Vehicular Cycling (VC) - Cyclist-inferiorities: sub-concepts

good luck with that working out

:eek:


:D

Well if Mr Forester cannot convince the average motorist that bikes belong on the road, then I think we have found the core of the VC dilemma.

mebbe the foresterites should stop harassing the bicycling community with their training demands and pleas for unaccomodations, and start harrassing the driving community.

John Forester appears to actually believe that the sole purpose of bike lanes is to remove cyclists from traffic stemming from a phobia that they will be killed out there due to a belief that they are inherently inferior and incompetent at operating a vehicle. He also believes cyclists have internalized that phobia and belief of incompetence.

All of this is nonsense to those of use who actually use the streets out there or work in government. Even the motorists among us understand:
A) The motorists are plenty incompetent all on their own
B) A major stated purpose of bike lanes is to get the bikes off the sidewalk and integrate them with traffic
C) Cities are beginning to design things like sharrows that are a direct attempt to inform motorists and cyclists that bikes belong well out into the roadway and to inform motorists to leave us the heck alone if we are there.
D) Cities also recognize the inherent incompetence of motorists with all the State Law You Must Stop For Pedestrians in Crosswalk signs sprouting up all over the place finally making it feasible to step out into traffic to cross the street

Also, do you think it's an inherent cyclist inferiority that now we have signs sprouting all over town in people's lawns telling motorists to slow down, to drive safe, to not use our streets for a shortcut, "for Jake's Sake" (Jake was a 12 year old kid who was killed riding his bike to school.)

I see no actual evidence to support JF's beliefs. He can write a nice tidy logical argument about it, but that doesn't make it true by any stretch. The empirical evidence points to something else completely as the driving force for cycling-specific facilities. I would call that motorists incompetence, or maybe simply and less derogatorily, haste.


A) To what extent do bike lanes improve the competence of motorists? I know of no such data.

B) Using bike lanes to persuade sidewalk cyclists to ride in the bike lane is not integrating them with traffic. Admittedly, sidewalk cycling is dangerous, but it would be better to teach those cyclists how to ride properly instead of enticing them into traffic without the training that they need.

C) Sharrows. So what?

D) More about motorist incompetence. To what extent do bike lanes improve the competence of motorists?

You claim that: "The empirical evidence points to something else completely as the driving force for cycling-specific facilities. I would call that motorists incompetence, or maybe simply and less derogatorily, haste." The theory that Diane excludes in this is the documented intent of the bike-lane designers to restrict the width of the roadway used by cyclists to create clear passage for motorists, justified by the excuse that cyclists are incapable of operating according to the rules of the road, and made politically acceptable by playing on the exaggerated fear of same-direction traffic, long before created by motorists.

Note carefully that while Diane is very willing to excuse the motorists who were the original bikeway designers of all culpability for their designs, she does so because she believes their excuse about the exaggerated danger of same-direction motor traffic. Which is, of course, exactly the response that those anti-cyclist bikeway designers intended to occur.

A) To what extent do bike lanes improve the competence of motorists? I know of no such data.



Motorists are taught and persist in believing that they should "stay between the lines." Offering guide lines for motorists is then only consistent with their limited training.

You need "data" to show you that the lines on the road work by dividing the road into lanes?

John Forester's stock dodge is to limit the scope of the discussion to 'transportational' cycling. If you limit the scope in that manner, it is easy to present what looks like a logical argument against many cycling facilities. Trouble is, the majority of cyclists are recreational cyclists, many of whom have no desire to mix in with impatient drivers while they are doing their daily exercise, toting the kids, riding with the family, etc. This segment of the population will continue to demand recreational facilities...and those of us who do use a bicycle as transportation can benefit from the facilities that work for our needs, and ignore the ones that do not - BECAUSE NOBODY IS TRYING TO FORCE US OFF THE ROADS - no matter how often JF, HH and others scream that the sky is falling.

I have no complaint against recreational cycling facilities. However, the law that funds bikeways is for transportational facilities, and the majority of bikeways are in urban areas where the transportation function is supposed to be dominant.

The issue is not that society and government are trying to force cyclists off the roads, although a few such cases appear every few years. The issue is whether roadway cycling should be done according to the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles, or by some other more dangerous method.

You need "data" to show you that the lines on the road work by dividing the road into lanes?


Good point. Why have ANY lines on the road. After all, a lane stays the same width regardless of the little dotted lines.

The issue is whether roadway cycling should be done according to the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles, or by some other more dangerous method.


The only problem is that--as discussed in my other thread--some states, like my own, require non VC shoulder hugging riding unless it is "unsafe" to do so. Thus, the rules of the road apply only when the other provisions of the bicycle code make it "unsafe" not to do so. If the law says I have to ride on the shoulder, I at least want a WOL and won't complain about a bikelane.

I have no complaint against recreational cycling facilities. However, the law that funds bikeways is for transportational facilities, and the majority of bikeways are in urban areas where the transportation function is supposed to be dominant.

The issue is not that society and government are trying to force cyclists off the roads, although a few such cases appear every few years. The issue is whether roadway cycling should be done according to the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles, or by some other more dangerous method.

Quantify "more dangerous."

An isolated bike way that has fewer intersections than a regular boulevard is going to have fewer opportunities for cyclist/motorist collision, so by that metric alone, is hardly "more dangerous."

Examples of said bikeways are the Rose Canyon shortcut, and the hiway 56 bikepath. Both reduce the numbers of intersections a cyclist might otherwise encounter, and therefore are not "more dangerous."

How about "according to the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles, or by some other less dangerous method". You recognize when someone is purposefully framing an argument so he automatically wins, don't you guys?

I have no complaint against recreational cycling facilities. However, the law that funds bikeways is for transportational facilities, and the majority of bikeways are in urban areas where the transportation function is supposed to be dominant.
Another bogus Forester distraction/line of hot air B.S. meant to cause obstruction and fool the gullible.

What "law" funds all bikeways? Who said any bikeway is not "transportational" or is in violation of any funding requirement? Have you, John Forester, informed the appropriate authority of this alleged misallocation of funding/violation of this magic "law?" Has anybody but your handful of acolytes fallen for this line of legal gibberish?

Another bogus Forester distraction/line of hot air B.S. meant to cause obstruction and fool the gullible.

What "law" funds all bikeways? Who said any bikeway is not "transportational" or is in violation of any funding requirement? Have you, John Forester, informed the appropriate authority of this alleged misallocation of funding/violation of this magic "law?" Has anybody but your handful of acolytes fallen for this line of legal gibberish?

Quit beating me to the punch, ya old Nittany Lion. :p

Quantify "more dangerous."

An isolated bike way that has fewer intersections than a regular boulevard is going to have fewer opportunities for cyclist/motorist collision, so by that metric alone, is hardly "more dangerous."

Examples of said bikeways are the Rose Canyon shortcut, and the hiway 56 bikepath. Both reduce the numbers of intersections a cyclist might otherwise encounter, and therefore are not "more dangerous."

I have never heard that the Rose Canyon Bike Path is a roadway. Do you think that it is? My statement applied to roadway cycling being done by vehicular methods or by other more dangerous methods.

How about "according to the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles, or by some other less dangerous method". You recognize when someone is purposefully framing an argument so he automatically wins, don't you guys?

Diane, please inform us of ways in which it is safer, when riding on the roadway, to violate the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles than it is to obey those rules. Without such documentation, your claim is hot air.

I have never heard that the Rose Canyon Bike Path is a roadway. Do you think that it is? My statement applied to roadway cycling being done by vehicular methods or by other more dangerous methods.

John your statement specifically said bikeways:
However, the law that funds bikeways is for transportational facilities, and the majority of bikeways...

Now you did also mention roadways... but you prefaced your statment with the bikeways comment above... and indeed some bikeways can be less dangerous than roadways.

John your statement specifically said bikeways:

Now if you wish to modify your original statement to mean something other than "bikeways" then we can discuss "roadways."

Here are all my words in the post to which you refer:

"I have no complaint against recreational cycling facilities. However, the law that funds bikeways is for transportational facilities, and the majority of bikeways are in urban areas where the transportation function is supposed to be dominant.

The issue is not that society and government are trying to force cyclists off the roads, although a few such cases appear every few years. The issue is whether roadway cycling should be done according to the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles, or by some other more dangerous method."

The words speak for themselves.

Here are all my words in the post to which you refer:

"I have no complaint against recreational cycling facilities. However, the law that funds bikeways is for transportational facilities, and the majority of bikeways are in urban areas where the transportation function is supposed to be dominant.

The issue is not that society and government are trying to force cyclists off the roads, although a few such cases appear every few years. The issue is whether roadway cycling should be done according to the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles, or by some other more dangerous method."

The words speak for themselves.
No they do not...

You mention that bikeways are not funded by transit authorities.

Then you imply that there is either "roadway cycling" or "some other method."

One can easily infer that "some other method" as mentioned are the aforementioned bikeways of the first paragraph.

You state that "some other method" is "more dangerous," thus allowing one to conclude that the previously mentioned non-transit funded bikeways are the "some other method."

Frankly I not find those words "speaking for themselves;" but indicating that you feel that non-transit funded bikeways, as an alternative to roadway cycling are more dangerous.

If this is not what you meant, why include the paragraph about funding of bikeways at all... especially when later refering to "some other method?"

While I readily admit that sidepaths and bike lanes have the same intersections and thus the same potential for collision as a roadway; I find that paths (even though not funded by transit authorities) tend to be safer in reference to collsions with motor vehicles... which is why I debated your statement regarding the "danger" of "some other method."

And if you wish to conclude that running into a ped or dog on an MUP is the same as hitting an SUV moving at 45MPH, then we need to have a long discussion about physics and F=MA.

BTW I still would like to see John Forester take on GORDON DILLOW, the fellow in post 37 with the Motorist Superiority issues.

http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=4555357&postcount=37

No they do not...

You mention that bikeways are not funded by transit authorities.

Then you imply that there is either "roadway cycling" or "some other method."

One can easily infer that "some other method" as mentioned are the aforementioned bikeways of the first paragraph.

You state that "some other method" is "more dangerous," thus allowing one to conclude that the previously mentioned non-transit funded bikeways are the "some other method."

Frankly I not find those words "speaking for themselves;" but indicating that you feel that non-transit funded bikeways, as an alternative to roadway cycling are more dangerous.

If this is not what you meant, why include the paragraph about funding of bikeways at all... especially when later refering to "some other method?"

While I readily admit that sidepaths and bike lanes have the same intersections and thus the same potential for collision as a roadway; I find that paths (even though not funded by transit authorities) tend to be safer in reference to collsions with motor vehicles... which is why I debated your statement regarding the "danger" of "some other method."

And if you wish to conclude that running into a ped or dog on an MUP is the same as hitting an SUV moving at 45MPH, then we need to have a long discussion about physics and F=MA.

If you want to misunderstand what is reasonably plain English, go right ahead, but at this point the discussion has become meaningless.

Does anybody have a problem with people using recreational bikeways for transportation purposes?

Tom, this whole notion that there is some organized conspiracy to get cyclists off the roadways is pure fantasy, cooked up as a fear-mongering device to oppose any facilities at all. I can tell you from experience, when it comes to making policy, there is much more common sense involved than people like HH and JF would have you believe. All they know is California, which they managed to botch over the last 30 years. ILTB is spot on, even if his style of explaining it rubs some the wrong way.
OK, I'll say it again....

I have NEVER, EVER, EVER said I was against facilities. All I did was state that as a long distance rider (touring rider), being forced onto a facility exclusive riding environment would basically eliminate my riding altogether, at least in a manner I want to do it. I never stated that there was a "conspiracy to force cyclists off of the road". What I did was state my interpretation of what this whole argument was about from my viewpoint, after which ILTB cherrypicked to take what I said OUT OF CONTEXT. When I called him on it, the response was insulting and degrading. Granted, that is a form of argument, but it isn't a valid one and reflects poorly.

The only other thing I said was that if, I repeat IF it occurred, that I was forced to ride on bike specific infrastructure, it needed to be at least as good and convenient to my purpose as roads themselves and I doubted that the taxpayers would want to foot that kind of bill on a National level.

How does that viewpoint merit the snipe?

Does anybody have a problem with people using recreational bikeways for transportation purposes?

No problem with that. However, it is unlikely because the facts show that many more recreational bike paths have been built with transportation funds than the reverse. Furthermore, those bike paths that can be categorized as recreational are unlikely to be located so that they serve the purposes of more than a very few transportational cyclists.

My statement applied to roadway cycling being done by vehicular methods...

when john says stuff like this, he INCLUDES vehicular bicycling in bike lanes, because we all know, a bicyclist can ride vehicularly in bike lanes.

john, your argument is collapsing.

genec, john likes to mischaracterize bike infrastructure as 'bikeways' because it groups bike paths with on road bike infrastructure.

the rest of us vehicular cyclists know -except mossy john? know it is possible to ride vehicularily using integrated on road bike infrastructure like bike lanes.

genec, john likes to mischaracterize bike infrastructure as 'bikeways' because it groups bike paths with on road bike infrastructure.


Yeah I've noticed some of his other interesting "qualifiers" too... perhaps the biggest is in the VC slogan: "and are treated like drivers of vehicles... "

We all know how cyclists are treated on the road by motorists...

Then there is the qualifier regarding all users of the road following the rules... as if every motorist does their part.

And then there are the bits about paths being unsuitable either due to being for recreation or by cyclists not being able to ride full speed... (while ironically it is quite OK to delay motorists while "sharing" the road.)

And it goes on and on... theories abound, but reality flies in the face daily.

when john says stuff like this, he INCLUDES vehicular bicycling in bike lanes, because we all know, a bicyclist can ride vehicularly in bike lanes.

john, your argument is collapsing.

I find it difficult to understand your persistent refusal to believe what has been written a dozen times or more in these discussions. That is, to the vehicular cyclist, the bike-lane stripe is irrelevant. He rides in the proper place regardless of the presence or the absence of a stripe. That means that sometimes he rides in the bike lane, sometimes outside the bike lane. All of this is vehicular cycling.

genec, john likes to mischaracterize bike infrastructure as 'bikeways' because it groups bike paths with on road bike infrastructure.

the rest of us vehicular cyclists know -except mossy john? know it is possible to ride vehicularily using integrated on road bike infrastructure like bike lanes.

The correct name for the group of three bicycle-specific facilities is bikeway. The three types are: bike path, bike lane, bike route. When one wishes to discuss more than one type, then the collective noun is appropriate.

Another bogus Forester distraction/line of hot air B.S. meant to cause obstruction and fool the gullible.

What "law" funds all bikeways? Who said any bikeway is not "transportational" or is in violation of any funding requirement? Have you, John Forester, informed the appropriate authority of this alleged misallocation of funding/violation of this magic "law?" Has anybody but your handful of acolytes fallen for this line of legal gibberish?

The bicycle advocacy organizations spend lots of effort at the times when the federal highway bill is being renewed, with the intention of continuing and expanding the section that provides funds for "paths, shoulders, and lanes for the use of bicyclists."

The only problem is that--as discussed in my other thread--some states, like my own, require non VC shoulder hugging riding unless it is "unsafe" to do so. Thus, the rules of the road apply only when the other provisions of the bicycle code make it "unsafe" not to do so. If the law says I have to ride on the shoulder, I at least want a WOL and won't complain about a bikelane.

Well, yes, joint the reform movement to modify or repeal the side-of-the-road laws.

how about bike infrastructure, john?

"bike way" denotes off road paths, despite its collective.

how about bike infrastructure, john?

"bike way" denotes off road paths, despite its collective.

So far as I know, never in my writing have I used the phrase "bike way". Always, so far as I remember, and it has always been my intent in these discussions, I use the technical name "bikeway".

The bicycle advocacy organizations spend lots of effort at the times when the federal highway bill is being renewed, with the intention of continuing and expanding the section that provides funds for "paths, shoulders, and lanes for the use of bicyclists."
Is that the Forester Brand definition of "The Law" governing the funding and purpose of all bikeway construction?

bike way, bikeways, whatever, john.

I prefer 'bike infrastructure' as it is not as stunted sounding as 'bikeway', which sounds like off road bike paths, despite its 'technical' definition.


"bike infrastructure" not "bikeway"; anyone with me on the former sounding less off-road than the latter?

bike way, bikeways, whatever, john.

I prefer 'bike infrastructure' as it is not as stunted sounding as 'bikeway', which sounds like off road bike paths, despite its 'technical' definition.


"bike infrastructure" not "bikeway"; anyone with me on the former sounding less off-road than the latter?

Under the heading of bike infrastructure I would include, for example, bicycle parking racks. Bikeway is the proper word for the three things that it denotes.

ho hum. i don't like 'bikeway' despite your insistence in its' technical correctness.

ho hum. i don't like 'bikeway' despite your insistence in its' technical correctness.

Especially when treating them with equality, when in fact there may be significant differences betweeen them. Paths for instance may be long intersectionless routes, whereas bike lanes obviously have the same intersections as the road which they are upon.

Lumping "facilities" together semantically works only when one is "painting" with a broad brush.

Frankly, barring me from the road and forcing me onto "facilities" would put a serious cramp in my cycling activities, considering I'm a bike tourist! I'm not against facilities, if they are equal quality to the road for my purposes, but that's totally impractical, unless the taxpayers want to foot the bill for a complete national "Bike road" network that would allow me to ride , say, from San Diego to Maine, or where ever else I want to go by bike.

Brown v. Board of Education.....

Separate is NOT equal.

Especially when treating them with equality, when in fact there may be significant differences betweeen them. Paths for instance may be long intersectionless routes, whereas bike lanes obviously have the same intersections as the road which they are upon.

Lumping "facilities" together semantically works only when one is "painting" with a broad brush.

I am very careful to distinguish the objects about which I write. If I write "bikeways", I mean all three types. If I write "bicycling facilities" I would be including far more items (you can attempt to decide all that are included). If I write "bike lane", that is the type of facility to which I refer.

I am very careful to distinguish the objects about which I write. If I write "bikeways", I mean all three types. If I write "bicycling facilities" I would be including far more items (you can attempt to decide all that are included). If I write "bike lane", that is the type of facility to which I refer.
Yeah sure you are Real Careful when ranting about "bikeways":

Originally Posted by John Forester
"I have no complaint against recreational cycling facilities. However, the law that funds bikeways is for transportational facilities, and the majority of bikeways are in urban areas where the transportation function is supposed to be dominant."

Real Careful, Forester Style.