Vehicular Cycling (VC) - Must be a result of "cyclist inferiority syndrome... "

The discussion concerned the development of suburbia. I have not seen any evidence that cyclists have managed to reduce the extent of suburbia and the motoring that is part of suburbia. Rather, both have been increasing in all parts of the world with the money to produce and use them. You claim, as to this discussion, is merely fatuous.

And just because you haven't seen it means it can't be done?
Just because something may not have happened before, means it can't be done?
Just because you pepper your posts with personal attacks, means you're right?

Cyclists do not exist in a vacuum. I see the reduction of suburbia and motoring daily - in fact both are part of my city's official plan. And we cyclists are very much part of that. Now go ahead and call me a liar, if you wish.

I'm torn between a strong interest in cycling advocacy, and the pointlessness of many of these arguments (this comment is not aimed at anyone in particular BTW).

Don't be torn. There is real-world cycling advocacy, and then there are the tired tirades of a few Internet nuts. The only place in which they overlap is the occasional extremist who will show up at local meetings - consider this forum a place to study this rare species, and prepare yourself for a potential (but rare) real-life encounter.

Lies. I suppose that JF believes the war in Iraq is about 911. Figures.

And just because you haven't seen it means it can't be done?
Just because something may not have happened before, means it can't be done?
Just because you pepper your posts with personal attacks, means you're right?

Cyclists do not exist in a vacuum. I see the reduction of suburbia and motoring daily - in fact both are part of my city's official plan. And we cyclists are very much part of that. Now go ahead and call me a liar, if you wish.

What proportion of suburbia in the Ottawa urban area has been demolished? What reductions in motoring have occurred in the Ottawa urban area? Please provide both data and sources.

Lies. I suppose that JF believes the war in Iraq is about 911. Figures.

A claim irrelevant to the discussion, about which you have no evidence whatever, and which happens to be false. The more that I read from you, Diane, the more reason I see to question your sanity.

The minds of those who argue as you do are pictures of emotional illogical irrationality.

What are you, all cowards afflicted with the cyclist-inferiority phobia? That looks like the most accurate diagnosis.

The more that I read from you, Diane, the more reason I see to question your sanity.

As much an armchair psychologist as an armchair cyclist, your talents know no bounds!

What proportion of suburbia in the Ottawa urban area has been demolished?


Point of clarification: I don't know how you do it in the states, but generally in Canada we try to call the reduction of suburban sprawl area "intensification", rather than *demolition*.

Point of clarification: I don't know how you do it in the states, but generally in Canada we try to call the reduction of suburban sprawl area "intensification", rather than *demolition*.

Don't confuse the poor fellow with fancy terms! I see new in-building projects daily, there is clear intensification of the urban core and downtown. We also have several projects converting road lanes to bus-only lanes. Meanwhile an suburban sprawl development proposed for the Manotick area is seeing nothing but opposition (except by the develop, of course!).

I'm sorry folks - reading this forum and the A&S one always makes me cross. What part of a bicycle is a vehicle and therefore should behave and be treated as such don't you guys get?

The safest place for a cyclist is the centre of the lane and doing things any average road user does - signalling intentions, constantly checking for manouvering traffic, obeying traffic controls and calming, etc.

The "we need bike lanes because of the traffic" is a stupid argument and should have no place in bicycle advocacy. Bike lanes are invariably used as an excuse to either exclude cyclists from road use or as examples of how cyclists are much better off if they're left to play in the corner by themselves, i.e., marginalised either way.

Traffic speed has nothing to do with bike lanes and everything to do with increased spacing and vigilance; just as any other vehicle user needs to take greater care with greater speed.

The b!tching and name calling is unproductive but hopefully some of you will read this and possibly change your ways. One can only hope.

Traffic speed has nothing to do with bike lanes and everything to do with increased spacing and vigilance; just as any other vehicle user needs to take greater care with greater speed.


Forget your bike lane comment for a second, and address the rest of your statement... I have yet to see faster moving traffic coupled with increased spacing and apparent greater vigilance.

I have yet to see the majority of "any other vehicle user" take greater care with greater speed.

There seems to be a mentality of "joe race car driver" out there... in a certain portion of the population that insists on driving faster than the posted speed, driving closer and taking more chances and indicating less to their fellow road users.

Let me know when that clears up.

Now back to the BL comment... the only reason I see for BL is simply to guide those "joe race car types" and others to "stay between the lines... " just like all the other stripes and markings on the road now do.

I'm sorry folks - reading this forum and the A&S one always makes me cross. What part of a bicycle is a vehicle and therefore should behave and be treated as such don't you guys get?

An insult and a challenge in one!


The safest place for a cyclist is the centre of the lane and doing things any average road user does - signalling intentions, constantly checking for manouvering traffic, obeying traffic controls and calming, etc.

In dispute.


The "we need bike lanes because of the traffic" is a stupid argument and should have no place in bicycle advocacy. Bike lanes are invariably used as an excuse to either exclude cyclists from road use or as examples of how cyclists are much better off if they're left to play in the corner by themselves, i.e., marginalised either way.

Another insult and another disputed opinion.


Traffic speed has nothing to do with bike lanes and everything to do with increased spacing and vigilance; just as any other vehicle user needs to take greater care with greater speed.

Disputed, as I don't think anyone here will argue that traffic speed plays no role in safety even accounting for needs for increased space.


The b!tching and name calling is unproductive but hopefully some of you will read this and possibly change your ways. One can only hope.

You evidently do your share. Welcome! :)

I'm sorry folks - reading this forum and the A&S one always makes me cross. [/QUOTW]

Me too.

[QUOTE=markhr]The "we need bike lanes because of the traffic" is a stupid argument and should have no place in bicycle advocacy. Bike lanes are invariably used as an excuse to either exclude cyclists from road use or as examples of how cyclists are much better off if they're left to play in the corner by themselves, i.e., marginalised either way.

Because of crap like the above.

Don't confuse the poor fellow with fancy terms! I see new in-building projects daily, there is clear intensification of the urban core and downtown. We also have several projects converting road lanes to bus-only lanes. Meanwhile an suburban sprawl development proposed for the Manotick area is seeing nothing but opposition (except by the develop, of course!).

While serving on Cary, North Carolina's Planning and Zoning Board for six years (term limit) I reviewed many infill, mixed use and new-urbanism/traditional neighborhood developments. There is certainly a trend toward more compact and efficient development in many suburban and low-density urban cities.

There are multiple causes of this trend. First, land prices are increasing quickly in growing communities, making lower density suburban housing unaffordable to many. Second, some people are recognizing that they prefer to avoid maintenance of large yards in favor of easy access to shared outdoor spaces such as public parks or vibrant downtown destinations. Third, overly restrictive zoning laws enacted in previous decades prevented construction of the type of development that would serve this niche market. We are now seeing a market correction, where the zoning laws and development patterns are adapting to serve this market demand.

How large the latent demand for denser development will turn out to be is hard to predict. I expect it will stabilize as a healthy fraction of the total housing market, but probably not change the general trend toward suburbanization. I think more people will start to see urban development in an attractive light, and base their lifestyle decisions based on the actual performance of places rather than fear and negative stereotypes. I also think that multi-family dwellings such as apartment buildingsa and condos, which have always had demand, will be increasingly located where they provide more convenient access (e.g. walking/cycling/short slow-speed motoring) to attractive destinations. However, I think most families will continue to be seeking single family detached housing with a yard for a long time, and road patterns that separate through traffic from residential driveways will always be popular with family homebuyers.

However, I think most families will continue to be seeking single family detached housing with a yard for a long time, and road patterns that separate through traffic from residential driveways will always be popular with family homebuyers.

Interesting observation - I assume you are using "families" to mean "married couples with kids", as is popular now - a usage I disagree with. Since both marriage rates and birth rates are on a downward trend in Canada, your observation could explain part of the shift. In the short term, here in Ottawa, the shift is also fueled by city council's refusal to allow new developments outside of the areas served by existing infrastructure. We have a very disfunctional council, though, so that position may or may not last in the long term.

Interesting observation - I assume you are using "families" to mean "married couples with kids", as is popular now - a usage I disagree with. Since both marriage rates and birth rates are on a downward trend in Canada, your observation could explain part of the shift. In the short term, here in Ottawa, the shift is also fueled by city council's refusal to allow new developments outside of the areas served by existing infrastructure. We have a very disfunctional council, though, so that position may or may not last in the long term.

I apologize for repeating a household stereotype that I dislike as well. My own suburb is a favorite bedroom town for high-income breeders; only recently has there been much growth in development patterns and destinations that serve the interests of singles, young couples, gay couples, etc. making it pretty boring. Comparisons to "Pleasantville" and "Stepford" abound.

My wife and I have a son and plan on growing our family, but we dislike yard work and prefer to be close to parks and other destinations. Our yard is too small for ball sports and I wouldn't want to mow one big enough. We have created a nice patio and play area behind our house and take maximum advantage of easy bicycling to local parks, the pool, and downtown.

Interesting observation - I assume you are using "families" to mean "married couples with kids", as is popular now - a usage I disagree with. Since both marriage rates and birth rates are on a downward trend in Canada, your observation could explain part of the shift. In the short term, here in Ottawa, the shift is also fueled by city council's refusal to allow new developments outside of the areas served by existing infrastructure. We have a very disfunctional council, though, so that position may or may not last in the long term.

Even with marriage rates and birth rates on a downward trend... don't those traditional families make up the majority of the population?

Even if they don't, doesn't a two person household make up the majority of the population?

Originally posted by skanking biker

"What puzzles me is why you continue to defend the motoring lobby's system of 1950s suburban America when it is that very system that threatens cyclists' interests.

"Furthermore, in case you haven't noticed, many major metropolitan areas are experiencing a surge of suburbanites who are returning to the cities. Everywhere you go some old factory or wharehouse is being converted into highrise lofts or apartments. Thus, I do see evidence of people rejecting the suburbia paradigm. As more people move back to the cities, transportational systems will need to be redesigned to take into account this change."

To which Diane added:



Not to mention that lots of places have to fight against the developers who foist all this suburbia upon communities, whether the communities want it or not. Did it even occur to anyone that suburbia isn't necessarily giving the people what they want but actually the maximum profit-making way to develop the land?

Skanker writes: "What puzzles me is why you continue to defend the motoring lobby's system of 1950s suburban America when it is that very system that threatens cyclists' interests." This statement shows a complete misunderstanding of the American economic system. America has a long history of railroad barons, and then streetcar barons, making fortunes from the increased value of the lands that their systems served. However, neither of these has been a significant factor in residential construction since about 1920. The motoring lobby has never had a significant part in residential construction. As you know, I state that the resulting development of automotive suburbia has lowered the opportunities for transportational cycling, which is a result that I deplore. I do not "[D]efend the motoring lobby's system of 1950s suburban America" because there is no such system. But I do accept that this is the environment in which we cyclists must operate, and, since I recognize the reasons why so many of our people choose to live in suburbia, I see no way to overturn suburbia, and, on balance, no justifiable reason to do so even if we cyclists could.

It is correct that higher density infill developments are now growing. However, there is little reason to believe that they will become the homes of the majority of the people, as suburbia has done (barring some economic catastrophe). The proportion of people who desire the inner city life-style is not large. What we see now occurring is probably the return to a more balanced condition after the flight from the inner cities, by both people and industries.

Diane's comment shows equal ignorance of economic reasoning. She asks the ridiculous question that: "[S]uburbia isn't necessarily giving the people what they want but actually the maximum profit-making way to develop the land?" In answering Diane's supposedly rhetorical question, I take it at face value while ignoring the many locations where society has prevented the realization of the maximum profit from land development. The reason that suburbia gets developed in the way that it has been is because the developer sees that there is a ready market for his product, that a great many people are willing to pay the prices that he sets. None of these customers are obliged to buy the product of any particular developer; each buys according to the ratio of cost to value as evaluated by the family who buys.

I apologize for repeating a household stereotype that I dislike as well.

Accepted, and don't worry about it. The "family" thing became a big peeve of mine during our marriage debate in Canada. And, like, you, I have sometimes found word usages I dislike creeping into my own vocabulary. Amazing what the weight of common usage does to your own language.


My wife and I have a son and plan on growing our family, but we dislike yard work and prefer to be close to parks and other destinations. Our yard is too small for ball sports and I wouldn't want to mow one big enough. We have created a nice patio and play area behind our house and take maximum advantage of easy bicycling to local parks, the pool, and downtown.

I think there are many trends leading people - families of all types and singles - to life in urban centers. A topic I find interesting, since it is related to my views re: car-free cities and more responsible living. I have heard many people in these discussions saying much what you just did - they don't want the McMansion. No interest or no time in the required maintenance, no money for it, etc.

We own a row-house in a condo. All the front yard maintenance gets done for us, the back yard is small and I mow it only 4 times per year. I don't have the time or interest for yard work either!

Even with marriage rates and birth rates on a downward trend... don't those traditional families make up the majority of the population?

Even if they don't, doesn't a two person household make up the majority of the population?

I'm not sure what you're getting at, or if you're addressing this to the usage of "family" or the urban-living trend. As for two-person households (assuming you mean two persons in a "relationship"), common law status seems to be growing and off-setting the lower marriage rates in Canada, but I haven't seen stats verifying that. In most Canadian provinces common-law couples have nearly the same status as married couples, with a few differences. I prefer common-law, myself.

Back to the issue of decreasing suburbs, don't underestimate the importance of minorities. Dropping birth rates, women delaying motherhood until later in life, economic and social changes (and a bunch of other things) may all add up to, say, 2% more people opting for an urban life in the last decade. In a city of one million people, that means 20,000 people opting for urban life... a significant change!

I'm not sure what you're getting at, or if you're addressing this to the usage of "family" or the urban-living trend. As for two-person households (assuming you mean two persons in a "relationship"), common law status seems to be growing and off-setting the lower marriage rates in Canada, but I haven't seen stats verifying that. In most Canadian provinces common-law couples have nearly the same status as married couples, with a few differences. I prefer common-law, myself.

Back to the issue of decreasing suburbs, don't underestimate the importance of minorities. Dropping birth rates, women delaying motherhood until later in life, economic and social changes (and a bunch of other things) may all add up to, say, 2% more people opting for an urban life in the last decade. In a city of one million people, that means 20,000 people opting for urban life... a significant change!


All I am getting at is the use of the term "family" doesn't have to mean man, wife&2.2 kids.

http://www.americandreamcoalition.org/greatestmed.jpg

All hail the almighty Automobile, John Forester's true allegiance!

All I am getting at is the use of the term "family" doesn't have to mean man, wife&2.2 kids.

And that was the point I made in post to sggoodri.

You American bikeways advocates are doing exactly what the motorists want, instead of fighting against motorist dominance for equal treatment on the roadways. What are you, all cowards afflicted with the cyclist-inferiority phobia? That looks like the most accurate diagnosis.


Are you name calling? Cowards afflicted with some made up phobia?


At least "American Bikeways Advocates*" aren't on the speakers bureau of an auto and sprawl promoting "coalition" (and then claim ignorance of being on said bureau "I have no knowledge of being on such a Speakers Bureau, or even whether one exists." (I have no knowledge of being on such a Speakers Bureau, or even whether one exists.))

*could be a reality show, like American Chopper, where bikeways advocates have 1/2 hour minus commercial breaks (all car ads) to design and build custom bikeways for celebrity cyclists

...cycling in traffic is exceedingly dangerous and requires untypical levels of ability. Both of these are false, being nothing but the cyclist-inferiority superstition.


'untypical levels of ability'? Actually, that's making me feel kinda superior.

You evidently do your share. Welcome! :)

:lol: