IF

That is the big question.

And if so, is that worth the added dangers of right and left hooks?

that article is about one small section of the city with odd boulevard bike lanes as wide as a travel lane, not a blanket statement about drivers using the bike lanes as travel lanes in seattle - which is definetly NOT the case.


you anti-accomodationalist hystronics are sad and futile, pathetic attempts at fearmongering, guys.

that article is about one small section of the city with odd boulevard bike lanes as wide as a travel lane, not a blanket statement about drivers using the bike lanes as travel lanes in seattle - which is definetly NOT the case.


you anti-accomodationalist hystronics are sad and futile, pathetic attempts at fearmongering, guys.
I guess it would be better if everybody avoided blanket statements and histrionics, including Bekologist.

that article is about one small section of the city with odd boulevard bike lanes as wide as a travel lane, not a blanket statement about drivers using the bike lanes as travel lanes in seattle - which is definetly NOT the case.


you anti-accomodationalist hystronics are sad and futile, pathetic attempts at fearmongering, guys.
So everything is bicycle heaven in Seattle, except any location someone comes up with an example to the contrary!:rolleyes:

And more name calling, what a surprise!

name calling? interesting....

seattle WAS just rated third in large cities for bike commuters, by the US Census bureau, though.

bicycle heaven, hardly.

Heavily ridden by transportational bicyclists and commuters for a big city in america, yes, absolutely.

.... seattle WAS just rated third in large cities for bike commuters, by the US Census bureau, though...
Have you found your reference for that faulty data yet?

You won't source it out because you are wrong and it appears you know it.

With minimum effort, I found 4 cities that are higher than Seattle and I only looked at 10 cities.

http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/STTable?_bm=y&-context=st&-qr_name=ACS_2005_EST_G00_S0801&-ds_name=ACS_2005_EST_G00_&-tree_id=305&-redoLog=true&-_caller=geoselect&-geo_id=31200US426605363000&-format=&-_lang=en

Edit: Oh, you must be trying to reword your previous claim to limit the data to make Seattle look better. Tries to limit to only "large" cities and what does "rated third ... for bike commuters" mean?

dude, it was in the Seattle Times, third in large cities for % bike commuters. US Census data, released Wendesday.

what's got your chamois in a bunch?

Palo Alto, CA (8.4% modul split)
Eugene, OR (8.4%)
Boulder, CO (7.8%)
Portland, OR (3.5%) + how many others?

Seattle, WA (2.3%)

but Bek does not want to count some of these cities.
After all, their cyclist do not really count!

dude, third LARGE city. I'm just going off a report in a large newspaper, I'm neither making this stuff up nor trying to skew figures, dude.

Eugene and Palo Alto are not considered big cities. but both of them are bike infrastructure intensive.

And the facilities in those smaller cities is directly related to their high percent of bicycle commuters, CBHI.

I like cycling, and i like the positive effects seen in metropolitan areas from bike infrastructure like bike lanes.

Thanks for pointing out cities that are committed to bike infrastructure can have high modal splits of bicyclists!

your attempts to discredit me are pretty lame.

San Jose, CA has painted a whole bunch of bike lanes for many years, that they are very proud of.
But San Jose is only at 0.4% modal split - same as the national average.

http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet...mat=&-_lang=en

I started my bicycle commuting in 1982 when i lived there. No bike lanes, but a nice town to ride in.
San Jose painted bike lanes and did nothing else, cyclist modal split did not increase.
Portland painted a few bike lanes but also did a big education program for cyclist and motorist as well as other incentives. Cycling went up.
Boulder had a high cycling modal split long before bike lanes.

Conclusuion = bike lanes do little to nothing to increase cycling modal split.

WTF is a modal split? I don't recall the term from 2 years of post-graduate statistics courses, but that was long ago.

The split between the mode of travel to work.

The survey broke it down in the following groups:
Car, truck, or van (with subgroups: Drove alone, Carpooled, 2-person carpool, 3-person carpool, 4-or-more carpool)
Public transportation (excluding taxicab)
Walked
Bicycle
Taxicab, motorcycle, or other means
Worked at home

CBHI, your conclusions are not specious, but maliciously misguided and designed to support your fallacious hypothesis that infrastructure has nothing to do with increasing cyclist modal splits.

It is real hard for you to understand the differance between just "bike lanes" and overall infrastructure.

um, no, actually, I don't have that problem.

So it's obvious that in your area bike lanes aren't common. Mine neither
But you deal with it, and still like to bike, right?

BTW, if you want a break from that kind of cycling ...
I also know that I don't live in a major urban area where bike lanes are generally installed or serve much purpose, and therefore do not attempt to be too provincial and make all-inclusive statements about the existence or desirability of bike lanes.

Thanks for the tip on a pleasant cycling area. Actually I prefer cycling in Chicago or Philadelphia when I visit my children. Better yet was the cycling in Germany and the Netherlands but don't know when I might be doing that again.

dude, it was in the Seattle Times, third in large cities for % bike commuters. US Census data, released Wendesday.

what's got your chamois in a bunch?
My psycho babble crystal ball/ouija board gives the diagnosis as Bike Lane Hysteria the bipolar opposite of Alpha Dog Syndrome.

dude, third LARGE city.
Whuts a large city? >500k?

Don't know- like I stated above, I'm posting US CENSUS BUREAU statistics released Weds. and reported upon in the Seattle Times.

give me a friggin' break. CBHI likes to make it sound like I'M manufacturing data. plueaze.

Sometimes it's better to use personal observations than to cite questionable "statistics". Nobody would argue if you said "I've noticed that there are a lot of cyclists in Seattle, probably more than in most cities."

Sometimes it's better to use personal observations than to cite questionable "statistics". Nobody would argue if you said "I've noticed that there are a lot of cyclists in Seattle, probably more than in most cities."
Oh, I don't know about that Roody. It seems that our one friend from the Aloha State has such an advanced case of bike lane hysteria he will argue anything positive said about bike lanes. He has already come on line to say that is how he gets his jollies.

Does Burlington (pop. 27,000) have lots of bike lanes? Do the roads outside the town have shoulders?
LOL

Bike Lanes in Burlington

That would make a great name for a book (although it's unclear what such a book would be about).

"Kilowatts in Keokuk" also has a nice ring to it.

It's funny, Machka. For someone who seems to correctly sense the lack of relevance the existance or non-existance of bike lanes has in the lives of many bicyclists, the importance you seem to give to the subject (even to the point of starting threads about it) seems strange.

If ever there was a subject that was 'much ado about nothing,' the bike lane debate is it (it's one of the great non-issues of all time). I really don't give a rat's behind although I do find the zealotry of some foaming-at-the-mouth bike lane haters to be quite amusing (if it weren't for the incessant bike-lane bashing of one particular zealot, I doubt this subforum would even exist). For someone who seems puzzled by the extent of the fire, Machka, it's interesting that all you seem to be doing is fanning the flames.

But, hey, carry on. Nonsense amuses me.