called bike advocates are willing to get in bed with cyclist inferiorists for that reason. It's classic unprincipled political compromise: selling out long-term goals guided by principle (e.g., the war on cyclist inferiority) for short-term gains (by getting in bed with cyclist inferiorists in order to get one bike path).




Stating that RH could not have been referring to the same "bikeway system" as JF, because by definition JF was referring to the one based on cyclist inferiority. That's not what I said.
I said RH's reference to early bikeways were irrelevant to JF's point about modern bikeways and the bikeway system based on cyclist inferiority that they are part of.



Not every segregated facility is based on cyclist inferiority. The "system" therefore is not uniformly based on cyclist inferiority. In fact the "system" is just an arbitrary grouping. Tautological in nature. Just because the "system" is not uniformly based on cyclist inferiority does not mean it's "just an arbitrary grouping". That's assuming a false dichotomy.

OK, so I have misinterpreted the foundation of your argumen, and there's no tautology. Then....

Assertion 1:
All bike paths and bike lanes built since the early 1970s (in the US I assume) make up a "system".

Assertion 2:
That system is based on cyclist inferiority

Question, if a bike path or bike lane did not originate from cyclist inferiority, is it part of that system?

OK, so I have misinterpreted the foundation of your argumen, and there's no tautology. Then....

Assertion 1:
All bike paths and bike lanes built since the early 1970s (in the US I assume) make up a "system".

Assertion 2:
That system is based on cyclist inferiority

Question, if a bike path or bike lane did not originate from cyclist inferiority, is it part of that system? I will not play semantic games.

Is "ls" part of the Unix operating system? It depends on whether you consider user utilites as part of the system or not, or whether the operating system is just the kernel.

Assertion 1 is suspect because it starts with "All". With respect to the bikeway system, the term "system" is much, much more loosely defined than in computer operating system.

That definition is too loose to be able to answer your question definitively. What difference does it make?

I will not play semantic games.

:rolleyes:

:roflmao:

Assertion 1 is suspect because it starts with "All".
I was only repeating your exact words.

I believe Forester is referring to all bike paths and bike lanes built since the early 70s as the "bikeway system that is based on cyclist-inferiority cycling".


With respect to the bikeway system, the term "system" is much, much more loosely defined
So "system" means something very specific in one instance, and something much more vague in another.

My question is this: Is there some specific metric one can use to define whether a bike lane or path is part of the "system" to which Forester referred?

If that metric is whether a specific path is based on cyclist-inferiority cycling, then we have a tautology.

If that metric is something independent of that variable, would you please provide it?

You said "all bike paths and bike lanes built since the early 70s" are part of the "system". Are they all based on cyclist inferiority cycling?

You don't live in Portland, or Vancouver BC, or Amsterdam, or Bogata, or any other city that has more than 1 or 2% bike usage. You're way too pessimistic about the future and apparently way too set in your beliefs to think 'outside the box' for even one instant.

Randya: self selecting a few cities where cycling is prevalent no more proves cycling is the 'way of the future,' than self selecting a few cities where motoring is prevalent proves that automobiles are the only future. Cycling has, is and will continue to have a role to play in the transportation matrix. But by any reasonable economic measure--passenger miles, revenue miles, etc---its role is small. And globally---wow man, we conservatives think globally, too!!!---many cities are witnessing increasing use of motorized transport as its value added superiority over bicycles becomes compelling.

roughstuff

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.

John, you may as well forget it. There is on this discussion board, and in every 'cycling advocacy group' I have dealt with, this fantasy that 99% of automobiles are out-tot-get-their-local-cyclist, not just out to get to the mall so I can afford to shop at WalMart instead of some inner city designer Ghetto. In the 35 countries I have cycled thru on my many tours and my world tour, I hardly see a shred of evidence for this claim. You got to remember...there are people out there who still think Gore won Florida. They still think Thermite took down the world trade center. They still think the globe is warming due to human, not natural factors. Being stereotyped as an anti-fossil fuel luddite is just an injustice we cyclists have to endure.

roughstuff

I was only repeating your exact words.


So "system" means something very specific in one instance, and something much more vague in another.

My question is this: Is there some specific metric one can use to define whether a bike lane or path is part of the "system" to which Forester referred?

If that metric is whether a specific path is based on cyclist-inferiority cycling, then we have a tautology.

If that metric is something independent of that variable, would you please provide it?

You said "all bike paths and bike lanes built since the early 70s" are part of the "system". Are they all based on cyclist inferiority cycling? Regardless of how or why the particular bikeways that comprise the system of all bikeways at any given time were built, they are all part of the "the bikeway system".

When the reasons many of the bikeways were built in any particular manifestation of "the bikeway system" is because of "cyclist-inferiority", then it's reasonable to refer to "the system", generally, as "the bikeway system that is based on cyclist-inferiority cycling."

All bike lanes and paths, whether their support/creation was based on cyclist-inferiority or not, are part of "the bikeway system" (currently a.k.a known as "the bikeway system that is based on cyclist-inferiority cycling".)

When the reasons many of the bikeways were built in any particular manifestation of "the bikeway system" is because of "cyclist-inferiority", then it's reasonable to refer to "the system", generally, as "the bikeway system that is based on cyclist-inferiority cycling."
I would say:

If the reasons most of the bikeways were built in any particular manifestation of "the bikeway system" is because of "cyclist-inferiority", then it's reasonable to refer to "the system", generally, as "the bikeway system that is based on cyclist-inferiority cycling."

I just haven't seen the first half of that claim sufficiently demostrated.

I would say:

If the reasons most of the bikeways were built in any particular manifestation of "the bikeway system" is because of "cyclist-inferiority", then it's reasonable to refer to "the system", generally, as "the bikeway system that is based on cyclist-inferiority cycling."

I just haven't seen the first half of that claim sufficiently demostrated.
The vast majority of modern bikeway miles are comprised of bike lanes (In SD, a mile of bike path costs over $1M now, not including the cost of obtaining ROW).

The main reason bike lanes get support outside of the cycling community is because of cyclist-inferiority.

Therefore...

There is on this discussion board, and in every 'cycling advocacy group' I have dealt with, this fantasy that 99% of automobiles are out-tot-get-their-local-cyclist, not just out to get to the mall so I can afford to shop at WalMart instead of some inner city designer Ghetto. In the 35 countries I have cycled thru on my many tours and my world tour, I hardly see a shred of evidence for this claim. You got to remember...there are people out there who still think Gore won Florida. They still think Thermite took down the world trade center. They still think the globe is warming due to human, not natural factors. Being stereotyped as an anti-fossil fuel luddite is just an injustice we cyclists have to endure.
Sorry that you have to endure the injustice of being stereotyped... Mr. Stereotypy Guy...

But... Gore DID win Florida!:D

I was only repeating your exact words.


So "system" means something very specific in one instance, and something much more vague in another.

My question is this: Is there some specific metric one can use to define whether a bike lane or path is part of the "system" to which Forester referred?

If that metric is whether a specific path is based on cyclist-inferiority cycling, then we have a tautology.

If that metric is something independent of that variable, would you please provide it?

You said "all bike paths and bike lanes built since the early 70s" are part of the "system". Are they all based on cyclist inferiority cycling?

The present bikeway system is composed of bikeways (both bike lanes and bike paths) designed according to the present nationwide standards. That is the system to which I refer in this context. All of these standards, be they the AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities, or those of the individual states who have created their own, descend with very few changes from the standards that we created in California. I was there, I saw them created, and I participated in trying to get them safer. However, the only reasonable conclusion to be drawn from the actions of the prime creators, who were motorists, is that the designers believed that they were providing physical facilities designed according to the cyclist-inferiority view that cyclists should be pushed aside to clear the way for motorists and that cyclists were incapable of operating in accordance with the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles.

I don't know of any bikeway standards that are so drastically different from the AASHTO standard that one might consider that they specify facilties that are intended to do good for cyclists. The once-proposed Hollywood bicycle freeway would be such a facility, but that proposal died long ago.

There is a slightly different use of the word system. This refers to the pattern of bikeways in any particular region. These two uses of the word are similar to the uses of the same word in railroad contexts. The railroad system is composed of all the standards that allow interconnection of many types of freight car, and of passenger car, to be pulled by standard locomotives running on standard tracks, controlled by standard signals. In the other use, the New England rail system refers to the pattern of railroad tracks in that particular area, how one can route a freight car from one place to another.

John, you may as well forget it. There is on this discussion board, and in every 'cycling advocacy group' I have dealt with, this fantasy that 99% of automobiles are out-tot-get-their-local-cyclist, not just out to get to the mall so I can afford to shop at WalMart instead of some inner city designer Ghetto. In the 35 countries I have cycled thru on my many tours and my world tour, I hardly see a shred of evidence for this claim. You got to remember...there are people out there who still think Gore won Florida. They still think Thermite took down the world trade center. They still think the globe is warming due to human, not natural factors. Being stereotyped as an anti-fossil fuel luddite is just an injustice we cyclists have to endure.

roughstuff
Ladies and gents, there it is.... the blivet, in its natural habitat.

Where in the manuals, or city council minutes or wherever the heck it resides, does it specifically state anything about "cyclist inferiority"? Can you show where in the 70s they slipped it in, that through the application of bikeways, the government shall promote cyclist inferiority, express it, foster it or whatever?

Where in the manuals, or city council minutes or wherever the heck it resides, does it specifically state anything about "cyclist inferiority"? Can you show where in the 70s they slipped it in, that through the application of bikeways, the government shall promote cyclist inferiority, express it, foster it or whatever?

Design manuals do not say such things, but there is one planning manual that does. This is the FHWA Manual titled Selecting Roadway Design Treatments to Accommodate Bicycles, January 1994. This classifies cyclists as Group A, Advanced; Group B, Basic; Group C, Children. While it does not specify degrees of skill, it is clear that Advanced Cyclists are vehicular cyclists and B and C cyclists do not have vehicular cycling skill. It therefore combines Bs and Cs into one group, and basically says that bike lanes should be everywhere because B or C cyclists are everywhere.

The whole system of belief goes back more than sixty years. The public part of this belief is that the only part of the road system that can be safe for cyclists is the edge of the roadway, preferably on low-traffic streets. This was taught as "bike-safety eduction", and the teachers were motorists, not cyclists. The concealed part was that this cleared the way for motorists; stay at the edge of the road or we will kill you. No motoring organization would allow itself to phrase bike-safety education as setting the rights of motorists above the rights of cyclists for the convenience of motorists, but that is exactly what was done. And the excuse for that was that cyclists did not have the ability to operate in accordance with the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles.

The California bikeway program, with its traffic laws and bikeways, was created and designed by motorists, with token cyclists allowed in to lend a bit of public credibility to the process. The bikeway designers physically implemented the rules of cyclist-inferiority bike-safety education. They refused to do more than that. Several times I was told "We are not doing this for professional cyclists like your associates; you don't need anything. We are doing this for the average cyclist and the child cyclist."

It is never necessary for any government body to say that its bikeway program fosters cyclist-inferiority cycling. The bikeways that it builds, and the traffic superstition they perpetuate, does that for them. The bikeway program cannot but do that, because it was designed on the basis of cyclist-inferiority to implement incompetent cycling on bikeways.

There should never have been any debate about vehicular cycling, because vehicular cycling is simply operating in the same ways as all the other drivers on the road. The only reason why there is a vehicular-cycling controversy is because for more than sixty years American policy was against vehicular cycling.

I hope that John will provide some relevant experiences in his response, so that we can learn from them, to better affect public policy and public awareness.

I already know this part:

1. Cycling according to the normal vehicular rules is the most safe and efficient means or reaching one's destination of choice by bicycle;
2. Increasing awareness of the operational benefits of vehicular cycling among motorists, police, and traffic engineers generates empathy/understanding and in some cases extra engineering accommodations for cyclists operating on the roadway according to vehicular rules.
3. Empathy for and understanding of cyclists on the roadway results in less risk-taking by motorists and better enforcement actions by police, and sometimes better engineering, making vehicular cycling an even safer means of reaching one's destination.

This is why vehicular cycling advocates are often so publicly vocal about the benefits of vehicular cycling.

My question is, which vocal public activity is most effective? Which government organizations are willing to listen and repeat the message, to build public understanding for roadway cyclists? Which are not? Why? The same goes for non-government organizations. How are the ideas most effectively presented to (a) these organizations, and (b) the motoring public?

It is my opinion that the governmental organizations that are most receptive to the vehicular-cycling message are those with specific, codified responsibilities.

The traffic police have the responsibility of enforcing traffic law. Showing them that vehicular cycling is obeying the same law as other drivers, and persuading them that this is right, makes a difference. Of course, there is the problem of the few laws that discriminate against cyclists, but it is typical that today's police pay attention almost only to them, in the belief that the discrimination produces safety. We need to persuade them about the much greater importance of all the other traffic laws that are based on the rules of the road principles.

The traffic engineers have the responsibility of designing the surface of the roads in accordance with the rules of the road. They are responsive to the thought that bike lanes contradict their professional knowledge, and are also responsive to the thought that the locations where bike paths interact with roadways present very difficult problems. Those traffic engineers who understand these problems are much less willing to obey planners.

Urban planners, whether plain planners or bicycle planners, are unreachable, because their professions combine anti-motoring with ignorance of traffic engineering.

Politicians, only a very few are amenable to even discussions. Some have done good. You need to find a politician who deals more in facts than in words -- hard to find.

Educators are also unreachable. They have their own problems, and traffic-safety education is low on their list, and does not extend to vehicular cycling.

The motoring organizations present complicated problems. Those like the AAA have very large family members, who are interested in child traffic safety of the bikeway and cyclist-inferiority types. However, some of these independent clubs have taken to the idea that vehicular cycling is good for both their members and their members' children. Missouri AA ran a vehicular-cycling program for several years. California State AA (that's northern Calif) was reasonably favorable years ago.

One would think that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration would be a natural choice to approach (in contrast to the FHWA), but it gave no more than lip service to vehicular cycling while advocating bikeways.

I used to think that the National Safety Council would be interested, because of their investigations thirty years ago, but they ended up acting as if they believed in cyclist-inferiority bike-safety training only.

I think that we are getting more favorable newspaper publicity nowadays, with more articles questioning the popular superstition.

All of these problems would be much easier to tackle if we had been able to discredit cyclist-inferiority thinking in the public mind. I think that we need to keep on advocating vehicular cycling and the reasons why it works, into all public ears that we find, in the hope that some change in the average popular view will enable more success in wider areas.

....forester it or whatever?
my bad...


:o


:beer:

...but, john, vehicular cyclists can use bike lanes. ain't nothning inferior about a road position if that's where you and your bike should be riding, dude.


it's really astounding how far fetched your conspiracy theories reach, john. I think you're suffering paranoid delusions.

Design manuals do not say such things, but there is one planning manual that does. This is the FHWA Manual titled Selecting Roadway Design Treatments to Accommodate Bicycles, January 1994. This classifies cyclists as Group A, Advanced; Group B, Basic; Group C, Children. While it does not specify degrees of skill, it is clear that Advanced Cyclists are vehicular cyclists and B and C cyclists do not have vehicular cycling skill. It therefore combines Bs and Cs into one group, and basically says that bike lanes should be everywhere because B or C cyclists are everywhere.

The whole system of belief goes back more than sixty years. The public part of this belief is that the only part of the road system that can be safe for cyclists is the edge of the roadway, preferably on low-traffic streets. This was taught as "bike-safety eduction", and the teachers were motorists, not cyclists. The concealed part was that this cleared the way for motorists; stay at the edge of the road or we will kill you. No motoring organization would allow itself to phrase bike-safety education as setting the rights of motorists above the rights of cyclists for the convenience of motorists, but that is exactly what was done. And the excuse for that was that cyclists did not have the ability to operate in accordance with the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles.

The California bikeway program, with its traffic laws and bikeways, was created and designed by motorists, with token cyclists allowed in to lend a bit of public credibility to the process. The bikeway designers physically implemented the rules of cyclist-inferiority bike-safety education. They refused to do more than that. Several times I was told "We are not doing this for professional cyclists like your associates; you don't need anything. We are doing this for the average cyclist and the child cyclist."

It is never necessary for any government body to say that its bikeway program fosters cyclist-inferiority cycling. The bikeways that it builds, and the traffic superstition they perpetuate, does that for them. The bikeway program cannot but do that, because it was designed on the basis of cyclist-inferiority to implement incompetent cycling on bikeways.

There should never have been any debate about vehicular cycling, because vehicular cycling is simply operating in the same ways as all the other drivers on the road. The only reason why there is a vehicular-cycling controversy is because for more than sixty years American policy was against vehicular cycling.
we need to get the crappy AASHTO bike lane guidelines out of the manual and replace it with a better design standard that will eliminate the door zone bike lane. sharrows seems like a good bet to me. how hard is this? for the love of dog we should just get on with it and quit bickering.......

:o

..... And the excuse for that was that cyclists did not have the ability to operate in accordance with the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles.

......

It is never necessary for any government body to say that its bikeway program fosters cyclist-inferiority cycling. The bikeways that it builds, and the traffic superstition they perpetuate, does that for them. The bikeway program cannot but do that, because it was designed on the basis of cyclist-inferiority to implement incompetent cycling on bikeways.




what a paranoid thought process you exhibit.

...but, john, vehicular cyclists can use bike lanes. ain't nothning inferior about a road position if that's where you and your bike should be riding, dude.


it's really astounding how far fetched your conspiracy theories reach, john. I think you're suffering paranoid delusions.

The fact that vehicular cyclists can ride in bike lanes is completely irrelevant to the discussion. Nobody has denied this fact. You, Bekologist, have combined this with two accusations of paranoia. Paranoia is fear of a an enemy who does not exist, or does not intend harm to the subject. OK, then back up your two accusations with a description of the enemies whom you think I fear, and why it is that the bikeway system was not intended, and does not, reduce the status of cyclists below that of other drivers of vehicles. Unless you can provide good support for your accusations, they are nothing but vibrating electrons.

Unless you can provide good support for your accusations, they are nothing but vibrating electrons.

...aren't we all, though, just vibrating electrons?

john, you manifest paranoid delusions about bicycling infrastructure. you're the guy with the paranoia, convinced its all cyclist inferiority that drives cities to implement bike specific infrastucture. that is so wacky, i don't even know where to begin.

I know, i know, you're convinced, due your delusions, that bike specific infrastructure is soley to create second class citizens out of bicyclists, and have a tautologic 'if this, then that' reasoning surrounding how YOU think about bike lanes, etc, but its plain wacky.

bike specific infrastructure can be about expediency for bicyclists, encouraging bicycling on high speed cooridors, and implementing effective transportation infrastructure in communities that encourage bicycling.

I know, i know, you've got rebuttals against that line of reasoning, but I call bullocks to your pedantic blather about bike infrastructure. what a crock.

Get this, john, there are vehicular cyclists in america that can and do advocate for bike specific infrastructure. its' not "your way or the highway", dude.

...aren't we all, though, just vibrating electrons?
Sounds like some money can be made here. Please include pictures.:)

john, you manifest paranoid delusions about bicycling infrastructure. you're the guy with the paranoia, convinced its all cyclist inferiority that drives cities to implement bike specific infrastucture. that is so wacky, i don't even know where to begin.

I know, i know, you're convinced, due your delusions, that bike specific infrastructure is soley to create second class citizens out of bicyclists, and have a tautologic 'if this, then that' reasoning surrounding how YOU think about bike lanes, etc, but its plain wacky.

bike specific infrastructure can be about expediency for bicyclists, encouraging bicycling on high speed cooridors, and implementing effective transportation infrastructure in communities that encourage bicycling.

I know, i know, you've got rebuttals against that line of reasoning, but I call bullocks to your pedantic blather about bike infrastructure. what a crock.

Get this, john, there are vehicular cyclists in america that can and do advocate for bike specific infrastructure. its' not "your way or the highway", dude.

The favorable effects that you claim are the reaction of people who feel that, when on a bicycle, they are inferior to, and endangered by, same-direction motor traffic. And you encourage them in this delusion.