I was not being silly - deliberately provocative, perhaps, but not silly. Nice dodge of the question! Very well then, omit that part of my request. So, then:

Substantiate those claims. In particular, prove that the presence of a bike lane leads a significant number of cyclists to believe they have "no need to learn... the skill of operating in accordance to the rules of the road".



Ah, so your position is that the proof does not exist because it can't exist, got it. Can you provide ANY objective evidence for this alleged motivation? Can you show that such evidence is valid internationally and in 2007?



Yes, I realize that your account is a subjective rendering of events at a specific time and place. Thank you for your admission. Even if your account is accepted as accurate, that does noting to convince me of its relevance here and now.



I am under no such obligation (talk about arrogance!). You are presenting an account. You are presenting conclusions based on that account. You are presenting global and contemporary statements based on your conclusions. It is up to you to convince me that your statements are accurate.

I have been discussing the American experience. Bikeway systems in other nations each have their own origins, warranting their own discussions, although less is known about them.

You question the relevance of the origination of the American bikeways system (including bike lanes, of course) to the present. The design was created to shove cyclists to the side of the road, which is what it does. Its design has not changed significantly since then. Therefore it still does what it was designed to do, and there is no reason to believe that it now produces unexpected side effects which are beneficial to cyclists.

You appear to be a person whose bicycle advocacy is at least partly motivated by opposition to motoring and skepticism about the motoring establishment. (I haven't traced your own specific posts to determine this; excuse me if I am allying you with the majority in this discussion.) Yet, you ardently support the system that the motoring establishment designed to discriminate against cyclists, without any degree of skepticism being apparent. What makes you believe that the motoring establishment, about which you have suspicions, several decades ago decided to create a system that then provided, and still provides, great benefits for cyclists? This pattern of belief, so typical among bicycle advocates, is psychologically unlikely. There has to be some other explanation.

As for your skepticism about my account of events, that skepticism is supported by no evidence at all. Choosing a belief for which there is no evidence over a belief for which there is evidence is bigotry or fanaticism.

Now to consider whether or not the expectation of bike lanes causes potential cyclists (not just as you misphrased my statement) to believe that the bike-lane stripes provide the safety that they think they need. There have been many surveys of American popular opinion about cycling, and a substantial major proportion of people in these surveys state that they believe that there are very few safe places to ride. Similarly, these surveys show that large proportions of people believe that bike-lane stripes make cycling safe and that they would often choose bicycle transportation if bike-lane stripes were provided. It is true that none of these surveys has asked these potential cyclists their opinion of vehicular cycling; it is not in the interest of those making those surveys to do so. However, there are two kinds of evidence concerning this public belief. The first is that American planning literature and American bicycle advocacy literature are rife with condemnation of vehicular cycling as being elitist, difficult, dangerous, and whatever other criticism can be invented. The second is that those persons who are attracted to cycling by the presence of bike lanes do not choose to prepare themselves by learning vehicular cycling; evidently they think that this is not necessary. There is a third kind of evidence also, that of the motoring public who do not intend to do much cycling. These people think that all that is needed to know about cycling is what they had learned in "bike-safety" instruction as children, which of course is not vehicular-cycling instruction at all.

In short, there is plenty of evidence that the general public believes that bike-lane stripes significantly reduce the need for traffic-cycling skills.

snip

FHWA - that would be the Federal Highway Administration, I assume? Can you convince me that the document in question, with which I am not familiar, applies to bike lanes outside the USA and applies to the current date? Once that is done, can you explain to me why something "particularly suited to child and beginning cyclists" ALSO means that those cyclists will "believe they have no need to learn ... the skill of operating in accordance to the rules of the road". It does not follow that a thing, found to be particularly suitable for beginners, will of it nature lead all users to believe they need to do no more learning.

If you prefer that I release you from defending your statement, I have no abjection to that. I understand that any single statement may not, out of context, fully and correctly represent one's opinion. However, regardless of wording, your positions re: bike lanes seem only based on your alleged experiences, at a time when I was still in diapers, in a (to me) foreign country. While I admire your skill at belittling your adversaries and manipulating discussion, this does noting to convince me to follow in your beliefs. You presented your positions, and you must convince me those positions are valid in whatever contexts (locations/times) you feel they are valid in. I am under no obligation to believe everything presented to me, nor I am under any obligation to refute everything presented to me.

I do not know where you live, Patc. You state: "However, regardless of wording, your positions re: bike lanes seem only based on your alleged experiences, at a time when I was still in diapers, in a (to me) foreign country." Is California a foreign nation to you? I had assumed that we were discussing the American experience, and the American bikeway system stems directly from what was created in California in the early 1970s, with very little change.

You are, if this is supposed to be a reasonable discussion rather than just the presentation of superstition and bigotry, obliged to consider that the strength of one's belief ought to be in accordance with the evidence presented. If you refuse to operate in that way, then this discussion is pointless, except to demonstrate its defects.

FHWA - that would be the Federal Highway Administration, I assume? Can you convince me that the document in question, with which I am not familiar, applies to bike lanes outside the USA and applies to the current date? Once that is done, can you explain to me why something "particularly suited to child and beginning cyclists" ALSO means that those cyclists will "believe they have no need to learn ... the skill of operating in accordance to the rules of the road". It does not follow that a thing, found to be particularly suitable for beginners, will of it nature lead all users to believe they need to do no more learning.



Yes, in discussions of American transportation, FHWA refers to the Federal Highway Administration.

And I can easily answer your request: "Once that is done, can you explain to me why something "particularly suited to child and beginning cyclists" ALSO means that those cyclists will "believe they have no need to learn ... the skill of operating in accordance to the rules of the road". The first requisite for traffic-safe cycling is operating in accordance with the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles. When bike lane-stripes are officially said to make a road suitable for cycling by child cyclists, without any indication that the skill of operating in accordance with the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles, that is a clear indication that the official opinion is that that skill is no longer necessary on such a road. Otherwise, there would be no point in making the statement. The statement obviously indicates a real difference between vehicular cyclists (called Type A cyclists in this document, and in many others) and child cyclists, who do not have that skill. It would be unethical to knowingly state that any particular facility were suitable for cycling if it was not considered to be safe for cycling. The statement that the presence of a bike-lane stripe makes cycling safe for unskilled children (in contrast to skilled Class A cyclists) also implies that possession of standard traffic-cycling skill (vehicular cycling) is unnecessary for safety.

Of course, the official position and the public superstition are all wrong, which is why I write about them. It should behoove bicycle advocates to recognize the harm that they are doing to the cause and safety of cyclists by advocating a system that is designed to discriminate against them and was never designed for safety.

I have been discussing the American experience. Bikeway systems in other nations each have their own origins, warranting their own discussions, although less is known about them.

You question the relevance of the origination of the American bikeways system (including bike lanes, of course) to the present. The design was created to shove cyclists to the side of the road, which is what it does.

You see, that is exactly where you and I run into problems. First of all, you have never convinced me that the bikeway design "was created to shove cyclists to the side of the road". If that was true, you still need to convince me that it is relevant here and now. You are several steps behind our lovely (if dysfunctional) Bikeforums family, we concluded long ago that a great deal of cycling is location dependent.


You appear to be a person whose bicycle advocacy is at least partly motivated by opposition to motoring and skepticism about the motoring establishment.

True. It would be more accurate to say that I advocate using anything BUT personal motor vehicles for personal transportation in urban cores. It is mostly irrelevant to me is individuals chose walking, public transit, cycling, other means, or some combination.

Yet, you ardently support the system that the motoring establishment designed to discriminate against cyclists, without any degree of skepticism being apparent.

False. I don't "ardently support" any particularly system. I certainly have preferences, and observations on what seems to be working locally. Overall I push for consideration of options, a mix of facilities and accommodations, and a vision being the myopic car/bike or even car/bike/pedestrian paradigm.

What makes you believe that the motoring establishment, about which you have suspicions, several decades ago decided to create a system that then provided, and still provides, great benefits for cyclists? This pattern of belief, so typical among bicycle advocates, is psychologically unlikely. There has to be some other explanation.

There are many possible reasons for why bike lanes and other facilities have been created, and I find it hard to credit that the same reasons manifested around the globe. Further, regardless of why any specific facility may have once been created, I want to make decisions on what works today and here free from historical prejudice.

As for your skepticism about my account of events, that skepticism is supported by no evidence at all. Choosing a belief for which there is no evidence over a belief for which there is evidence is bigotry or fanaticism.

No, it is called keeping an open mind until and unless convincing evidence is provided.

Now to consider whether or not the expectation of bike lanes causes potential cyclists (not just as you misphrased my statement) to believe that the bike-lane stripes provide the safety that they think they need.

I quoted the statement as you wrote it. Again you are dodging the question. I consider you to have conceded the point: you can not show that bike lanes cause people to feel they do not need to learn to operate bikes as drivers of vehicles.

In short, there is plenty of evidence that the general public believes that bike-lane stripes significantly reduce the need for traffic-cycling skills.

You confuse arguments with evidence.

I do not know where you live, Patc.

To the left of this post, and all of my posts, you will see my handle, my avatar, chosen slogan, and location. The same applies to everyone on this forum who has chosen to enter that information. (Although it does not appear on the 'Reply To Thread' screen).

s California a foreign nation to you?

Yes


I had assumed that we were discussing the American experience, and the American bikeway system stems directly from what was created in California in the early 1970s, with very little change.

Then in that assumption you are in error. This is BikeForums.NET and not . US, and thus it indicates an international forum (the older TLDs, .com, .net, etc. became international several years ago, and in practice for much longer before that). Further there is nothing I am aware of on this site that leads anyone to assume it is to be considered American.

You came to this forum a relatively short time ago. Should I know assume that every statement you have made should only apply to the USA?

You are, if this is supposed to be a reasonable discussion rather than just the presentation of superstition and bigotry, obliged to consider that the strength of one's belief ought to be in accordance with the evidence presented. If you refuse to operate in that way, then this discussion is pointless, except to demonstrate its defects.

Thank you, John, for stating so effectively one of my key points. I am happy to see that we are in agreement there. The only addition to that, if you will allow a friendly amendment, is that the strength of one's belief should be in accordance to the strength and relevance of the evidence presented.

I have read "Effective Cycling". I have read many of your posts here. You have presented little evidence, and that weak. You have not convinced me that the evidence you presented is relevant today, or outside your proverbial backyard. You have presented many insults, pseudo-medical theories, hyperbola, and sweeping general statements. In short, the strength of my beliefs in your views in very much in proportion to the strength of the evidence you have presented. It certainly does not weigh against my personal, daily, experience as someone who travels by bike exclusively.

Nice try, though.

You see, that is exactly where you and I run into problems. First of all, you have never convinced me that the bikeway design "was created to shove cyclists to the side of the road". If that was true, you still need to convince me that it is relevant here and now. You are several steps behind our lovely (if dysfunctional) Bikeforums family, we concluded long ago that a great deal of cycling is location dependent.




True. It would be more accurate to say that I advocate using anything BUT personal motor vehicles for personal transportation in urban cores. It is mostly irrelevant to me is individuals chose walking, public transit, cycling, other means, or some combination.



False. I don't "ardently support" any particularly system. I certainly have preferences, and observations on what seems to be working locally. Overall I push for consideration of options, a mix of facilities and accommodations, and a vision being the myopic car/bike or even car/bike/pedestrian paradigm.



There are many possible reasons for why bike lanes and other facilities have been created, and I find it hard to credit that the same reasons manifested around the globe. Further, regardless of why any specific facility may have once been created, I want to make decisions on what works today and here free from historical prejudice.



No, it is called keeping an open mind until and unless convincing evidence is provided.



I quoted the statement as you wrote it. Again you are dodging the question. I consider you to have conceded the point: you can not show that bike lanes cause people to feel they do not need to learn to operate bikes as drivers of vehicles.



You confuse arguments with evidence.

You state: "You see, that is exactly where you and I run into problems. First of all, you have never convinced me that the bikeway design "was created to shove cyclists to the side of the road".

Then, what is your explanation for the motivation behind the creation of the American bikeway system, and, since you live ther, for the creation of the Canadian system (if there are national standards). Consider what the bikeway system does, and then deduce the motivation behind it.

So, you say that a great deal about cycling is location dependent. To some extent, that is correct. I have noticed that Canadian cycling has a considerable element of British heritage in it, which is one such demonstration. However, I think, subject to correction, that the Canadian highway designs, including the bikeways, are very similar to the US designs and probably derive from the same sources. That cannot be said of, say, Dutch or German designs.

Go get him, Pat. You are spot on.

If we take JF logic that the historical motivation for the creation of a roadway design is the only motivation that can exist for all time then by that logic since the historic motivation for the Good Roads Movement was to accommodate cyclists therefore all roads built today have the sole purpose of accommodating cyclists, this is an historic fact just like the bikeway system and both can never be anything more then what they started out to be.

If we agree with JF’s superstitious beliefs around bike lanes we should also advocate for other non-superstitious behavior such as advocating for systems that do not allow people to walk around ladders and only allow someone to walk under a ladder otherwise we would be admitting we are influenced by superstitions. http://www.wisegeek.com/why-is-it-considered-bad-luck-to-walk-under-a-ladder.htm

So only because we give credence to the bike lane superstition is the strongest reason why we should appose bike lanes???

Then, what is your explanation for the motivation behind the creation of the American bikeway system,

I have none, I need none, I do not need to speculate on it.

and, since you live ther, for the creation of the Canadian system (if there are national standards). Consider what the bikeway system does, and then deduce the motivation behind it.

I can only speak to the local system(s), and not Canada as a whole. I do not know the full history, but in extremely brief points

(1) The cross-Canada trail is a national and provincial effort to provide off-road long-distance recreational trails. This is significant to Ottawa since part of the NCC pathway system is included in this trail.

(2) The NCC - National Capital Commission - manages all federal lands in the area. They have an extensive system of MUPs parallel to each of the main waterways, often on both shores. The system was designed, and is maintained, for touristic, recreational, and transportation uses and is moderately well connected to the parks, National Capital Greenbelt, and road system.

(3) The city of Ottawa, amalgamated in 2001 from the previous local municipalities, is responsible for all other paths and all roads in Ottawa save for two freeways (the Queensway, aka highway 417 and highway 174). Both freeways forbid bikes, and have a minimum speed limit of 60 km/hour. These are the only public roadways in the city on which bikes are forbidden. We also have a newly-constructed bike/ped bridge, with several more proposed. We have relative few WOL, many km of bike lanes, signed bike routes, bike pockets, bike-only signage and signals, bike parking, etc. We also have many short paths to link otherwise separated areas (e.g. under train tracks).


Now, you want me to peer in a crystal ball and deduce the motivations behind the above system, considering what the system does. Well, it provides recreational and physical activity potential, and sure enough both of those are used to justify the cost of the pathways, so I assume it was an original motivation as well. We have bike lanes on many main arterials - usually newer ones or ones recently re-built; since these provide fast and convenient cycling for me and other cyclists, and we use them, I deduce they have been placed for our convenience. When a bridge is closed for renovations, a shuttle bus is provided for pedestrians and cyclists; so I deduce that we are considered users of those bridges who need a temporary alternative. When the mayor commissioned a new study of transit in the city, it explicitly spoke of the needs and desires of cyclists, so I deduce from that fact that we are considered.

I could go on with this wild speculation, or go into specifics (such as the current debates over specific roads), but I dislike speculation. However, if you wanted me to speculate, I would say that our governments are acutely aware of the needs and desires of cyclists, moderately considerate of those needs, and willing to explore a mix of facilities. In particular they go out of their way not to inconvenience cyclists when traffic calming measures are used, and to promote active lifestyles.


However, I think, subject to correction, that the Canadian highway designs, including the bikeways, are very similar to the US designs and probably derive from the same sources. That cannot be said of, say, Dutch or German designs.

That could be, that could be. Even if true, and even if you are correct about the nefarious motivations for those designs, it is completely and totally irrelevant to me and any other reasonable person. Does it work here and now? That's all that matters.

snips

That could be, that could be. Even if true, and even if you are correct about the nefarious motivations for those designs, it is completely and totally irrelevant to me and any other reasonable person. Does it work here and now? That's all that matters.

Patc, you introduce many more items than your local bikeway system. Those are irrelevant to the discussion of bikeways, in particular of bike lanes. If your bikeway system, Patc, had limited itself to the away-from-road facilities, for which the accusation of pushing cyclists aside cannot apply, then I would say that that accusation is irrelevant. However, you say that it has considerable distances of bike-lane stripe, for which the most reasonable explanation is that its design was intended to push cyclists aside. You say that the original intention is irrelevant, and all that matters now is whether or not it works in the present time and present location. I agree with that. Do your bike-lane stripes designate a width, largely at the right-hand side of the road, for the use of cyclists? I strongly suspect that that is what they do. In which case, they continue the original design intent. QED.

QED? :roflmao: NOT!


Well, (bike infrastructure) provides recreational and physical activity potential, and sure enough both of those are used to justify the cost of the pathways, so I assume it was an original motivation as well. We have bike lanes on many main arterials - usually newer ones or ones recently re-built; since these provide fast and convenient cycling for me and other cyclists, and we use them, I deduce they have been placed for our convenience. When a bridge is closed for renovations, a shuttle bus is provided for pedestrians and cyclists; so I deduce that we are considered users of those bridges who need a temporary alternative. When the mayor commissioned a new study of transit in the city, it explicitly spoke of the needs and desires of cyclists, so I deduce from that fact that we are considered.

.....I would say that our governments are acutely aware of the needs and desires of cyclists, moderately considerate of those needs, and willing to explore a mix of facilities.

Bike infrastructure and bike lanes are explicitly placed for the BENEFIT of bicyclists in my city as well.

Patc, you introduce many more items than your local bikeway system. Those are irrelevant to the discussion of bikeways, in particular of bike lanes.

You asked about our bikeway system, and now you say parts of that system are irrelevant to the conversation. How convenient for you.

However, you say that it has considerable distances of bike-lane stripe, for which the most reasonable explanation is that its design was intended to push cyclists aside.

Why is that the most reasonable explanation? Your intellectual dishonesty is astounding. Do you actually believe anything you write?

You say that the original intention is irrelevant, and all that matters now is whether or not it works in the present time and present location. I agree with that.

Good. I assume, then, you will stop harping about your theories of the past?

Do your bike-lane stripes designate a width, largely at the right-hand side of the road, for the use of cyclists? I strongly suspect that that is what they do. In which case, they continue the original design intent. QED.

Sad.

You have failed to prove "that the presence of a bike lane leads a significant number of cyclists to believe they have "no need to learn... the skill of operating in accordance to the rules of the road". In fact you did a quick back-peddle on that one!

You have failed to show that your experience, in one place and time, is meaningful here and now, or in general.

You have admitted that your account is subjective, dated, and pertained to a foreign nation, and you have shown no reason why I should consider it relevant.

You asked about the local 'bikeway system', then dismissed that same system as irrelevant.

You are nothing but hot air. Nothing but hyperbole, wild speculation, and baseless statements. You are nothing at all... except a sad old man harming the advance of cycling. I feel very sorry for you.

I gave you an honest chance to back up one of your statements, and the best you could do is accuse me of misquoting it!

Thank you for coming to Bike Forums. I had wondered if you had anything to say worth listening to... you do not.

...Sad....

(John Forester), You are nothing but hot air. Nothing but hyperbole, wild speculation, and baseless statements. You are nothing at all... except a sad old man harming the advance of cycling.
.

+1. So true.

What????

North Clarendon, leading out of Avondale?

That used to be sweet. Now it's full of trash?

That's the kind of thing that really puts me off.


Map Tester sent me a personal message redirecting me to my error. I had misread his post. He said:


Recently, the county re-painted a favorite, wide, two-lane road I use everyday (N. Clarendon in Scottdale). The only difference is that before, there was no white outside line. Now, what use to be a nice, mostly clean road with 14/15 ft lanes has 12/13 ft lanes with a bunch of trash on the side. :( I seriously doubt the traffic engineers have a clue about the consequences of their painting that line.
In other words, no bike lane. Just painting a white line reducing lane-width by 2 feet.

Yet in a personal e-mail from county officials, one who said our bike lanes were painted "according to AASHTO standards" admitted that sometimes, where no space was available for a bike lane, that they painted a white line anyway, just to give cyclists a little more space.

Their hearts were in the right place, but they don't know the consequences. I'm certainly not going to ride where trash is, I'm going to ride where the cars keep it clean.

Somehow, I have a feeling people will notice, and either avoid painting the white lines, or sweep the space to the right of them. My concern is that the latter will never be a firm commitment.

You asked about our bikeway system, and now you say parts of that system are irrelevant to the conversation. How convenient for you.



Why is that the most reasonable explanation? Your intellectual dishonesty is astounding. Do you actually believe anything you write?



Good. I assume, then, you will stop harping about your theories of the past?



Sad.

You have failed to prove "that the presence of a bike lane leads a significant number of cyclists to believe they have "no need to learn... the skill of operating in accordance to the rules of the road". In fact you did a quick back-peddle on that one!

You have failed to show that your experience, in one place and time, is meaningful here and now, or in general.

You have admitted that your account is subjective, dated, and pertained to a foreign nation, and you have shown no reason why I should consider it relevant.

You asked about the local 'bikeway system', then dismissed that same system as irrelevant.

You are nothing but hot air. Nothing but hyperbole, wild speculation, and baseless statements. You are nothing at all... except a sad old man harming the advance of cycling. I feel very sorry for you.

I gave you an honest chance to back up one of your statements, and the best you could do is accuse me of misquoting it!

Thank you for coming to Bike Forums. I had wondered if you had anything to say worth listening to... you do not.

What is the sad part? The saddest part of these discussions is the misuse of standard scientific reasoning and debate by those who advocate the kind of bikeways that have frequent interaction with motor traffic. You, Patc should have recognized that this has been the subject of these discussions. Either you cannot understand what has been written many times, or you have chosen, for your own purposes, to pretend that this is not so.

Furthermore, you have insisted on a standard that is not possible in scientific discourse. "You have failed to prove "that the presence of a bike lane leads a significant number of cyclists to believe they have "no need to learn... the skill of operating in accordance to the rules of the road". In fact you did a quick back-peddle on that one!"

While disproof is possible in scientific discussion, proof is not possible. It is only possible to evaluate the weight of the evidence on each side. I advanced much evidence to support my point; you have advanced no evidence to support your belief. That is not back-pedaling at all, simply conforming to standard scientific practice.

Your argument regarding the function of bike-lane stripes apparently is that they no longer do what was originally intended many years ago, keep cyclists to the side of the road as much as possible, but that today they do something else instead. All that I pointed out is that they still perform that function, and you have not been able to deny that.

Your method of argumentation would have been thrown out of any standard scientific discussion, while mine stays within those bounds. That means, of course, that you can accuse me of having insufficient evidence to prove anything, while you fail to advance any evidence for your hypothesis, whatever that is. I repeat, the evaluation of hypotheses ought to be done by evaluating the weight of the evidence on each side, and, in general, the bicycle advocates have failed to do that. That is, with the exception of asserting that they have the more popular side, which appears to be so, but which is irrelevant to the accuracy of any hypothesis outside the realms of politics or popular culture.

Your method of argumentation would have been thrown out of any standard scientific discussion, while mine stays within those bounds. That means, of course, that you can accuse me of having insufficient evidence to prove anything, while you fail to advance any evidence for your hypothesis, whatever that is.

Dude, you're totally clueless, give it up. I'm a natural skeptic, always have been. My "hypothesis", to use the nomenclature you chose, is to simply stay neutral until I become convinced otherwise... and even then to keep an open mind.


Give it a rest, you're embarrassing yourself with your foolishness.

If you're one of those guys who feels the need to always have the last word, be me guest.