"right lane buses, bikes, and right turning traffic only"

and joe, I really find your hyperbole amusing...

When I see some Bek's favorite roads, I cringe at the amount of wasted pavement.

a wet-behind-the-ears bicyclist complaining about an abundance of pavement to bicycle on... you really HAVE taken the American Dream Coalition/ john forestor bait, haven't you?

I do not believe you, little big man, that Atlanta is a city populated soley with polite drivers that do not honk at bicyclists exercising their right to the lane.

you are sugar coating and fantasizing road conditions in your city. I call your bluff.
Go ahead.

But your call will be long-distance.

Perhaps your vision of my neighborhood is influenced by the cycling conditions in your own area.

You already showed the extent of your knowledge of my area by your stereotyped vision of "Bubbas in trucks." You must love to watch Jeff Foxworthy. He makes great money telling jokes.

Trouble is, your idea of "Bubbas in trucks" is imaginary in my town.

But I do have to deal with angry Gays and frustrated Yuppies. :eek: (Actually, these aren't so bad. :) )

I just don't get the "ragin' cagers" that you do. I'm happy not to.

Thanks for giving me a clue about your environment. I get more respect from "cagers" in Atlanta than I do from cyclists in the A&S here in BikeForums.

;)

no, no, little big man.

there are 'bubbas in trucks' in every county in every state in the union, ready and willing to harass bicyclists.

atlanta has rid your metropolis of intolerant, bike hating rednecks? how unbelievable.

regarding...

wide lanes on busy roads without bike lanes encourage curb hugging and improper positioning at intersections by the average cyclist.

Ain't no bubbas in Georgia. In Georgia everybody posts the 10 commandments on their front lawn. THEN they try to kill you (which commandment is that again?) with their God-fearing family station wagons.

Ain't no bubbas in Georgia. In Georgia everybody posts the 10 commandments on their front lawn. THEN they try to kill you (which commandment is that again?) with their God-fearing family station wagons.

righteous bubbas.
cyclists were not listed as being on the ark, so they are an abomination.

"right lane buses, bikes, and right turning traffic only"

and joe, I really find your hyperbole amusing...

a wet-behind-the-ears bicyclist complaining about an abundance of pavement to bicycle on... you really HAVE taken the American Dream Coalition/ john forestor bait, haven't you?

I was referring to the roads which you have posted pictures of many, many times that certainly appear to be 4 lane roads converted into roads with bike lanes. The road was overbuilt to begin with so I can't really blame the bike lane I guess. It's just a lot of excess blacktop. I'm surprised that you are ok with the city providing so much free parking space for all the raging cagers.

I don't know what the ADC has to do with my comment. It seems like the true-believers in that camp would have the entire country covered by suburbs with 6 lane roads connecting everything. That to me is a big waste of pavement too.

I don't know what the ADC has to do with my comment. It seems like the true-believers in that camp would have the entire country covered by suburbs with 6 lane roads connecting everything. That to me is a big waste of pavement too.

Tend to agree, but remember it is THEIR American Dream.

much snipped

What can cyclist advocates to for these cyclists... well in an address to a group such as ADC, he might stress that wider lanes and lower speed limits can accommodate both motorists and cyclists. But instead he goes along with the "quest for speed" and then emphasizes that cyclists need nothing. Fully overlooking the fact that these utility cyclists retreat to the sidewalks in the absence of wide roads. Yet Forester et. al. fully acknowledge that sidewalks and sidepaths are more dangerous than the streets... so there is a clear dichotomy in his presentation.


No, that is the main issue I see... ADC and motorists in general don't envision what is good for cyclists, only motorists...




This is an incorrect description of the American Dream Coalition, which works to preserve the ability to own one's own home and garden. That is what is referred to as The American Dream, is it not? That is precisely why the coalition adopted that name. ADC concerns itself with many other items than motoring: property rights, taxation, diversion of highway funds, city planning, and others. Calling this the defense of suburbia is a reasonable description. As we know, however, private motoring is the transportation method that has made modern suburbia possible. Some of you like it, some accept it, some hate it, but it has been the choice made by large proportions of the people able to afford it, and that trend is worldwide.

In that sense, ADC agrees with the general motoring public. They both advocate bikeways to make motoring more convenient by shoving cyclists aside, and they oppose traffic calming designs that make motoring less convenient. Motorists like one and dislike the other, while bicycle advocates approve of both of these. Conversely, vehicular cyclists accept some traffic calming designs, but agree with motorists in opposing those designs that make both motoring and cycling less convenient and more dangerous.

And it is quite correct that neither ADC nor the motoring public have in mind a favorable vision of bicycle transportation. Remember this, I have been telling you all bicycle advocates for months now in this forum, and for decades before that, exactly that: that motorists have an unfavorable vision of bicycle transportation and have the political power to implement that vision. But you bicycle advocates have a deep psychological problem. You keep complaining, with one side of your minds, that motorists don't care about cyclists and even oppose cyclists, and yet you vehemently advocate with the other side of your minds precisely the method by which motorists have chosen to implement their unfavorable vision of bicycling, that of using bikeways to keep incompetent bicycle riders out of the way of motorists.

A proper policy for bicycle transportation would concentrate on the welfare of cyclists instead of other matters, and such a policy has to be based on the vehicular cycling principle, that cyclists fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles. That proper treatment of cyclists refers to all actions by our society with respect to bicycle transportation: socially, educationally, legally, judicially, engineeringly, and all the rest. That's what we cyclists should be working toward, instead of advocating the implementation of the cyclist inferiority superstition of incompetent cycling on bikeways.

For more info: Benefit/Cost Analysis of Bicycle Facilities http://www.bicyclinginfo.org/bikecost/index.cfm (And I really wish I new how to use this tool better.)

Interesting. Thanks Barry.

BTW, a few of us are planning a DC to Baltimore run. If you see a silver Bike Friday in town ... holler at me.

-G

And it is quite correct that neither ADC nor the motoring public have in mind a favorable vision of bicycle transportation.

A proper policy for bicycle transportation would concentrate on the welfare of cyclists instead of other matters, and such a policy has to be based on the vehicular cycling principle, that cyclists fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles. That proper treatment of cyclists refers to all actions by our society with respect to bicycle transportation: socially, educationally, legally, judicially, engineeringly, and all the rest. That's what we cyclists should be working toward, instead of advocating the implementation of the cyclist inferiority superstition of incompetent cycling on bikeways.

Consistent with "a proper policy for bicycle transportation" would be the use of traffic calming devices and speed limits that are favorable for ALL users of the road...

And neither is part of the ADC vision.

Limited access freeways can deliver the long distance high speed access that these "visionaries" need for surburban access... limited speed surface streets however should be designed to accomodate all users, including pedestrians and cyclists.

Issues such as 60MPH surface streets such as those that now exist in San Diego County, are not part of a system that is consistent with "a proper policy for bicycle transportation."

This is an incorrect description of the American Dream Coalition, which works to preserve the ability to own one's own home and garden. That is what is referred to as The American Dream, is it not? That is precisely why the coalition adopted that name. ADC concerns itself with many other items than motoring: property rights, taxation, diversion of highway funds, city planning, and others. Calling this the defense of suburbia is a reasonable description. As we know, however, private motoring is the transportation method that has made modern suburbia possible. Some of you like it, some accept it, some hate it, but it has been the choice made by large proportions of the people able to afford it, and that trend is worldwide.


I think you oversimplify John. 'choice' is an interesting word... I would argue that 'capitalism' made it possible - and its the flip of socialism if you'll indulge me. While there wasn't an official government directive to force people to move to the suburbs - we do it through 'economic' and 'free market' incentives - both of which we know are BS - tax breaks are temporary booms to certain towns and business at the expense of where other people live. Insiders create deals that benefit certain parties, often at the expense of others. 'free market' is only free when you hold the purse strings or the political power.

Acres and acres of land were developed post WW2 in order to house growing populations and simultaneously create vast profits for road builders, car builders, home builders, and the like (and the modern supermarket, mall, gas station, etc). We took the seeds of a powerful, frugal, practical nation and started wasting billions and billions of (hours, energy, materials, pounds, whatever) when we made our move out of the city. When we see that auto companies ran transit companies into the ground, collusion between building unions, governments, and corporations - can we really say it was 'choice'? If the average American decided to move to the country and had to pay all the costs - how likely do you think 'subrubia' would have happened? The hidden costs to this are now just starting to show up... and we'll be paying the interest on that loan for a long time.

I think 'choice' happened because instead of bucking up and working through problems of urban living, we bailed out for greener pastures - because we had the space - and because some folks found it an easy way to make a buck. (or billions of bucks). I'm not sure if ever along the way folks thought about what we were giving up. Sure, the official American Dream might be 2.5 kids, a yard, a couple of cars, a speed boat, jet ski, garden full of pesticides - but how much of that is influenced by marketing, capitalism, and fear?

How much of the 'good ole american dream' is manufactured? - no different than a movie or video game or sitcom? Manufactured to create markets, to sell goods, to spread people out, to lock them into certain modes of travel that create more markets, and debt, and profits? We've taken an incredibly communal, active, social, and mobile organism and divided and filed them away in quiet country estates reached only by ineffective steel and glass exoskeletons that require a constant input of energy. All the while we lament the 'good ole days' of low stress urban and communal living, walkable, vibrant town centers while riding around on congested super roads in our environmentally sealed and controlled pods, greenwashing our hands of it all by buying organic produce trucked in from Mexico, sending off some checks to WWF or Greenpeace (have to save the cute little animals!) and popping CF bulbs into our continually bloating houses.

(sidebar - average house size in 1970 - 1385 sq ft, average household size - 3.14 persons
average house size in 1996 - 1950 sq ft, average household size - 2.65 persons)

(sidebar 2 - Americans in 1995 drove 2.5 times as far as Americans in 1960)

We can't have our cake and eat it too.

Differences from city to suburbia are those of scale - look at any subdivision from the air and we see piles of people stacked on top of one another - no different really than the city - except that the scale of the suburbs gives everyone (or at least their mortgage lender) their own slice of earth that we proceed to plant with grass and chemicals (which requires more energy and $$ to upkeep). True, there's more space 'out there' - but space is relative. What good is a sterile, cut off subdivision when we need a several ton machine just to deliver the children to school or pick up a gallon of milk? While we do hang out at our homes in the burbs - how much of our time is spent in transition - moving to and from work, day care, school, the grocery store, the mall?


I wonder what our cities and urban centers would be like if instead of investing all that money into homes and property and roads we instead invested it in finding cleaner, greener, more human scaled ways to live with each other. Imagine 40 years of auto and oil profits applied to inner city schools, libraries, neighborhoods centers, transit, sidewalks, greenspace, infrastructure... imagine all that energy spend driving to and fro actually being used to do something... something local... on the ground... where you know your neighbors... where you dig in and call 'home'.

I think you oversimplify John. 'choice' is an interesting word... I would argue that 'capitalism' made it possible - and its the flip of socialism if you'll indulge me. While there wasn't an official government directive to force people to move to the suburbs - we do it through 'economic' and 'free market' incentives - both of which we know are BS - tax breaks are temporary booms to certain towns and business at the expense of where other people live. Insiders create deals that benefit certain parties, often at the expense of others. 'free market' is only free when you hold the purse strings or the political power.

Acres and acres of land were developed post WW2 in order to house growing populations and simultaneously create vast profits for road builders, car builders, home builders, and the like (and the modern supermarket, mall, gas station, etc). We took the seeds of a powerful, frugal, practical nation and started wasting billions and billions of (hours, energy, materials, pounds, whatever) when we made our move out of the city. When we see that auto companies ran transit companies into the ground, collusion between building unions, governments, and corporations - can we really say it was 'choice'? If the average American decided to move to the country and had to pay all the costs - how likely do you think 'subrubia' would have happened? The hidden costs to this are now just starting to show up... and we'll be paying the interest on that loan for a long time.

I think 'choice' happened because instead of bucking up and working through problems of urban living, we bailed out for greener pastures - because we had the space - and because some folks found it an easy way to make a buck. (or billions of bucks). I'm not sure if ever along the way folks thought about what we were giving up. Sure, the official American Dream might be 2.5 kids, a yard, a couple of cars, a speed boat, jet ski, garden full of pesticides - but how much of that is influenced by marketing, capitalism, and fear?

How much of the 'good ole american dream' is manufactured? - no different than a movie or video game or sitcom? Manufactured to create markets, to sell goods, to spread people out, to lock them into certain modes of travel that create more markets, and debt, and profits? We've taken an incredibly communal, active, social, and mobile organism and divided and filed them away in quiet country estates reached only by ineffective steel and glass exoskeletons that require a constant input of energy. All the while we lament the 'good ole days' of low stress urban and communal living, walkable, vibrant town centers while riding around on congested super roads in our environmentally sealed and controlled pods, greenwashing our hands of it all by buying organic produce trucked in from Mexico, sending off some checks to WWF or Greenpeace (have to save the cute little animals!) and popping CF bulbs into our continually bloating houses.

(sidebar - average house size in 1970 - 1385 sq ft, average household size - 3.14 persons
average house size in 1996 - 1950 sq ft, average household size - 2.65 persons)

(sidebar 2 - Americans in 1995 drove 2.5 times as far as Americans in 1960)

We can't have our cake and eat it too.

Differences from city to suburbia are those of scale - look at any subdivision from the air and we see piles of people stacked on top of one another - no different really than the city - except that the scale of the suburbs gives everyone (or at least their mortgage lender) their own slice of earth that we proceed to plant with grass and chemicals (which requires more energy and $$ to upkeep). True, there's more space 'out there' - but space is relative. What good is a sterile, cut off subdivision when we need a several ton machine just to deliver the children to school or pick up a gallon of milk? While we do hang out at our homes in the burbs - how much of our time is spent in transition - moving to and from work, day care, school, the grocery store, the mall?


I wonder what our cities and urban centers would be like if instead of investing all that money into homes and property and roads we instead invested it in finding cleaner, greener, more human scaled ways to live with each other. Imagine 40 years of auto and oil profits applied to inner city schools, libraries, neighborhoods centers, transit, sidewalks, greenspace, infrastructure... imagine all that energy spend driving to and fro actually being used to do something... something local... on the ground... where you know your neighbors... where you dig in and call 'home'.

You have expressed one point of view regarding urban growth, and that is not a rare view at all. It deserves consideration, and it has been considered and discussed at great length. You say that recent urban growth has been produced by capitalism; I venture to say that most urban growth over history has been produced by whatever were the current manifestations of capitalism, in that rulers of any stripe have not had sufficient power to force urban people to live where they don't want to live. You say that a different urban pattern could have been developed with the money that has been spent on suburbia. In your theory, that is true. That is, if the money that has been spent on suburbia had been devoted to the kind of urban pattern that you prefer, then that pattern might have developed. (I won't say that it must; there are too many other factors.) However, the source of all that money was in the willingness of those who preferred suburbia to spend on what they wanted. If they didn't get what they wanted, they would not have spent the money. Therefore, your preferred development would not have occurred.

You many argue that government should have raised taxes sufficiently to pay for development of the housing and urban pattern that you prefer, rather than leaving that to the market. That has been tried, and it has failed. People are not willing to pay that rate of taxes to get planning that produces results that they dislike. That's very simple.

In any case, it is plain silly to spend much time discussing idyllic utopias. We cyclists have to work out how we can best operate in the environment that we have and, just as important, work out and get implemented the reasonable improvements that equitably benefit us, even if they also benefit other road users.

You have expressed one point of view regarding urban growth, and that is not a rare view at all. It deserves consideration, and it has been considered and discussed at great length. You say that recent urban growth has been produced by capitalism; I venture to say that most urban growth over history has been produced by whatever were the current manifestations of capitalism, in that rulers of any stripe have not had sufficient power to force urban people to live where they don't want to live. You say that a different urban pattern could have been developed with the money that has been spent on suburbia. In your theory, that is true. That is, if the money that has been spent on suburbia had been devoted to the kind of urban pattern that you prefer, then that pattern might have developed. (I won't say that it must; there are too many other factors.) However, the source of all that money was in the willingness of those who preferred suburbia to spend on what they wanted. If they didn't get what they wanted, they would not have spent the money. Therefore, your preferred development would not have occurred.

You many argue that government should have raised taxes sufficiently to pay for development of the housing and urban pattern that you prefer, rather than leaving that to the market. That has been tried, and it has failed. People are not willing to pay that rate of taxes to get planning that produces results that they dislike. That's very simple.

In any case, it is plain silly to spend much time discussing idyllic utopias. We cyclists have to work out how we can best operate in the environment that we have and, just as important, work out and get implemented the reasonable improvements that equitably benefit us, even if they also benefit other road users.

I think you hit the nail on the head here... people are going to chose to live where ever they feel economically and socially comfortable... the homesteading of the 1800's is a prime example.

The only factor for cyclists, in the spread of housing, should be that roads are acceptable to all users. Freeway like conditions do not suit either cyclists, tractors, pedestrians nor horse and buggy. Such roads should not be designed as the only connections between isolated sections of communities.

You have expressed one point of view regarding urban growth, and that is not a rare view at all. It deserves consideration, and it has been considered and discussed at great length. You say that recent urban growth has been produced by capitalism; I venture to say that most urban growth over history has been produced by whatever were the current manifestations of capitalism, in that rulers of any stripe have not had sufficient power to force urban people to live where they don't want to live. You say that a different urban pattern could have been developed with the money that has been spent on suburbia. In your theory, that is true. That is, if the money that has been spent on suburbia had been devoted to the kind of urban pattern that you prefer, then that pattern might have developed. (I won't say that it must; there are too many other factors.) However, the source of all that money was in the willingness of those who preferred suburbia to spend on what they wanted. If they didn't get what they wanted, they would not have spent the money. Therefore, your preferred development would not have occurred.

You many argue that government should have raised taxes sufficiently to pay for development of the housing and urban pattern that you prefer, rather than leaving that to the market. That has been tried, and it has failed. People are not willing to pay that rate of taxes to get planning that produces results that they dislike. That's very simple.

In any case, it is plain silly to spend much time discussing idyllic utopias. We cyclists have to work out how we can best operate in the environment that we have and, just as important, work out and get implemented the reasonable improvements that equitably benefit us, even if they also benefit other road users.

I'll argue that its silly to accept our current system as 'free' and that we actually have 'choices'. (although I will admit that there are more choices for bathroom tissue than there are for President)

People aren't willing to pay for taxes, yet we willingly shell out thousands and thousands of dollars for 'freedom' in terms of vehicles. People aren't willing to pay for taxes yet we shell out millions and millions of dollars to sit in traffic. People choose these things. Why is $$ spent for fuel thats burning while not moving OK, but money for taxes bad?

I see it as a tax no matter how you look at it. Its money someone doesn't have in their pocket at the end of the day. Somehow when its to support jobs and the 'economy' its OK, but when we say we need it to help the sick, fix our downtowns, to educate our people, we get all upset and defensive about 'our money'. We'd rather have that cash rolling around in stockholders pockets than in pipes for clean water, buses that run on regular schedules, and trees that line our streets. We judge our profits on what we spend, cut down, deplete, and destroy. Flipping that we should define our profits on how healthy we are, how clear the water is, how smog free the air is, and I should get bonuses for how many trees I have standing on my property.

People didn't choose to move to the suburbs. They were encouraged. Not by government, but by profit seekers. How is this somehow better? As if profit seeking is an altruism that trumps all other motives.

Encouraged. Low interest construction loans for homes in the burbs, lack of capital spending for improvements to urban infrastructure, the systematic destruction of transit by automobile interests, unfair appropriations for road building, auto-centric infrastructure that hides the true cost to the citizen... and on and on.

People didn't wake up one day en-masse and decide to buy a car and move to the burbs... they were led - in droves. Subtly, for sure. Every morning sipping their new fangled instant coffee they were reading about the latest development in automotive comforts - air conditioning, cruise control, convertible tops - all promising an easier life and quick and efficient drive to work. Every morning being bombarded by low interest loan offers to move out to Levittown and live the good life, separated from 'those people' by miles and miles of freeway. Each day more frustrated at the lack of clean transport, good schools, healthy neighborhoods (well, we weren't spending money to fix these things, its no wonder they disappeared). Every morning the promise of a care free life of leisure living on the parceled up farms and forests of our countryside. Running Brook Estates, Fawn Haven, Misty Meadows... Every morning another cog in the machine - buying into the American Dream. No, not promising to meet a quota of bushels sown and reaped, or shoes made, or tin pots forged - no - more insidious - enslaved to live miles from nowhere, attached to the automobile umbilical chord, the IV of oil and energy. No - we don't sing propaganda songs about the mother country - but we memorize commercial jingles, product logos, and identify ourselves by what we drive, wear, and use to call our families and friends. We don't give away our hard earned money for the betterment of our country - we do it willingly to put profits into the pockets of shareholders. We don't have to stand in line to get our ration of toiletries and milk - far worse - we have to drive multi ton vehicles to distribution centers, fight over parking spaces, dodge rageful drivers, and bustle about muscling our way to get the last copy of Harry Potter. And we do it with a smile. Because if we don't shop, and if we don't drive, and if we're not open for business as usual, the terrorists will win.

no, no, little big man.

there are 'bubbas in trucks' in every county in every state in the union, ready and willing to harass bicyclists.
Do ya think we should call on...

"Superman?"

:eek:

Ain't no bubbas in Georgia. In Georgia everybody posts the 10 commandments on their front lawn. THEN they try to kill you (which commandment is that again?) with their God-fearing family station wagons.
That's pretty much true of all people in Gawgia. :rolleyes:

I'd say you're very well-informed. ;)

Tell us again how the LAPD beat the shike out of R. King, sparking riots.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_Los_Angeles_riots

Let's talk about, "Bubba," shall we?

Clean up your own backyard.

In California, acting seems to be a career path for politics.

[QUOTE=bmike;4930999

All snipped as having been seen many times before.

[/QUOTE]

Bmike's tirade against suburbia glows with his utter dislike for it, a dislike so intense that he cannot understand the reasons that a large portion of our population has chosen to live there.

Bmike asserts that there is no difference between money spent willingly to purchase goods or services which one wants, and money taken by government to be spent on goods and services that one does not want. Certainly, a dollar is a dollar, but the political and social willingness in one case is far different from that in the other case. His failure to differentiate the two degrees of willingness vitiates his argument.

It is always illuminating to be able to observe, and to record, this basis for much of bicycle advocacy (as opposed to advocacy for cyclists). Such writings serve to demonstrate the facts behind a great deal of my work, which so many of you deny.

Ain't no bubbas in Georgia.
You're right.

In Georgia, presidents and governors had more experience than just acting.

Steve, wide lanes alone encourage curb hugging and improper destination positioning at intersections by the average bicyclist.

This runs so counter to my experiences cycling that it leaves me scratching my head in bewilderment. I'm not sure who this "average cyclist" is, but in a wide lane, fastmoving traffic can pass me. If I'm going to continue straight past an intersection or change lanes to turn left I have to change lane positions whether or not there is a bike lane. I cannot for the life of me figure out how executing these maneuvers is improved by a bike lane, and lately I've been hearing locally that bikes should stay in the bikelane to continue through an intersection, which to me is insanity.

Bmike's tirade against suburbia glows with his utter dislike for it, a dislike so intense that he cannot understand the reasons that a large portion of our population has chosen to live there.

Bmike asserts that there is no difference between money spent willingly to purchase goods or services which one wants, and money taken by government to be spent on goods and services that one does not want. Certainly, a dollar is a dollar, but the political and social willingness in one case is far different from that in the other case. His failure to differentiate the two degrees of willingness vitiates his argument.

It is always illuminating to be able to observe, and to record, this basis for much of bicycle advocacy (as opposed to advocacy for cyclists). Such writings serve to demonstrate the facts behind a great deal of my work, which so many of you deny.

John, you are clearly of a far superior intellect than I, in your ability to observe and record, and understand my true feelings for suburbia.

I'm not pretending to be bicycle advocating here in these posts. I'm working through fundamental issues about the notions and designs of our 'freedom' and current lifestyle patterns. You seem to want to accept things the way they are and move on - but I would suggest that understanding some of the root causes may benefit the process.

Take off the American Dream blinders and take a look at what we've done. To what end all the roads, all the cars, all the energy... to what end? Please, do tell why a large portion of our population 'chooses' to live there. Have they chosen? Would they choose it if they could choose anywhere? Or is this a case of choosing the less bad, the less fearful, the less risky, the more 'safe'. Is this a choice of circumstance - of money, of fear, of 'tradition'?

Please, be honest here. If we were to have a blank slate - would we choose to design our communities the way we do? Would you choose to live exactly as you do now?



As to the money... what is it that we want? and where do our wants come from? are they manufactured? What if the local library had the ad budget of Nike, or the soup kitchen the resources of Monsanto? You claim that people choose between what the government 'takes' and what people want... Its like an argument with a 2 year old at that point - sure, you want those sugar coated cocoa puffs - but how about some vegetables for dinner?

bmike,
I understand that Russia is pretty close to the dream world you seem to desire.

John, you are clearly of a far superior intellect than I, in your ability to observe and record, and understand my true feelings for suburbia.

I'm not pretending to be bicycle advocating here in these posts. I'm working through fundamental issues about the notions and designs of our 'freedom' and current lifestyle patterns. You seem to want to accept things the way they are and move on - but I would suggest that understanding some of the root causes may benefit the process.

Take off the American Dream blinders and take a look at what we've done. To what end all the roads, all the cars, all the energy... to what end? Please, do tell why a large portion of our population 'chooses' to live there. Have they chosen? Would they choose it if they could choose anywhere? Or is this a case of choosing the less bad, the less fearful, the less risky, the more 'safe'. Is this a choice of circumstance - of money, of fear, of 'tradition'?

Please, be honest here. If we were to have a blank slate - would we choose to design our communities the way we do? Would you choose to live exactly as you do now?



As to the money... what is it that we want? and where do our wants come from? are they manufactured? What if the local library had the ad budget of Nike, or the soup kitchen the resources of Monsanto? You claim that people choose between what the government 'takes' and what people want... Its like an argument with a 2 year old at that point - sure, you want those sugar coated cocoa puffs - but how about some vegetables for dinner?

This is the socialist argument: why let capitalism call the shots if there are "obvious" choices for which to spend treasure on? I mean this in the most non-judgemental way possible, FWIW (I'm not calling you out as a "red" or anything like that).

The problem with socialism is that it is not very stable. A single entity calls the shots and sometimes those calls are bad. The Soviet Union collapsed for many reasons, but a large contributer was their overspending on weapontry over the more essential needs of their nation.

Capitalism might be less efficient, yet it is stable. It calls on nothing more than for the people to act in their own self interest. In it's pure form, it has problems in that it tends to polarize people to extremes of wealth or poverty. What the US has is something of a hybrid between pure capitalism and socialism. The government steps in in narrow and well defined ways which allows a middle class to form and thrive without eliminating the stability given by a capitalistic economy.

In your example, of the library with the budget of Nike, well, the funds from the government for the library has to come from somewhere, and that somewhere, in our example, might as well be Nike. But if the government takes too much from Nike, then there would be no incentive for the owners of Nike to continue their business. So this means that to raise the funds for the library, the government (in the constraints of our example) will have to start selling shoes and using the funds from those sales to fund the library. But because the funds aren't being used to create better shoes or to pay engineers to engineer shoes of good quality, the government run Nike wouldn't be making good quality shoes for people to buy, so the price of the shoes will go down, and there would be no funds left to pay for the library.

Ultimately, the library of your example doesn't have good funding because the people who pay taxes to the government have concluded by popular vote that they are not wiling to pay money to the library. If a minority who want the library cannot scrap enough money together to run the library, then they have to start charging for use of the library, and then you have a book store, which is able to fund itself through capitalist means.

In the final analysis, direct control over the flow of money via a form of socialism is the most efficient way to allocate money to the correct causes. But currently, there is no way to obtaining enough information about the economy in real time to control the flow of money directly. And then, once we have a way of sensing information about the comings and goings of the economy in real time, then an algorithm for controlling what goes where and a mechanism for allocating resources in real time needs to be created. Only then can direct control of the economy work and surpass the efficiency of capitalism.

It is possible for this to happen. More and more transactions are computerized with credit cards and bank transfers. But there is no good algorithm for prediction of what people will want; currently we use the creative minds of millions of engineers and sales people to determine that - a lot of computing power indeed.

I think you oversimplify John. 'choice' is an interesting word... I would argue that 'capitalism' made it possible - and its the flip of socialism if you'll indulge me. While there wasn't an official government directive to force people to move to the suburbs - we do it through 'economic' and 'free market' incentives - both of which we know are BS - tax breaks are temporary booms to certain towns and business at the expense of where other people live. Insiders create deals that benefit certain parties, often at the expense of others. 'free market' is only free when you hold the purse strings or the political power.

Acres and acres of land were developed post WW2 in order to house growing populations and simultaneously create vast profits for road builders, car builders, home builders, and the like (and the modern supermarket, mall, gas station, etc). We took the seeds of a powerful, frugal, practical nation and started wasting billions and billions of (hours, energy, materials, pounds, whatever) when we made our move out of the city. ...
You have it exactly backwards, bmike.

Whether you call it socialism or democratic authoritarianism, it is that -- the opposite of free market capitalism -- which was and remains the primary cause of urban sprawl, and it was manifested in terms of zoning law. The arguable birth of suburbia is southern CA, where there are relatively few areas where people were ever legally allowed to freely build high density housing since the population starting increasing here to any significant degree. There are places in San Diego where the minimum lot size for a single family is two acres. Two acres of land houses hundreds if not thousands in San Francisco, Manhattan and Tokyo.

Yes, given the artificial world created by socialistic/"central planning" zoning the capitalistic free market did what it did best: meet demand as efficiently as possible given the available resources and legal constraints. The result in many places outside of southern CA as well as there has been urban sprawl. Zoning laws reduce supply in areas and make living and working prices there artificially high, thus making living and working further away more economically feasible.

Blaming the free market for creating urban sprawl is like sliding the edge of a piece of paper across your tongue and blaming the paper for making you bleed. In other words, it's acting like a socialist.

it is that -- the opposite of free market capitalism -- which was and remains the primary cause of urban sprawl, and it was manifested in terms of zoning law."Primary" is certainly debatable.

While one could say that, ceteris parabis, zoning that makes centralized development more difficult will tend to encourage non-centralized development, in reality there are a slew of very complicated factors that encourage suburban sprawl.

-Population growth: even without zoning, city centers usually reach a density limit that makes sprawl a more affordable alternative to accommodate growth, this can be exacerbated by topographic issues, or other physical limitations on building centrally
-Strong economy: home buyers have more freedom of choice, and developers can fill their wants
-Increasing household incomes: most American home buyers prefer suburban locations. When income rises, we often have seen ‘White flight’ from cities: caused in part by things like Section 8 housing, which concentrates "social ills, poverty" into one small area, and the exclusion of the poor from suburban development via zoning
-Fragmented municipal governments: i.e. dividing cities into "city and suburb" regions, which usually means less taxes for the city center to subsidize development
-Patterns of infrastructure investments:
-Public subsidization of infrastructure: government built highways make long commutes more feasible
-highways that essentially subsidize (or at least encourage) long-distance commuting by making it faster and easier
-federal policies towards urban transit- both lack of support and unfunded mandates that canceled out federal support
-state school assignment laws that force children to go to school in the area in which they live- which means that city schools more socially/racially/economically diverse (and thus less attractive to middle-class parents) than suburban schools
-school desegregation case law that exacerbated the effect of school assignment law, by providing that city schools had to desegregate (thus making city schools less attractive to white parents) but not suburban schools

But gee, I'm sure that zoning was the primary factor.

Take a look at it from the other end. Show me cities that don't have suburban sprawl, and I bet we can make some generalizations: Either the town developed before (or outside) the influence of rapid personal traffic (the car), or in a small, isolated area that forced centralization, or deliberate regulation (in the form of zoning laws) that encourage central development, and discourage suburban development.

good comments back and forth.
what i was interested in getting at though is acknowledging that the market (and pretty much anything we do) is a construct, as much as more socialistic ways of doing things - we just tell ourselves that 'business' is some sort of self regulating, altruistic entity... (look at fuel taxes, government subsidy of certain industries, 'health care', road building, etc. the plight of the dairy farmer, why its cheaper to buy strawberries trucked in from cali than local ones, etc.)

we make this **** up every day! we build the world we live in! we construct the 'market' as we construct the buildings and roads and bikes we ride! the 'invisible' hand is us - its not some undeniable, altruistic, infallible force that guides us along. look at addiction and manipulation in the market place - we choose things that are harmful to us over and over and over again. (look at the center aisles of the supermarket, the tobacco industry, etc.) to say that the market will sort things out is no better or worse than saying the government will sort things out, or your neighbor will sort things out, or the mother country will sort things out. they are all constructs of ways to move money (essentially work energy) around.

i don't think we need a single entity to call the shots. i think we need to honor the fact that in some instances letting the 'market' decide can be a tricky thing. tricky because on the surface we have companies that appear to be offering goods and services on a fair and level playing field in the best interest of their customers - but in reality things are no different than a corrupt social system - but instead of the parliament getting fat while the proletariat starve - lobbyists and insiders do the same work - in the name of 'business'. cheney's energy policy, subsidies to certain industries, incentives, tax breaks, cheap gas, back room deals on just about any sort of policy tied to a big money making endeavor, politically mangling scientific studies, insider trading, profit to risk ratio, skewing study data to not affect the quarterly earnings report, back dating stock offerings, strong arming communities with demands for tax breaks, etc. etc.

whether it is capitalism, socialism, or any other sort of ism - its a human powered and derived and conceived system. none of it is bad in and of itself - but multiplied by thousands and thousands of iterations, and letting human nature do its thing - it becomes the least bad (history will be the judge on this) way we've figured out how to interact with each other, and it just happens to be the dominant system of our time. it has influences that run pretty deep into the whys of 'how things are' -which brings me back to where i started. there is a reason there are so many automobiles running around in every direction - the system was designed to reinforce and support that outcome. people just didn't choose to live the good life in the burbs - they were led with marketing promises of better, faster, easier, etc. no one woke up and thought - wow, if only i had a car and a house over there in that field. we create demand and dreams and our story. imagine if the street car industry was stronger than the auto industry. or the railroads stronger than the airlines and trucking concerns. how did we end up with corn in nearly everything we eat (high fructose corn syrup)? how is it that folks are anticipating food price spikes as we move to growing our fuel rather than pumping it out of the ground? why does a chain store settle in one town and not the other?

the market decides only as far as we let it be defined by how we do business.

"Primary" is certainly debatable.

While one could say that, ceteris parabis, zoning that makes centralized development more difficult will tend to encourage non-centralized development, in reality there are a slew of very complicated factors that encourage suburban sprawl.

-Population growth: even without zoning, city centers usually reach a density limit that makes sprawl a more affordable alternative to accommodate growth, this can be exacerbated by topographic issues, or other physical limitations on building centrally
-Strong economy: home buyers have more freedom of choice, and developers can fill their wants
-Increasing household incomes: most American home buyers prefer suburban locations. When income rises, we often have seen ‘White flight’ from cities: caused in part by things like Section 8 housing, which concentrates "social ills, poverty" into one small area, and the exclusion of the poor from suburban development via zoning
-Fragmented municipal governments: i.e. dividing cities into "city and suburb" regions, which usually means less taxes for the city center to subsidize development
-Patterns of infrastructure investments:
-Public subsidization of infrastructure: government built highways make long commutes more feasible
-highways that essentially subsidize (or at least encourage) long-distance commuting by making it faster and easier
-federal policies towards urban transit- both lack of support and unfunded mandates that canceled out federal support
-state school assignment laws that force children to go to school in the area in which they live- which means that city schools more socially/racially/economically diverse (and thus less attractive to middle-class parents) than suburban schools
-school desegregation case law that exacerbated the effect of school assignment law, by providing that city schools had to desegregate (thus making city schools less attractive to white parents) but not suburban schools


and many of those choices / decisions can create disturbing feedback loops... which put us where many places are today.

Blaming the free market for creating urban sprawl is like sliding the edge of a piece of paper across your tongue and blaming the paper for making you bleed. In other words, it's acting like a socialist.

i wasn't exactly trying to assign blame.
who wrote those zoning laws? folks that owned a ton of land just over the town line?
folks who had something to gain by forcing people to spread out further and further away?

true, zoning plays a part - but its not isolated or pure. in its most noble sense it tried to separate work from home in order to protect people from pollution, etc. in its current form its doing just the opposite - its helping to reinforce those things.

Well ... none of today's economic systems are perfect examples of capitalism, communism, socialism, and so on, despite our labels. From particular excerpts of the conversation, it seems that people realize this. So examples of present day USA may not be good examples of capitalism.

Regardless, balancing personal choice with notions of common good is a difficult task to say the least.

yes, and the american model of suburban dystopia with high speed connector arterials can be made more accomodating for bicycling with the addition of bicycling infrastructure like well engineered preffered lanes for bicycles.

on roads with wide lanes alone, the average bicyclist hugs the curb in a not so visible, not so safe road position and is incorrectly positioned at intersections. roads with well designed bike lanes places the rider in a much more visible road position, and positioned well at major intersections to the left of right turning traffic.

i wasn't exactly trying to assign blame.
who wrote those zoning laws? folks that owned a ton of land just over the town line?
folks who had something to gain by forcing people to spread out further and further away?

true, zoning plays a part - but its not isolated or pure. in its most noble sense it tried to separate work from home in order to protect people from pollution, etc. in its current form its doing just the opposite - its helping to reinforce those things.
Land owners are often just as guilty as anyone else for using government power to protect their own interests at the cost of violating the liberty of others. In this case, yes, land owners often support restricting the liberty of their neighbors to build high density housing on their own land. That's not a problem with the free market, that's a problem with making the market less free.

Which ever direction the zoning works, it's anti-free market, and anti-liberty.

Land owners are often just as guilty as anyone else for using government power to protect their own interests at the cost of violating the liberty of others. In this case, yes, land owners often support restricting the liberty of their neighbors to build high density housing on their own land. That's not a problem with the free market, that's a problem with making the market less free.

Which ever direction the zoning works, it's anti-free market, and anti-liberty.

Honestly, this is one of most idiotic things I have ever read and one of the primary reasons why I avoid getting into conversations with people online. This brand of free-market ideology benefits very few while it promulgates the idea that 'big' government is bad, i.e. one with checks and balances and restrictions on corporations (which are implicitly non-democratic instituions).

Is this the typical socioeconomic position of most VC cyclists? Because it matches up perfectly with the paranoid ideology that 'the man' will force you to stop riding on the street, or that bike lanes are somehow a form of 'affirmative action' for 'untrained' cyclists.....you know the poor and/or brown people who have neither the time or money for vehicular cycling lessons, not to mention the high-speed internet access that would enable them to read nuanced flame wars attempting to dissect the wording of bike lane studies.

This is one of my first posts on this board, and most likely the last. So, before I go, can you please tell me 'Helmet Head', why is it that VC advocates cling so religously to the 'cyclist inferiority' paradigm when it has never been studied, proven, or even reliably cited in any literature I've read? Everything written by VC advocates makes these amazingly vague assessments of what 'people' think or what 'they' fear, but there are no ethnographic studies, personal interviews, or first-hand research to support such quasi-psychological babble. Forester wrote about it first, without any documentation and then proceeded to cite his own statement repeatedly since 1975. Where's the 'science' in an unfounded, generalized assumption articulated by a small group of people without degrees in psychology or psychiatry? It wasn't well-argued, or even cited then, and it isn't now. Simply repeating it over and over again doesn't make it true.

Kinda like your statement about the free market

Have a good one. I have better things to do with my time than read Libertarian propaganda dressed up as a debate over effective cycling. Enjoy the next few years you waste online, whilst watching your monthly internet premiums increase steadily, due to the 'free market' deregulation of the 1996 Telecom Act.

Honestly, this is one of most idiotic things I have ever read and one of the primary reasons why I avoid getting into conversations with people online...

Is this the typical socioeconomic position of most VC cyclists? Because it matches up perfectly with the paranoid ideology that 'the man' will force you to stop riding on the street, or that bike lanes are somehow a form of 'affirmative action' for 'untrained' cyclists.....you know the poor and/or brown people who have neither the time or money for vehicular cycling lessons, not to mention the high-speed internet access that would enable them to read nuanced flame wars attempting to dissect the wording of bike lane studies.

This is one of my first posts on this board, and most likely the last.
Welcome to the Wonderful World of John Forester and his Wacky Acolytes. You obviously are well aware of their credibility problems. HH is the poster boy. Too bad your post might be your last. This list will miss a voice of reason.

Welcome to the Wonderful World of John Forester and his Wacky Acolytes. You obviously are well aware of their credibility problems. HH is the poster boy.

poster boy, except for the fact that according to his idol he "doesn't know anything about vehicular cycling." it's a strange world in there.

Land owners are often just as guilty as anyone else for using government power to protect their own interests at the cost of violating the liberty of others. In this case, yes, land owners often support restricting the liberty of their neighbors to build high density housing on their own land. That's not a problem with the free market, that's a problem with making the market less free.

Which ever direction the zoning works, it's anti-free market, and anti-liberty.

ahh. makes perfect sense now. thanks for clearing that up. :eek:

sort of like murder. if someone goes out and shoots someone and they die, we call it murder, and the individual will face our justice system.

if a person starts a company (or drives their car) and pollutes the air and the water causing sickness and a slow death - we call it the free market. (or perhaps they create a product that is proven to addict, and is loaded with known carcinogens) and when we try to curtail this, people get all angry about their rights to make a living being infringed upon. (and they'll sometimes scream that we care more about spotted owls than people, salmon more than starving families, the state more than personal liberty)

so as long as killing is regulated (military, the state, and by following accepted limits on carcinogens, pollutants, etc.) it is OK, even encouraged - to create jobs, put people to work, make life easier, etc. but the moment someone takes it into their own hands (liberty! free speech! the state can't control me!) we call it murder. (wonder where hit men fall into this - with the right lobbying group it could be a growth industry!)


so as long as the zoning laws benefit you, we call it liberty - but the moment they are changed, we say the state is meddling in our lives...

so as long as people 'choose' to live in suburbia and drive cars and throw carcinogens in the air and warm the globe and destroy healthy ecosystems with sprawl, we say the market is doing its job. but it the government was to start to set limits (urban growth boundaries, tighter controls on emissions, higher MPG ratings for cars, density minimums for new development, higher taxes for transit, higher taxes for education, higher taxes for cycling and walking infrastrucutre) people get all pissed about the state meddling in their lives - yet we're perfectly happy to let corporations and profit seeking boards of directors meddle in our lives in the name of progress and the economy.

ahh. makes perfect sense now. thanks for clearing that up. :eek:

yet we're perfectly happy to let corporations and profit seeking boards of directors meddle in our lives in the name of progress and the economy.


So how's that job treating you?

So how's that job treating you?


i was pointing out the double standard that seems to exist, and you clipped my quote. if the state mandates auto insurance, what difference does it make if i buy from 1 company or the next (aside from maybe a few dollars a month?). if there are few options for traveling sans auto (due to development, lack of design consideration for pedestrians, lack of transit options, etc.) is owning a car something that makes one free or does it lock them into a very specific and self reinforcing system? if there are 10 long distance companies, but their customer service is similar and due to the market their pricing is very similar and even their products very similar - aside from stylistic differences does it matter that there are 10 companies and not 5, or 2, or 1? (especially seeing as they probably all hire a lobbying firm to promote their industries general agenda...)



i'm self employed.

and drive my fair share for work, and use roads, and libraries, and i sometimes buy stuff from really big companies. i already give up a painful amount of tax $$ - but i'd give up more to have health care that i didn't have to worry about how i was going to pay for, better transit options, more money for education, better infrastructure, $$ to finance public elections, smarter use of our resources, better zoning laws, etc.

Meaning they did not study enough cyclists in cycle lanes to reach any conclusion what so ever.

THC that is a totally incorrect understanding of basic statistics. The term "not statistically significant" is a completely valid result indicating that compared to the gauss curve, the percentage is insignificant. Now if one said the sample size (n) was statistically insignificant to the population size (N) that would be a entirely different statement. Of course to make a more complete statistical statement, one should state the exact P value tested for, but I digress.

For statisticians out there, please pardon any lapse in terminology as all my stats studies were in French.

... this kind of junk that was interpreted that extra width for cyclists is bad for the environment...

There is one additional aspect to factor in when it comes to extra pavement: I'll take only this one example of suburb transportation in Whitehorse, Yukon. Here in this northern forest, there is low precipitation and poor soil quality. This suburb is newly served by 2 cycling options :

A- A 4' wide 2 lane bike path constructed 50" from the road, atop an incline, completely cleared of trees

B- 15" shoulder with a a line and cycle painted alongside.

In total approximately twice the deforestation, compounded by a bare incline. This increases erosion and hinders wildlife movements. 7 km of this all for the sake of 12 cyclists?

THC that is a totally incorrect understanding of basic statistics. The term "not statistically significant" is a completely valid result indicating that compared to the gauss curve, the percentage is insignificant. Now if one said the sample size (n) was statistically insignificant to the population size (N) that would be a entirely different statement. Of course to make a more complete statistical statement, one should state the exact P value tested for, but I digress.

For statisticians out there, please pardon any lapse in terminology as all my stats studies were in French.

I don't think you are correct here. Statistical significance is a statement about whether the statistic is the result of the effect studied or due to random variation. If the result of a study was "not statistically significant", it means that the data was just as likely to be due to random variation than it was to be caused by the studied relationship between variables.

If the relation between variables is studied through the collection of statistics and found to be statistically insignificant, it means that the sample size chosen wasn't large enough to discern the cause/effect relationship between the variables from noise. In other words, it means that no conclusion about the cause/effect relationship between variables can be drawn from the data collected.

i wasn't exactly trying to assign blame.
who wrote those zoning laws? folks that owned a ton of land just over the town line?
folks who had something to gain by forcing people to spread out further and further away?

true, zoning plays a part - but its not isolated or pure. in its most noble sense it tried to separate work from home in order to protect people from pollution, etc. in its current form its doing just the opposite - its helping to reinforce those things.


Modern zoning is primarily a response to demand from single family detached homeowners to protect the monetary value of their single greatest investment. Separation of residential and toxic industrial land uses is still important but not really an active area of debate or concern regarding modern land use planning (especially in the 'burbs), which focuses mostly on proximity between differnt types of residences, retail, office and institutional uses. The Libertarian-proposed alternative to strict zoning laws is to provide home value investment insurance that will compensate homeowners if neighboring landowners switch to a less desirable land use. A curious idea but not particularly practical in my opinion.

Zoning affects proximity, but does not generally dictate street topology and street design. These are separate issues. Low-density housing with separation of uses can be surrounded with pleasant roadways for cycling, and the convenience of cycling can be affected by its connectivity. I enjoy cycling in low-density areas with well-connected neighborhood streets. I am less fond of cycling in very high-density areas with a scarcity of useful through routes, choking every through route with heavy traffic. Close proximity is more convenient for utilitarian travel, but lower densities often are accompanied by more enjoyable recreational cycling opportunities.

-Steve Goodridge, former member of the Cary, NC Planning and Zoning Board

Zoning affects proximity, but does not generally dictate street topology and street design. These are separate issues. Low-density housing with separation of uses can be surrounded with pleasant roadways for cycling, and the convenience of cycling can be affected by its connectivity. I enjoy cycling in low-density areas with well-connected neighborhood streets. I am less fond of cycling in very high-density areas with a scarcity of useful through routes, choking every through route with heavy traffic. Close proximity is more convenient for utilitarian travel, but lower densities often are accompanied by more enjoyable recreational cycling opportunities.


The development I glean from your description is older neighborhoods. Something I don't think many people would call the current ubiquitous pattern.

I think there is a difference between cul-de-sac'd development and lower density housing with well connected neighborhood streets. The burbs in my experience are acre upon acre of feeder roads linking cul-de-sac development with commerce centers, and not much in between. Manhattan on the other hand is a grid of a well connected dense development. Neighborhoods tend to be less dense, but often with the grid still intact, so one can connect to a variety of destinations, from a variety of starting points. For the auto's promise of liberating folks from city gridlock, it really only allows us to go where roads are built and currently (in my experience) most roads are being built in the arterial / feeder style. We are free to go anywhere we want, but we are very limited to the geometry of the isolated development fed by larger thoroughfares. This is really only slightly different than the promise of the streetcar and bus - it only varies by distance and 'private' ownership. Our choices are still limited by infrastructure - and the current infrastructure often takes you from your home to a place to shop, often in a very direct and high speed way.

The development I glean from your description is older neighborhoods. Something I don't think many people would call the current ubiquitous pattern.

I think there is a difference between cul-de-sac'd development and lower density housing with well connected neighborhood streets. The burbs in my experience are acre upon acre of feeder roads linking cul-de-sac development with commerce centers, and not much in between. Manhattan on the other hand is a grid of a well connected dense development. Neighborhoods tend to be less dense, but often with the grid still intact, so one can connect to a variety of destinations, from a variety of starting points. For the auto's promise of liberating folks from city gridlock, it really only allows us to go where roads are built and currently (in my experience) most roads are being built in the arterial / feeder style. We are free to go anywhere we want, but we are very limited to the geometry of the isolated development fed by larger thoroughfares. This is really only slightly different than the promise of the streetcar and bus - it only varies by distance and 'private' ownership. Our choices are still limited by infrastructure - and the current infrastructure often takes you from your home to a place to shop, often in a very direct and high speed way.

I agree with you, and I oppose purely hierarchical topology of streets for these reasons. A redundant-route, well-connected topology is possible regardless of development density, and provides better, more pleasant and convenient routes for cycling and walking. It also reduces emergency responder times. I promote efficient through street connectivity at the collector (sub-arterial) level with good connectivity between land use types at the collector level. In Cary, collectors are 25-35 mph posted 2-lane roads with 16' wide lanes or bike lanes.

I don't think you are correct here. Statistical significance is a statement about whether the statistic is the result of the effect studied or due to random variation. If the result of a study was "not statistically significant", it means that the data was just as likely to be due to random variation than it was to be caused by the studied relationship between variables.

You are somewhat correct on that bolded point. However on the very definition of statistical significance your error is a common one. I'm not certain but I'd estimate no more than 5% of the population in N.America have ever taken an entire semester in stats. Hence my following comment:

If the relation between variables is studied through the collection of statistics and found to be statistically insignificant, it means that the sample size chosen wasn't large enough to discern the cause/effect relationship between the variables from noise. In other words, it means that no conclusion about the cause/effect relationship between variables can be drawn from the data collected.

You are incorrect on this bolded point. Please refer to the following link http://www.surveysystem.com/signif.htm on understanding the definition of "statistical significance". "Statistically INsignificant" IS a perfectly VALID result demonstrating that the variables measured do not significantly impact the outcome. Some variables have effect, some variables have none. If they have effect, likely they will have a certain P value of statistical significance. If the variable IN FACT HAS NO EFFECT, the result will be a stat over the P value, and reads "variable has no significant effect."

The validity of sample size is an entirely different subject.
Best wishes in your reading :)

I agree with you, and I oppose purely hierarchical topology of streets for these reasons. A redundant-route, well-connected topology is possible regardless of development density, and provides better, more pleasant and convenient routes for cycling and walking. It also reduces emergency responder times. I promote efficient through street connectivity at the collector (sub-arterial) level with good connectivity between land use types at the collector level. In Cary, collectors are 25-35 mph posted 2-lane roads with 16' wide lanes or bike lanes.

we're on the same page. :)

You are somewhat correct on that bolded point. However on the very definition of statistical significance your error is a common one. I'm not certain but I'd estimate no more than 5% of the population in N.America have ever taken an entire semester in stats. Hence my following comment:



You are incorrect on this bolded point. Please refer to the following link http://www.surveysystem.com/signif.htm on understanding the definition of "statistical significance". "Statistically INsignificant" IS a perfectly VALID result demonstrating that the variables measured do not significantly impact the outcome. Some variables have effect, some variables have none. If they have effect, likely they will have a certain P value of statistical significance. If the variable IN FACT HAS NO EFFECT, the result will be a stat over the P value, and reads "variable has no significant effect."

The validity of sample size is an entirely different subject.
Best wishes in your reading :)

Oh c'mon now. You should understand the point that they are making. If you think that your distinction is important to the conversation, then explain it yourself. Otherwise, this is a weak argument over semantics.

Oh c'mon now. You should understand the point that they are making. If you think that your distinction is important to the conversation, then explain it yourself. Otherwise, this is a weak argument over semantics.

The discussion is not about semantics. His misunderstanding of statistics lead him to think the study was not large enough to have a valid result. Whereas that is not at all the case. They performed a study and calculated that there was no effect. That IS a VALID result.

They performed a study and calculated that there was no effect. That IS a VALID result.

I should have been more clear. My apologies.

I was not referencing the notion contained in the statement above; but the reference to an outside source with an extra statement suggesting that it would be difficult to understand ("best wishes ..."). But I might have taken that the wrong way too.

It is true that failing to reject the null hypothesis that the parameter is zero is not equivalent to "no conclusion about the cause/effect relationship between variables can be drawn from the data collected". For instance, one could still create a confidence interval to determine the likely range of that parameter. Using the standard 5% rejection rate, it would include zero in the discussed example; but one certainly learned something (made a statistical conclusion) about the parameter.

More generally, I would say that different disciplines have different standards with regards to statistics. If a sociologist, statistician, economist, biometrician, engineer and so on are in the same room talking about a particular subject, one would find a fairly wide range of practices and norms. I understand your point regarding sample size and validity of the study. Personally, I would say that the study contains information and is valid. As an aside, the word valid is yet another loaded word. But in the aforementioned room, one would find people using identical words with different implied meanings since they are based on different acceptable standards within the disciplines.

In this sense, I feel the general argument--at some point--was over semantics.

The discussion is not about semantics. His misunderstanding of statistics lead him to think the study was not large enough to have a valid result. Whereas that is not at all the case. They performed a study and calculated that there was no effect. That IS a VALID result.

This is a very good point but to be technically correct:

Yet another common pitfall often happens when a researcher writes the ambiguous statement "we found no statistically significant difference," which is then misquoted by others as "they found that there was no difference." Actually, statistics cannot be used to prove that there is exactly zero difference between two populations. Failing to find evidence that there is a difference does not constitute evidence that there is no difference.
And conversely:

A common misconception is that a statistically significant result is always of practical significance, or demonstrates a large effect in the population. Unfortunately, this problem is commonly encountered in scientific writing. Given a sufficiently large sample, extremely small and non-notable differences can be found to be statistically significant, and statistical significance says nothing about the practical significance of a difference.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_significance

We are not given enough information on “not statistically significant” to imply there is probably little to no difference or if the sample size was not sufficiently large enough. I’m reading the inference to imply a small N but I can see how others would read the implication that there is no difference.

I agree with you, and I oppose purely hierarchical topology of streets for these reasons. A redundant-route, well-connected topology is possible regardless of development density, and provides better, more pleasant and convenient routes for cycling and walking. It also reduces emergency responder times. I promote efficient through street connectivity at the collector (sub-arterial) level with good connectivity between land use types at the collector level. In Cary, collectors are 25-35 mph posted 2-lane roads with 16' wide lanes or bike lanes.

Interesting term "hierarchical topology." I can't help but wonder if bicycles are dismissed in the hierarchy, with the end result being the urban freeway like road structures that are not all that pleasent to bike upon (or walk upon for that matter). Often the result of hierarchical topology is a walled canyon like mulilaned high speed arterial that is just short of being a freeway.