Evidence of only accommodating motorized travel reinforcing the notion

[The Human Car]

This thread is for citing evidence of only accommodating motorized travel reinforcing "the notion" that cyclists (and any non-motorized transportation) should stay out of the way of motorists, that it is inherently dangerous for cyclists (and any non-motorized transportation) to share the road with motorists, etc.

Or stated a bit differently if development and the transportation network are designed so that motorized travel is the only viable way to get from point A to point B does that reinforcing "the notion" that cyclists (and any non-motorized transportation) should stay out of the way of motorists?

[genec]

Well the easist example I can give is regarding the major route near my home. 35MPH road, cars parked along both sides of this 4 lane divided road. No bike lanes, and not wide enough to share... so cyclists typically ride the sidewalk.

I ride the street. I ride in the right tire track of the right lane... avoiding parked car doors. I often am honked at, and yelled at, or tailgated and then "brushed" by motorists that evidently feel I do not belong on "their" road. There are no alternative routes as canyons break up any other possible thru streets.

[Roody]

Well, we're fighting a war (partially) for oil. Car accidents take more than 40,000 lives a year. Auto emissions are a rising source of greenhouse gases. Stupidly high speed limits contribute to both the death count and the emissions, but people insist that they want to keep going faster. Roads are designed almost exclusively for motor traffic, and to hell with pedestrians and cyclists.

But accomodation for cars? No way! ;)

[Helmet Head]

Well the easist example I can give is regarding the major route near my home. 35MPH road, cars parked along both sides of this 4 lane divided road. No bike lanes, and not wide enough to share... so cyclists typically ride the sidewalk.

I ride the street. I ride in the right tire track of the right lane... avoiding parked car doors. I often am honked at, and yelled at, or tailgated and then "brushed" by motorists that evidently feel I do not belong on "their" road. There are no alternative routes as canyons break up any other possible thru streets.
Any road where cyclists are not banned accomodates the needs of cyclists. It may not accomodate the need of motorists to pass slower traffic easily, but that's not an example of not accomodating cyclists.

The fact that our culture teaches cyclists to not feel comfortable riding on roads where they are accomodated, but easy passing is not accomodated, is a separate but related issue. The solution is not to reinforce the notion (by adding facilities to make it easier to pass cyclists) that roads that do not accomodate easy passing of cyclists by motorists do not accomodate cyclists, but to dispell the notion, and replace it with the understanding that roads that do not accomodate for easy passing of cyclists are the problem of motorists, not the problem of cyclists.

[rando]

yeah. good luck with that.

[Helmet Head]

This thread is for citing evidence of only accommodating motorized travel reinforcing "the notion" that cyclists (and any non-motorized transportation) should stay out of the way of motorists, that it is inherently dangerous for cyclists (and any non-motorized transportation) to share the road with motorists, etc.

Or stated a bit differently if development and the transportation network are designed so that motorized travel is the only viable way to get from point A to point B does that reinforcing "the notion" that cyclists (and any non-motorized transportation) should stay out of the way of motorists?
Please define "only accommodating motorized travel" and "motorized travel is the only viable way".

In particular, if vehicular cyclists are able to use the roads safely, legally and effectively on a given route, do you accept that as evidence that that route is NOT an example of only accommodating motorized travel? And that the ability of vehicular cyclists to use the roads to travel safely, legally and effectively from A to B is a route where motorized travel is NOT the only viable way to get from point A to point B?

[sggoodri]

Virtually all roads accommodate bicycling. (A few may have unreasonable surfaces, such as slots.)

How well the people driving other vehicles accommodate cyclists is a different issue. This is more a matter of culture than engineering. Motorists in many countries, such as France, are extremely accommodating of cyclists regardless of the road design.

A third issue is how well a roadway accommodates passing of cyclists by wide motor vehicles. If road engineers place a high value on enabling passing of cyclists, then they can provide improved passing facilities. Their decision not to do so could reflect an ignorance of the use of the roadway by bicyclists, but could alternately reflect a lack of funding, or limited width in the street corridor, or desire to preserve trees or structures that would be compromised by road widening, or some other factor. Regardless, the first two issues still stand.

[invisiblehand]

Or stated a bit differently if development and the transportation network are designed so that motorized travel is the only viable way to get from point A to point B does that reinforcing "the notion" that cyclists (and any non-motorized transportation) should stay out of the way of motorists?

If I understand what Barry means, in a practical sense, yes. In short, I fine that there are few "road warriors" willing to take the lane on unaccommodating--read, no WOL, no/narrow shoulder, or no bike lane--high speed arterial roads on a consistent basis. Moreover, in a rhetorical sense, if a road is purposely designed for high-speed motorized traffic while cycling accommodations are omitted, it is more difficult to argue that roads are for bicycles despite the legal ability to do so.

If I understand HH in his earlier message, I think that much of what he writes is accurate except that I find the solution impractical; i.e., what Rando wrote. Moreover, I think that roads that fail to accommodate the passing of cyclists is everyone's problem.

[sbhikes]

If I understand what Barry means, in a practical sense, yes. In short, I fine that there are few "road warriors" willing to take the lane on unaccommodating--read, no WOL, no/narrow shoulder, or no bike lane--high speed arterial roads on a consistent basis. Moreover, in a rhetorical sense, if a road is purposely designed for high-speed motorized traffic while cycling accommodations are omitted, it is more difficult to argue that roads are for bicycles despite the legal ability to do so.

If I understand HH in his earlier message, I think that much of what he writes is accurate except that I find the solution impractical; i.e., what Rando wrote. Moreover, I think that roads that fail to accommodate the passing of cyclists is everyone's problem.

You make a lot of sense.

I see it as more and more developments consist of roads quite unpleasant to bike upon, and tracts with little bike paths around them, that in concert these things do a great job of saying the roads belong to cars, that bikes are for playtime and not for transportation, and that you had better inconvenience people on your own time on the weekend.

[Helmet Head]

Moreover, I think that roads that fail to accommodate the passing of cyclists is everyone's problem.
First, all roads accomodate the passing of cyclists. The issue is whether passing of cyclists is made to be totally painless or not.

So what we're talking about is whether the road design accomodates "totally painless" passing of cyclists.

Is the fact that some road designs fail to accomodate "totally painless" passing of cyclists everyone's problem? Speak for yourself. It's not mine.

[Helmet Head]

You make a lot of sense.

I see it as more and more developments consist of roads quite unpleasant to bike upon, Equating roads that fail to accomodate for totally painless passing of bicyclists by motorists with being "unpleasant" to bike upon is a personal subjective matter of the mind and one, I have found, that can be overcome, probably much easier than overcoming other mental hurdles in life. It is overcome by integrating, deep down, the understanding that cyclists have the same rights and responsibilities as drivers of vehicles on these roads.

and tracts with little bike paths around them, that in concert these things do a great job of saying the roads belong to cars, that bikes are for playtime and not for transportation, and that you had better inconvenience people on your own time on the weekend. Exactly.

[genec]

Any road where cyclists are not banned accomodates the needs of cyclists. It may not accomodate the need of motorists to pass slower traffic easily, but that's not an example of not accomodating cyclists.

The fact that our culture teaches cyclists to not feel comfortable riding on roads where they are accomodated, but easy passing is not accomodated, is a separate but related issue. The solution is not to reinforce the notion (by adding facilities to make it easier to pass cyclists) that roads that do not accomodate easy passing of cyclists by motorists do not accomodate cyclists, but to dispell the notion, and replace it with the understanding that roads that do not accomodate for easy passing of cyclists are the problem of motorists, not the problem of cyclists.

So the lack of knowledge and therefore the negative response of drivers is pretty much evidence of "only accomodating motorized travel... "

Sounds like it meets the provisions of the OP.

[sggoodri]

If I understand HH in his earlier message, I think that much of what he writes is accurate except that I find the solution impractical; i.e., what Rando wrote. Moreover, I think that roads that fail to accommodate the passing of cyclists is everyone's problem.

On the other hand, if cyclists won't ride on roads where passing cyclists is inconvenient, then engineers have little incentive to make passing cyclists more convenient on important roads.

From this perspective, cyclists' avoidance of cycling on important roads where passing is inconvenient indirectly contributes to the lack of passing facilities.

I've heard plenty of arguments from road engineers who claimed that providing a sidewalk bike path would get enough cyclists off the roadway that they didn't need on-roadway space for passing cyclists. Only the contra-arguments from vehicular cyclists that roadway cycling would remain important, and that many of us experienced cyclists would continue to do it in narrow lanes, given its advantages to cyclists, preserved the inclusion of the on-roadway passing width on some projects.

[flipped4bikes]

So the lack of knowledge and therefore the negative response of drivers is pretty much evidence of "only accomodating motorized travel... "

Sounds like it meets the provisions of the OP.

Hey, I would love to proclaim all roads as cycling accessible, except of course freeways and most interstates. Most roads are in fact, rideable by bike. But as we have posted very frequently, it doesn't mean that the motorized public would consider it so.

[sggoodri]

So the lack of knowledge and therefore the negative response of drivers is pretty much evidence of "only accomodating motorized travel... "

Sounds like it meets the provisions of the OP.

It depends on how the extra space on roadways is defined. If it is defined as a "bicycle facility" then narrow roads are car roads. If extra space is defined as a passing facility, then narrow roads are narrow roads.

I prefer to promote understanding of the legal status quo, which is that every street is a bicycle facility, and that width increases are passing facilities. This is quite the opposite of the approach taken by some (not all) bikeway advocates, who claim that narrow lanes have no room for bikes, are extremely, unreasonably dangerous for bicyclists, and that separate facilities are required for cycling transportation.

[invisiblehand]

Virtually all roads accommodate bicycling. (A few may have unreasonable surfaces, such as slots.)

Hmmm, I guess this makes me think, "What is accommodating?" And for what type of cyclist?

[The Human Car]

So the lack of knowledge and therefore the negative response of drivers is pretty much evidence of "only accomodating motorized travel... "

Sounds like it meets the provisions of the OP.
+1 Masterfully played.

[genec]

It depends on how the extra space on roadways is defined. If it is defined as a "bicycle facility" then narrow roads are car roads. If extra space is defined as a passing facility, then narrow roads are narrow roads.

I prefer to promote understanding of the legal status quo, which is that every street is a bicycle facility, and that width increases are passing facilities. This is quite the opposite of the approach taken by some (not all) bikeway advocates, who claim that narrow lanes have no room for bikes, are extremely, unreasonably dangerous for bicyclists, and that separate facilities are required for cycling transportation.

Personally I feel that all roads are accomodating of cyclists... however, those with whom I share the roads may not feel as I do.

[sggoodri]

Hmmm, I guess this makes me think, "What is accommodating?" And for what type of cyclist?

I've been injured in the past by potholes and gravel; perhaps skill development has reduced my problems with these since then. Hills can be a challenge for some people. However, I think you are referring not to the road itself, but the attitudes and consequential actions of other people using the road.

[Helmet Head]

Personally I feel that all roads are accomodating of cyclists... however, those with whom I share the roads may not feel as I do. The OP specifically refers to roads that are "designed so that motorized travel is the only viable way ...".

How accepting drivers are of bicyclists on these roads is a separate issue, and, specifically, is not a road design issue. It's a cultural/understanding issue.

Engineering/design problems need to be addressed with engineering/design solutions.

Cultural/understanding problems need to be addressed through behavior that changes that understanding, and education. Not with engineering/design "solutions" that actually exacerbate the underlying cultural/understanding problems.

[invisiblehand]

Is the fact that some road designs fail to accomodate "totally painless" passing of cyclists everyone's problem? Speak for yourself. It's not mine.

Using your language, I would say that the amount of pain is continuous. Pain below a certain threshold is imperceptible and pain below yet another threshold is noticeable and tolerable. The design of the road and its restrictions are a factor in determining that pain.

Assuming that the motorist is passing the cyclist, I would argue that speaking of the general population, the pain is shared by both motorist and cyclist. I assume that when a motorist gives a cyclist a buzz, honks, or shouts out the window that the cyclist rather not experience it. The cyclist may shrug it off and move on, but I gather most people would look at it as a negative experience; i.e., pain.

If one doesn't like the phrase "negative", one can always replace it with "less positive". In other words, one might get less joy from a ride where he or she is getting buzzed than the amount of joy one gets from a ride without getting buzzed.

My point is that riding on roads is by its nature something interactive where outcomes are determined by our own behavior and those of others. Better roads make the interaction more smooth such that there is less pain--as opposed to painless--for all involved. Moreover, if a minority is creating a lot of pain for others--consider those smoking in public places--it would not be surprising if the rules of that interaction are re-drawn to minimize that pain. So I would still write that this is everyone's problem but I do not mean to insinuate that a single person should feel personally liable for the problem.

Hmmmm, I am beginning to think that this is not particularly clear ...

[flipped4bikes]

The OP specifically refers to roads that are "designed so that motorized travel is the only viable way ...".

How accepting drivers are of bicyclists on these roads is a separate issue, and, specifically, is not a road design issue. It's a cultural/understanding issue.

Engineering/design problems need to be addressed with engineering/design solutions.

Cultural/understanding problems need to be addressed through behavior that changes that understanding, and education. Not with engineering/design "solutions" that actually exacerbate the underlying cultural/understanding problems.

Yes, but don't you think people would engineer/design something because there is a "problem" too? If peace, love, and understanding worked all the time, half the stuff in this world wouldn't exist.

[genec]

Moreover, if a minority is creating a lot of pain for others--consider those smoking in public places--it would not be surprising if the rules of that interaction are re-drawn to minimize that pain. So I would still write that this is everyone's problem but I do not mean to insinuate that a single person should feel personally liable for the problem.



Your parallel to smoking may indeed prove to be prophetic to cyclists... Where as smoking was once commonplace and accepted everywhere, then banned to certain specific locations, and eventually banned entirely, except in the privacy of ones' own home. Hmmmmm.

[chipcom]

The OP specifically refers to roads that are "designed so that motorized travel is the only viable way ...".

How accepting drivers are of bicyclists on these roads is a separate issue, and, specifically, is not a road design issue. It's a cultural/understanding issue.

Engineering/design problems need to be addressed with engineering/design solutions.

Cultural/understanding problems need to be addressed through behavior that changes that understanding, and education. Not with engineering/design "solutions" that actually exacerbate the underlying cultural/understanding problems.

In HH's world, an engineering solution like a bridge cannot be used to address the cultural problem of people not wanting to get themselves wet swimming across a river. No, you lazy landlubbers need to learn to swim, and like it, dambit!

[invisiblehand]

On the other hand, if cyclists won't ride on roads where passing cyclists is inconvenient, then engineers have little incentive to make passing cyclists more convenient on important roads.

remainder of text omitted

Sure ... although it is a bit of whether the chicken or the egg came first.

In reference to both Steve's, HH's, Genec's comments ...

I believe that there is an interaction between the level of pain suffered by cyclists/motorists and their behavior such that the engineering interacts with the social attitudes.

So when faced with the issue, I think you have to ask the question, will programs that target motorist attitudes or road engineering (or both) be more effective? Since I believe in diminishing returns, my personal belief is that both is probably the way to go.

As others have suggested, "accommodating" is a matter of opinion. Based on anecdotal interactions with "ordinary" cyclists, my view is that the average cyclist has a much lower pain threshold for what is accommodating than the people on this forum.

In reference to Barry's original question ...

Anecdotally, I think that designing new roads that involve more pain than old roads leads to less cyclists on those roads, subsequently reinforcing the general notion that cyclists don't belong on these roads and vice versa.

EDIT: I do think that Barry's choice of "viable" is a bit of a loaded word in this forum. I don't interpret it globally, but apply it to my image of the average cyclist and/or resident.

[The Human Car]

Suburbia in the 50’s was designed a lot differently then suburbia of now days. They were more like mini villages with mixed land use and could accommodate hundreds if not a few thousand people. Designs were such that one could walk or bike the whole area if one wanted to, which could be in the tens of miles. Generally speaking at least 1/4 of your kid’s classmates lived within convenient biking or walking distance and not to mention some sort of store or park nearby they could visit.

But now days things have shrunk and condensed to gated communities or at best limited access communities. These mini comminutes have generally way less then a hundred families and a kid is lucky if they have one other classmate that lives within the comfortable biking and walking designated area as most of their classmates live in the cul-de-sacs or lollipop developments down the overly car centric road. There is no convent shopping available and parks are too often defined as the place where you can walk your dog and not pick up after them and rarely function as an asset for kids. So we have these little communities that have one mile or less of comfortable biking or walking distance before you begin to loop back on your route, they have no desirable destinations they are dead ends, physically, socially and developmentally.

Collector roads of the 50’s allowed for a comfortable training area for bikes and cars to mix, it allowed for people to get fit enough to travel five or ten miles by bike. But now days there is such a stark contrast between the phenomenal cosmic power of the speed and distances traveled by motorized vehicles on car centric roads and the itty bitty living (and comfortable biking and walking) space we confine ourselves to. While the school system provides for the daily minimum of exercise once a week, it only serves to reinforce the notion that the minimum exercise is the maximum any one should be able to do. There just seems to be a lot of stuff stacked up against enabling people to make biking or walking a viable option for travel.

So all this is to say that the design of the roads is more then just WOL, NOL and bike lanes, a road is defined by its context.

[flipped4bikes]

So all this is to say that the design of the roads is more then just WOL, NOL and bike lanes, a road is defined by its context.

Nice. This maybe my new sig. Can I quote you?

[sbhikes]

So, when the freeway has only one lane in each direction and there's a giant RV going 45 mph, people get impatient, pass unsafely, and learn to do whatever it takes not to get stuck behind the next RV they see. If possible they demand more lanes on the freeway, or at least passing lanes. If for no other reason than less people will crash making an unsafe pass, and less congestion will occur.

The same thing happens when people get stuck behind HH weaving away on his bicycle. The only difference is they can't ban the RVs from the freeway, but they might be able to ban the bicycles.

Everything out there reinforces the notion that people should stay out of the way of cars. This now is so ingrained that only getting people to leave their cars at home will break them of it.

[chipcom]

Your parallel to smoking may indeed prove to be prophetic to cyclists... Where as smoking was once commonplace and accepted everywhere, then banned to certain specific locations, and eventually banned entirely, except in the privacy of ones' own home. Hmmmmm.

Gene gets a cookie...you have discovered the bigger threat to cycling on the roadways than those nasty engineering solutions, which are only a symptom - and a means to promote the bigger threat. The notion that cycling is dangerous and thus a public health issue is what will do us in. The sad thing is that most 'serious' cyclists gleefully run with the herd when it comes to this notion. Just look at any thread dealing with helmets, impotence, prostate problems...and of course our very familiar cycling facilities vs riding in traffic debates - and you will see the same kind of fear-mongering that is used to demonize other public health issues. I've seen the enemy, and he is us! :eek:

[Helmet Head]

Using your language, I would say that the amount of pain is continuous. Pain below a certain threshold is imperceptible and pain below yet another threshold is noticeable and tolerable. The design of the road and its restrictions are a factor in determining that pain.

Assuming that the motorist is passing the cyclist, I would argue that speaking of the general population, the pain is shared by both motorist and cyclist. I assume that when a motorist gives a cyclist a buzz, honks, or shouts out the window that the cyclist rather not experience it. The cyclist may shrug it off and move on, but I gather most people would look at it as a negative experience; i.e., pain.

If one doesn't like the phrase "negative", one can always replace it with "less positive". In other words, one might get less joy from a ride where he or she is getting buzzed than the amount of joy one gets from a ride without getting buzzed.

My point is that riding on roads is by its nature something interactive where outcomes are determined by our own behavior and those of others. Better roads make the interaction more smooth such that there is less pain--as opposed to painless--for all involved. Moreover, if a minority is creating a lot of pain for others--consider those smoking in public places--it would not be surprising if the rules of that interaction are re-drawn to minimize that pain. So I would still write that this is everyone's problem but I do not mean to insinuate that a single person should feel personally liable for the problem.

Hmmmm, I am beginning to think that this is not particularly clear ...
First, of all, excellent post.

I agree the pain of passing is continuous, and would add that it varies in intensity not only according to relatively permanent factors of road design, but according to particular temporal factors and conditions as well.

But, and this is key, much of the "pain" is self-induced/mental/emotional; it is a product of misconceived beliefs much more than it is real. I, for example, as a motorist, have accepted as a norm the "pain" of having to slow down and/or adjust in order to pass cyclists, much as we have all learned to accept having to stop at red lights as the norm. We still prefer to make it on yellow, but if we get the red, for the most part, we accept it.

To illustrate what I mean, consider the "pain" of a motorist having to slow down, wait for a gap, and change lanes to pass a cyclist controlling the rightmost narrow outside lane, compared to the "pain" of having to stop and wait for a green light for 80 seconds a 1/2 block later at a traffic signal. It's mostly all in the head, but, to that extent, the experience of "pain" in each head is real.

Another illustration of this point is to compare the "pain" of cyclist delay in the U.S. to France. The same person who is constantly annoyed by cyclists in, say, Houston, could rent a Renault in Paris, and within a day be perfectly fine with cyclist-caused delays, there. Similarly, a Parisian could get on a plane to Houston, and despite a lifetime of cycling and accepting the "pain" of cyclist delay, become afflicted with a new lack of patience for it within a day or two of driving around Houston. We all, to different extents, some considerably more than others, aborb the norms of the culture and society in which we find ourselves, and adjust our internal "pain" thresholds accordingly. And all this mostly occurs at low altitudes in most of our minds, below the level of conscious awareness.

But cultural norms do change. The examples of significant changes in cultural norms during my life time that come to mind include: necktie widths, bell bottoms, disco, polyester pants, smoking, use of seat belts, and drinking-and-driving. Further, the much better acceptance of cyclist delay in countries like France and England indicates it can be done. The only issue is how we bring this change about here.

One final thing, in response to your point about the pain being shared due to the pain the cyclist experiences when the motorist who experiences the pain lashes out at the cyclist, I suggest this "pain" too is almost entirely (but not entirely), in the mind of the cyclist. In particular, the potential lashing out, and the desire to avoid possibly experiencing "negative" interactions, seems to be a much stronger behavioral influence than the relatively rare harassment that cyclists are actually subjected to.

But I think that's what we have to put up with, and keep doing it, in order to make it seem more and more normal and acceptable, and, thus, less and less painful, for cyclists to cause some delay to motorists.

[John C. Ratliff]

Any road where cyclists are not banned accomodates the needs of cyclists. It may not accomodate the need of motorists to pass slower traffic easily, but that's not an example of not accomodating cyclists.

The fact that our culture teaches cyclists to not feel comfortable riding on roads where they are accomodated, but easy passing is not accomodated, is a separate but related issue. The solution is not to reinforce the notion (by adding facilities to make it easier to pass cyclists) that roads that do not accomodate easy passing of cyclists by motorists do not accomodate cyclists, but to dispell the notion, and replace it with the understanding that roads that do not accomodate for easy passing of cyclists are the problem of motorists, not the problem of cyclists.
Except, HH, that it is the cyclist that is injured or killed, not the motorist. That is the major weakness of this argument. And in Oregon, the motorist gets a citation, pays a small fine, and walks away (hopefully, that will change with this legislature).

John

[Helmet Head]

Gene gets a cookie...you have discovered the bigger threat to cycling on the roadways than those nasty engineering solutions, which are only a symptom - and a means to promote the bigger threat. The notion that cycling is dangerous and thus a public health issue is what will do us in. The sad thing is that most 'serious' cyclists gleefully run with the herd when it comes to this notion. Just look at any thread dealing with helmets, impotence, prostate problems...and of course our very familiar cycling facilities vs riding in traffic debates - and you will see the same kind of fear-mongering that is used to demonize other public health issues. I've seen the enemy, and he is us! :eek: :beer:

I would add to: the notion that cycling is dangerous and thus a public health issue is what will do us in.
This: It is imperative that we keep this from happening, and part of that is (sorry) opposing facilities that even appear to be created because of the the notion that cycling is dangerous ...

Facilities that appear to be created because of the notion that cycling is dangerous reinforce that notion and appear to be an official sanction of it.

[Helmet Head]

So, when the freeway has only one lane in each direction and there's a giant RV going 45 mph, people get impatient, pass unsafely, and learn to do whatever it takes not to get stuck behind the next RV they see. If possible they demand more lanes on the freeway, or at least passing lanes. If for no other reason than less people will crash making an unsafe pass, and less congestion will occur.

The same thing happens when people get stuck behind HH weaving away on his bicycle. The only difference is they can't ban the RVs from the freeway, but they might be able to ban the bicycles.

Everything out there reinforces the notion that people should stay out of the way of cars. This now is so ingrained that only getting people to leave their cars at home will break them of it.
This is a good analogy, Diane.

Yes, there is a general notion against delay, but I think it's a big more nuanced than that, and this is very important: What's particularly painful is when the delay is perceived to be unnecessary. For example, nothing aggravates a friend of mine more than a "mother trucker" who decides to pass another truck on an uphill grade of a freeway with only 2 lanes in our direction. It's particularly painful because it seems so unnecessary.

So the key to reducing "pain" all around is increased socio-cultural acceptance of cyclists in the road, and acceptance of cyclists causing delay, as being "normal", just like drivers accept delays caused by relatively "understandable" causes such as red lights, drivers slowing down, stopping and reversing to park, pedestrians crossing, slow trucks in the rightmost lane, etc.

I will only add that to the extent that adding space and facilities to reduce the incidence and prevalence of motorists experiencing the "pain" of having to deal with cyclists, it makes it that much more painful in those situation (like making left turns) when the interaction is often unavoidable.

[genec]

:beer:

I would add to: the notion that cycling is dangerous and thus a public health issue is what will do us in.
This: It is imperative that we keep this from happening, and part of that is (sorry) opposing facilities that even appear to be created because of the the notion that cycling is dangerous ...

Facilities that appear to be created because of the notion that cycling is dangerous reinforce that notion and appear to be an official sanctin of it.

And yet oddly enough the motoring public is fine with 45,000 deaths of their fellow drivers... Now which is it that is a public health issue that is so dangerous that it is killing us right and left...??? :rolleyes:

[Helmet Head]

Any road where cyclists are not banned accomodates the needs of cyclists. It may not accomodate the need of motorists to pass slower traffic easily, but that's not an example of not accomodating cyclists.
Except, HH, that it is the cyclist that is injured or killed, not the motorist. That is the major weakness of this argument. And in Oregon, the motorist gets a citation, pays a small fine, and walks away (hopefully, that will change with this legislature).

John Please tell me that you understand that accomodation to make passing of cyclists less painful, via a shoulder or bike lane or even WOL, on the road in the recent Oregon tragedy almost certainly would not have made a difference.

The cyclist signaled, turned around and drifted into the path of a vehicle that was passing in a no-pass zone. That's why he was killed, and was at least as likely to have occured on an "accomodated" road, not because the road did not have proper accomodations for something, which is the topic of this thread and my argument.

The fact that cyclists are killed in path conflicts with motorists does not even address, much less identify a weakness in, the argument.

[Blue Order]

The OP specifically refers to roads that are "designed so that motorized travel is the only viable way ...".

How accepting drivers are of bicyclists on these roads is a separate issue, and, specifically, is not a road design issue. It's a cultural/understanding issue.

Engineering/design problems need to be addressed with engineering/design solutions.

Cultural/understanding problems need to be addressed through behavior that changes that understanding, and education. Not with engineering/design "solutions" that actually exacerbate the underlying cultural/understanding problems.Nonsense, as usual.

If a road is, by design, only capable of carrying either automobiles safely, or bicycles safely, but not both, then if it is by default carrying automobiles, drivers will not accept cyclists on that road because they perceive it as not being designed for cyclists. Design proper infrastructure, and drivers will accept that the road is for more than automobiles.

[sbhikes]

Safe AND convenient. It must be both of these for all people who wish to use the roads. Otherwise people will and do demand changes.

[chipcom]

:beer:

I would add to: the notion that cycling is dangerous and thus a public health issue is what will do us in.
This: It is imperative that we keep this from happening, and part of that is (sorry) opposing facilities that even appear to be created because of the the notion that cycling is dangerous ...

Facilities that appear to be created because of the notion that cycling is dangerous reinforce that notion and appear to be an official sanction of it.

You gotta attack the root cause, HH, which is the notion...facilities are just a symptom. Indeed, I have no problem with facilities for recreational purposes...the roadways are not a playground. Attack the root cause, rather than spinning wheels chasing symptoms that have both good and bad attributes. But then again, you show everyday that you DO consider cycling dangerous...Helmet Head. You want to set an example that you truly believe cycling isn't dangerous...put your head where your mouth is - I do.

Let the flames begin.

[Helmet Head]

Nonsense, as usual.

If a road is, by design, only capable of carrying either automobiles safely, or bicycles safely, but not both, then if it is by default carrying automobiles, drivers will not accept cyclists on that road because they perceive it as not being designed for cyclists. Design proper infrastructure, and drivers will accept that the road is for more than automobiles.
What road (excluding freeways) is, "by design, only capable of carrying either automobiles safely, or bicycles safely, but not both"?

I know of no such roads. None. Every non-freeway surface street, road or highway I've ever driven or ridden on was and still is (so far as I know) capable of carrying both automobiles and bicyclists safely.

[chipcom]

And yet oddly enough the motoring public is fine with 45,000 deaths of their fellow drivers... Now which is it that is a public health issue that is so dangerous that it is killing us right and left...??? :rolleyes:

Because driving is a right, dambit!!

[Blue Order]

What road (excluding freeways) is, "by design, only capable of carrying either automobiles safely, or bicycles safely, but not both"?

I know of no such roads. None. Every non-freeway surface street, road or highway I've ever driven or ridden on was and still is (so far as I know) capable of carrying both automobiles and bicyclists safely.How about a road with lanes too narrow to safely share, and with a 40 MPH or greater speed limit? :rolleyes:

[genec]

How about a road with lanes too narrow to safely share, and with a 40 MPH or greater speed limit? :rolleyes:

Heck make it 55MPH, and you just described most of hiway 1 in northern California... and for that matter, most moutain grade roads anywhere.

[Helmet Head]

You gotta attack the root cause, HH, which is the notion...facilities are just a symptom. Indeed, I have no problem with facilities for recreational purposes...the roadways are not a playground. Attack the root cause, rather than spinning wheels chasing symptoms that have both good and bad attributes.

Let the flames begin. No flames. I fully agree that we need to attack the root cause, and that is the notion. But facilities are more than a symptom. There is a feedback effect, and I seek to sever that loop.

If you have a wound infected with bacteria, keeping it clean (attacking the symtom) is just as important as applying antibiotics that attack the root cause, as a dirty would is particularly susceptible to getting reinfected by another type of bacteria.

Also, whether one opposes onroad segregated bike facilities serves as an effective litmus test, if you will, for identifying whether one understands the underlying issues, including the root cause.

But then again, you show everyday that you DO consider cycling dangerous...Helmet Head. You want to set an example that you truly believe cycling isn't dangerous...put your head where your mouth is - I do.
Bicycling in traffic, like flying an airplane, SCUBA diving, hiking in the desert, rock climbing, crossing a street (as a ped), or driving a car, can be dangerous, or can be safe, depending on the skills, training and preparation of the participant in the relevant activity. I would not want to convey that cycling in traffic is safe no matter how you do it. Would you?

[chipcom]

I would not want to convey that cycling in traffic is safe no matter how you do it. Would you?

I have been for a lot of years. It's riding a bike, no special skills or equipment required, despite those that make it appear more dangerous that it really is. There is no proscribed playbook...whatever works for you is fine with me as long as it doesn't put ME or someone else in danger.

[Helmet Head]

What road (excluding freeways) is, "by design, only capable of carrying either automobiles safely, or bicycles safely, but not both"?

I know of no such roads. None. Every non-freeway surface street, road or highway I've ever driven or ridden on was and still is (so far as I know) capable of carrying both automobiles and bicyclists safely.
How about a road with lanes too narrow to safely share, and with a 40 MPH or greater speed limit?
Heck make it 55MPH, and you just described most of hiway 1 in northern California... and for that matter, most moutain grade roads anywhere. A road with lanes too narrow to be safely shared side-by-side is not unsafe to be shared in line. Yes, motorists sometimes have to slow down to the speed of the cyclist. I was in Mendocino a few weeks ago, which requires driving a narrow 2 lane highway from 101 out to the coast. We (driving in a Ford F150 king cab) came around a corner and were suddenly required to slow down and be stuck behind a chain of barely moving cars. As we soon found out, a couple of touring cyclists were riding up the grade, and there was no room to pass while there was oncoming traffic. As soon as the oncoming traffic cleared, everyone passed, without incident. Nothing unsafe about it. It's not much different from coming upon a slow moving truck or piece of farm equipment on such a road. Would anyone say that such roads are "by design, only capable of carrying either automobiles safely, or trucks safely, but not both"? That such roads are, "by design, only capable of carrying either automobiles safely, or farm tractors safely, but not both"? More evidence of how prevalent cyclist inferiority thinking is even among cyclists...

On that same trip, Gene, I happened to rent a mountain bike and rode a few miles up and down highway 1 north of the town of Mendocino (as well as doing some awesome off-road single track riding). No problems.

I repeat: What road (excluding freeways) is, "by design, only capable of carrying either automobiles safely, or bicycles safely, but not both"?

[Helmet Head]

I would not want to convey that cycling in traffic is safe no matter how you do it. Would you?

I have been for a lot of years. It's riding a bike, no special skills or equipment required, despite those that make it appear more dangerous that it really is. There is no proscribed playbook...whatever works for you is fine with me as long as it doesn't put ME or someone else in danger.
Well, we'll have to agree to disagree.

The recent Oregon tragedy seems to me to be an example of how dangerous bicycling can be, particularly to someone who does not understand and appreciate where the source of threats to his safety are most likely to come from, and what the best practices and habits are to help avoid a sudden and unexpected demise like that.

[Blue Order]

A road with lanes too narrow to be safely shared side-by-side is not unsafe to be shared in line. Yes, motorists sometimes have to slow down to the speed of the cyclist.Which gets to the point of my post, doesn't it?

[Blue Order]

Well, we'll have to agree to disagree.

The recent Oregon tragedy seems to me to be an example of how dangerous bicycling can be, particularly to someone who does not understand and appreciate where the source of threats to his safety are most likely to come from, and what the best practices and habits are to help avoid a sudden and unexpected demise like that.:rolleyes:

[Blue Order]

More evidence of how prevalent cyclist inferiority thinking is even among cyclists...:roflmao:

[Helmet Head]

A road with lanes too narrow to be safely shared side-by-side is not unsafe to be shared in line. Yes, motorists sometimes have to slow down to the speed of the cyclist.
Which gets to the point of my post, doesn't it? I don't see how.

Your point was that such a road is "by design, only capable of carrying either automobiles safely, or bicycles safely, but not both". But it is capable of carrying both safely. The fact that motorists sometimes have to slow down to the speed of the cyclist does not make it unsafe to carry both.