How does it denigrate cyclists to say that they can, are able, and have the lawful right to use the same roads as everyone else to get to every destination all other road users do?
This is a red-herring. He has said this, and you are correct, it does not denegrate cyclists. But he has also said that there is only one type of cyclist to be catered to, and that cyclists who advocate getting more cyclists out on the streets are "misguided".
He has a product he is trying to sell (and I this in every sense of the word, he is out to make a profit on his product - no intrinsic harm in this, but it gives him a profit motive to denigrate people advocating other forms of cyclist and cycling accomodation) which results in safer cycling. However, he is trying to apply that same product in a completely unrelated field of cyclist advocacy. He could choose to work together with those people who advocacy cycling, after all, a team which advocates both the individual cyclist and the practice of cycling as a whole can be a strong team indeed, but he chooses to label the cycling advocates as "enemies" or, at his very nicest, "incompetent, misguided fools". This is how he denigrates both cyclists and cycling.
John has admitted to having a limited experience with cycling, constrained to that of a sport cyclist. Where he lives, that appears to be the main type of cyclist; in Great Britain and in some cities in the US, this may be true. But not everywhere. That he considers the sport cyclist the only valid cyclist on the road, or at least, the only cyclist to be catered to (referencing his ADC paper), is where he denegrates cyclists and cycling as a whole.
I know that there are people here who feel they owe John Forester a debt for getting them out of the car and onto the road. I agree that he has a good product, for what it is. But realize that to agree with Forester's cycling techniques and general philosophy does not mean that one has to accept the full package of his opinions. Many of his opinions are not well thought out when viewed through the eyes of people who are not John Forester.
Take the WOL for instance. It is as much of a compromise which violates the standard traffic-operating principles as bike lanes. It places the cyclist to the right of a traffic stream (in practice, if not in ideality) which might turn right across the path of the cyclist. The only thing in Forster's eyes which makes a WOL better than a bike lane is that in a WOL, this "feature" is present but not advertised, whereas in a bike lane, it is out there for all to see. In his thinking and philosophy, a savy cyclist can make use of this non-advertisement and get out of the way of traffic when the cyclist sees fit, and enter the stream of traffic as the cyclist sees fit. That's all well and good.
My philosophy is to get everything out in the open and make and communicate the rules to all involved. Assign right of ways explicitly. This works to equalize the burden between cyclist and motorist.
The advantage of a WOL philosophy is that cyclists can dictate when the WOL is a single lane and when it is an implicit double lane. This gives great flexibility for the cyclist willing to take on this burden of directing this duality correctly. Great flexibility also means the flexibility to get this very wrong as well. The disadvantage is that few cyclists are willing to take on this burden. The argued safety benefits of this arrangement, even for the prototypical "trained" cyclist, might be overwhelmed by the safety dis-benefit of having very few transportational cyclists on the road and the resulting overall motorist discomfiture with cyclists in general.
The advantage of the bike lane philosophy is that all the rules are spelled out for everyone to see and the burden of traveling on the street is more evenly split between cyclist and driver, much as it is split between driver and driver. A bike lane requires some "special" rules, it might be argued, but the need for such "special" rules are not alleviated by a WOL; the only way to eliminate "special" rules, for right turning motorists, for example, is to make all streets narrow laned and not allow lane sharing between cars and bicyclists. Indeed, some VC advocates advocate this arrangement, and they are probably more ideologically pure than John Forester. But a bike lane makes the need for such "special" rules explicit, which means that the situations the rules address are dealt with openly and transparently. And bike lanes seem to increase the perception of the "bikeability" of a road. This, FWIW, is a measured fact, of which John Forester acknowledges, even if to brand it as a sociological phobia. Psychology matters as much, and sometimes more, than reality when it comes to human systems, since, in human systems, psychology can help shape reality.
But the point is that these are differences of opinion and philosophy. Not in the realm of factual debate, but in the realm of philosophical debate. John Forester's techniques are fine, but to accept his techniques, and even his overarching philosophy, does not constrain one to accepting the full package of his beliefs. Mr. Forester's mistake as an advocate of his philosophy is to spend too much time arguing that his philosophy is factual as opposed to philosophical, rather than arguing the merits of his philosophy in and of itself.
CB HI
07-30-07, 04:21 AM
"And bike lanes seem to increase the perception of the "bikeability" of a road."
Pretty well sums up the smoke and mirrors on which bike lanes are based.
Brian Ratliff
07-30-07, 07:49 AM
"And bike lanes seem to increase the perception of the "bikeability" of a road."
Pretty well sums up the smoke and mirrors on which bike lanes are based.
Read the next sentence.
Brian Ratliff
07-30-07, 07:56 AM
Swell argumentative style you have there, CB_HI. Are you in grade school? What do you think of my mini thesis?
Bike lanes are smoke and mirrors? Expand on this analogy please. I, for one, thought they were paint and asphault.
The Human Car
07-30-07, 08:26 AM
Well, it is rather nice to see such admissions of ignorance about bicycle transportation. In reasonable technical discussions, it is expected that the discussants are sufficiently familiar with the subject to be able to connect the past with the present, so that each discussion does not have to be a repetition of the sophomore year before progress can be made.
I am not trolling in your muddy stream; it is you people who have introduced my thoughts into your own discussions. What do you expect me to do about your discussions of my thought? Ignore you for your admitted sophomoric level of discussion?
I repeat, the difference between younger and older children with respect to cycling in traffic is that the older children appear to be better able to learn to understand multi-lane traffic. That's what I have always written. I noticed the difference when teaching separate classes of third-grade students and of fifth-grade students, recruited from the same group of parents, during the same summer and in the same area.
Well, it is rather nice to see such an admission of narcissism as there are other experts out there who I am more familiar with and I can have technical discussions with that do not impose a self serving limitation on terminology. This thread of our conversation I am trying to understand your limited geek speak. All engineers have their terms of the trade but you seem to arbitrarily consider some concepts valid and other concepts invalid and I am simply trying to understand what tiny subset of concepts you consider valid.
So sorry if you wish to talk to the unwashed masses about your bizarre theories you have to include a summary of the “sophomore year” especially since you are so off base from the main stream.
I am trying to understand what skill set that a typical 10 year old can possess that a typical 8 year old cannot possess. Understanding multi-lane traffic is not a skill, the ability to safely change lanes to make a vehicular left turn is a skill that I would suspect a typical 8 year old having trouble with, are there other skills that a typical 8 year old would have trouble with?
If it is simply an understanding of multi-lane traffic could a typical 8 year old (trained) safely use a busy multi-lane road under the provision that they do not make left turns and there are no dedicated right hand turn lanes (i.e. they just need to use one lane)? Would the inclusion or exclusion of a WOL help or hurt the typical 8 year old traveling such a busy multi-lane road?
LittleBigMan
07-30-07, 05:47 PM
This is a red-herring. He has said this, and you are correct, it does not denegrate cyclists. But he has also said that there is only one type of cyclist to be catered to, and that cyclists who advocate getting more cyclists out on the streets are "misguided".
He has a product he is trying to sell (and I this in every sense of the word, he is out to make a profit on his product...
Hm.
We were talking about red herrings?
;)
John Forester hasn't made a dime on me. But the car industry and the oil industry have lost a prisoner. And I've profited beyond measure.
And I'm not the only one.
Brian Ratliff
07-30-07, 06:03 PM
Hm.
We were talking about red herrings?
;)
John Forester hasn't made a dime on me. But the car industry and the oil industry have lost a prisoner. And I've profited beyond measure.
And I'm not the only one.
I think you missed my point. Forester says lots of things. Some are beneficial, such as the things you focus on, and some are not.
Congratulations on riding your bicycle, I give you a pat on the back.
Brian Ratliff
07-30-07, 06:12 PM
...
John Forester hasn't made a dime on me.
...
BTW, did you buy his book? Or did you read a copy which was purchased by someone? If you did, then he made a bit of money from you or whoever purchased the copy you read.
Some of us just want to discuss further the limits of Mr. Forester's arguments. Bek, he's just giving as much as he is recieving, albeit he dishes it out in cruder fashion than the polished British insults which Mr. Forester flings. But some of us like to explore ideas. I do.
You seem more interested in upholding the reputation of your hero by heading off all discussion of his ideas. Or perhaps you are not so much upholding Mr. Forester's reputation as you are trying to keep the rosy picture you have of his theories in your head. Like plugging your ears and yelling the "Star Spangled Banner" when confronted with an argument you dislike.
Meh.
LittleBigMan
07-30-07, 06:44 PM
BTW, did you buy his book?
No.
Or did you read a copy which was purchased by someone? If you did, then he made a bit of money from you or whoever purchased the copy you read.
How so? He hasn't made a dime on me, but I've saved thousands of dollars from his ideas, if you can call them "his."
You seem more interested in upholding the reputation of your hero by heading off all discussion of his ideas. Or perhaps you are not so much upholding Mr. Forester's reputation as you are trying to keep the rosy picture you have of his theories in your head. Like plugging your ears and yelling the "Star Spangled Banner" when confronted with an argument you dislike.
Meh.
John Forester is not my hero. I hope that doesn't mess up your ideology. :eek:
CB HI
07-30-07, 09:38 PM
Read the next sentence.
Swell argumentative style you have there, CB_HI. Are you in grade school? What do you think of my mini thesis? ...
Now come the Bek style insults from Brian.
Yes, you did write a very long post and you started the post with a false claim about JF. You continued with several misrepresentations.
I simply pulled the one sentence of yours that best represents bike lane advocacy and correctly summed up the current method of demanding more bike lanes.
Your following sentence only restates previous false claims of proof (presumably your Portland bridge counts again). It also wrongly characterizes JFs position.
genec
07-31-07, 07:24 AM
Yes, you did write a very long post and you started the post with a false claim about JF. You continued with several misrepresentations.
It also wrongly characterizes JFs position.
What specifically was false?
tallard
07-31-07, 12:09 PM
I want to know what the VCers have to offer to children and to their parents who fear for their safety. That's all. If cycling is perceived to be too dangerous for children, much of the time because people are leery of letting children ride in traffic, what is it they offer to rectify this situation? Seems to me all they have to offer is just less bike-friendly communities, which does nothing. It's a failure as far as creating safer traffic goes.
Geesh, of course sidewalks are safe, as long as you don't get off! Solo riding youth who are "road competent" can ride on pavement, solo riding youth who are not "road competent" should be on the sidewalk and behave completely as pedestrians, that is put their feet to the ground at every intersection, look both ways, and cross when traffic allows, THE SAME AS PEDESTRIANS. Once a youth is mature enough to understand and obey the rules of the road, then they ride on pavement, alert and responsible.
It is not much different than driving a car, you need a license to be on the road, there's a reason. Cyclists have it pretty darned good, we don't need licensing, insurance, don't pay taxes. All the antics to legislate cycling will only diminish cyclists rights as they stand presently and reduce the general cycling population. Immature children should not even be a consideration when it comes to designing roads as unsupervised children should not be on roads. All that wonderful cyclable pavement was paid for by motorists and constructed by motorists, without ADULT motorists there would be no pavement and no cycling to school. I hate motorists in general and especially the incompetent ones, but unfortunately without them, I wouldn't even be cycling on pavement, I'd be on dirt roads.
tallard
07-31-07, 12:16 PM
As a member of our P&Z board I have promoted the following engineering issues:...
I have worked on the following education issues:...
I have worked on the following enforcement issues:...
I have worked on the following encouragement projects:...
Why do you dismiss such efforts from a vehicular cycling advocate?
Wow, I am in awe, my life has unfortunately strayed from such a level of dedication and I thank you. Maybe if more of us had such devotion we wouldn't even need this debate.
Keep it up.
tallard
07-31-07, 12:52 PM
for heavier traffic, say, downtown core streets in the city. First look at the messengers and you will know all. To be able to move at the speed of traffic if not faster. To be able to ride a line with less than a foot between you and the car....sometimes even closer (my zone goes down to six or less inches at speed). To be able to ride over obstacles without weaving, bricks, wood, potholes(craters), construction plates(or their cousin the three inch deep pavé cutout, bottles, etc. To be able to ride over tracks at various angles in all conditions. To be able to yell into a passenger window and hold a conversation with a driver without crashing/getting freaked out and braking. Because I swear drivers can smell fear. Dodging peds is a great skills to have. The ability to read the traffic and react is key though... ppl groan about the bobbing and weaving messers but if you watch 'em, they do it for a reason. If the road is quiet, they ride a straight line. These are the skills that they bring to the table on a daily basis.
I was also a messenger in Montreal, however only one summer, but it was one of the most enjoying and rewarding jobs I've ever done. I was however offered an office position near my boyfriends house (way back then :) ) his place was halfway to work, an hour ride, and offered more pay, so I switched. I was already a hardy cyclist with a few accidents behind me, one really serious. My only incident that summer was a refrigerator van tried to park on me, my left shoulder removed his foot long mirror, what a bruise, but I kept going, I had mail to deliver!
Being able to turn a corner no-handed, with your hands on the roof of the turning car is a handy one too.
That brings back one of my favorite training practices when I was 14! I grew up in a one street "the highway" region, on my way to town they built a overpass and at the bottom end the option was to continue straight or right hand turn to the older roadway. It's a really wide T-intersection and any time no cars were behind me I practised handling that 90degree righthand turn handless, it was my favorite part of every trip to town, I got really good at it and handless driving is a skill I highly recommend to increase visibility among blind motorists. it makes them just a little more cautious ... :)
Interestingly enough while cycling I've been stopped for being helmetless, for speeding several times, for being on illegal roadways, but not one single time has a cop ever even looked at me for riding handless, weeeeeeee. It really relieves pressure on the neck and back.
Even funnier than that, I occasionally still challenge myself as to how far I can ride handless. My record is eight miles from Fort Lauderdale Beach to Oakland Park blvd, inland, over a couple of waterway bridges, sore butt next day :D
tallard
07-31-07, 01:09 PM
I thought the approved method for signaling when on a bicycle is with use of the hands and arms. Only in some VC fantasies can bicyclists rely on motorists to recognize as "signals" the head nods and bobs, steely eyed stares and glares, changes in pedaling cadences, changes in cyclist posture and the other bag of tricks suggested on this list.
On the topic of lane changing and turns, I believe adult cyclists have the same responsibilities as motorists. Motorists must signal first their intent to then turn their head to insure safe passage. It is the same for the cyclist, I first turn my head to assess the options then I hand signal to state my intent, then I make sure I have eye contact with anyone trying to mess with me. Sometimes motorists miss turns if traffic in the next lane doesn't open up, as cyclists may also miss a turn if traffic does not allow. No difference.
However youths using sidewalks have the absolute mandate to STOP at every intersection before engaging, just as pedestrians do. If a youth is mature enough to walk to school unsupervised, they are not far from being mature enough to ride to school unsupervised.
tallard
07-31-07, 01:22 PM
... What do you mean community cycling? Is that kids on bikes in the suburbs and, if so, what are they cycling for, enjoyment and transport or just enjoyment? I'd rather have more people cycling as their primary transportation than only having more people doing a sunday bike ride for pleasure.
Cycling is unlikely to succeed as long as people consider it unsuitable for daily use. ...
Hardly automobile-philic and much more just about trying to get cyclists and motorists on equal pegging/footing when it comes to road use.
I'd like to add just one little point to yours. Two main reasons for pushing cycling in general is for it's health benefits and reducing pollution. Both of these reasons are addressed by daily commuting much more than to Sunday cyclists, as slow leisurely flat path cycling has practically no health benefits to us. At the policy level therefore, it is much more beneficial to humans and the planet to "push" cycling at the commuting scale rather than the Sunday rider scale. Which is why I believe cycling policies should first address the options for commuting rather than recreation riding.
Brian Ratliff
07-31-07, 02:48 PM
What specifically was false?
1+
CB: read Mr. Forester's ADC paper. In it, he says explicitly that there is only one type of cyclist to cater to in advocacy discussions. He calls these cyclists "voluntary transportational cyclists". He describes them as being basically upper middle class professionals who come from a sport cycling background (i.e. they bicycle primarily for exercise and love of cycling) and they choose to bicycle because they love to bicycle, not because it is the vehicle of economic (time and personal treasure economic, not environmental economic) choice. I think it is sggoodri (it might be Bruce Roser; I get them confused sometimes) who agrees, saying that these are the most common cyclists in his area and cycling the most miles, and so these are the ones to be catered to.
If you see something you think I've mischaracterized Mr. Forester on specifically, please point it out in a quote and tell me how I am wrong.
BTW, Forester admits as much that bike lanes make roads more appealing - this fact has been ascertained by many a questioneer and study in many different places, Portland included. Mr. Forster's position is that this appeal is misguided and the result of cycling inferiority phobia.
Feel free to address my main points when you find the time to read through my post. I know the post is long, but I enjoy writing and I deplore the single sentence style common to these forums. So, forgive the length, and if you are interested in a discussion, I'd enjoy hearing your ideas.
genec
07-31-07, 03:41 PM
I'd like to add just one little point to yours. Two main reasons for pushing cycling in general is for it's health benefits and reducing pollution. Both of these reasons are addressed by daily commuting much more than to Sunday cyclists, as slow leisurely flat path cycling has practically no health benefits to us. At the policy level therefore, it is much more beneficial to humans and the planet to "push" cycling at the commuting scale rather than the Sunday rider scale. Which is why I believe cycling policies should first address the options for commuting rather than recreation riding.
Good points... make cycling more acceptable and easier, and there is a good chance folks will use bicycles. That is pretty much what happens in parks... where cycling is easy and fun to do.
Put up barriers to cycling such as fast motor traffic with motorists that feel bikes are toys, and potential riders scurry back into cars.
I-Like-To-Bike
07-31-07, 05:36 PM
I think it is sggoodri (it might be Bruce Roser; I get them confused sometimes) who agrees, saying that these are the most common cyclists in his area and cycling the most miles, and so these are the ones to be catered to.
Not necessarily the most common cyclists gets catered to by our friend(s) in NC, just the relative handful who allegedly run up the most miles, regardless of where or when.
"High Mileage Road Cyclists" is Steve G's terminology for those who fit his approved profile. It is Steve who makes frequent references to his efforts to encourage his local government to cater to his comrades as if their weekend training rides gives them higher status on the food chain.
rando
07-31-07, 05:53 PM
i think it's far better to make things better for transportational cyclists and commuters than weekend roadies.
The Human Car
07-31-07, 06:21 PM
i think it's far better to make things better for transportational cyclists and commuters than weekend roadies.
I make this point repeatedly around here that a trail that serves transportations needs first and recreational needs second are far more popular then just recreational trails. It also gets me really upset when they spend money for bike facilities in areas with low bike crash statistics and virtually none where there is a high crash rate. But I will note that I think all kinds of cyclists should be accommodated, the weekend roadies around here would appreciate a 3’ curb area as an optional place to ride and including such a space is actually cheaper in the long run as roads last longer. So I think having a strategic plan that has something for everybody is a really good idea as accommodating some cyclists is not that big of a deal.
CB HI
07-31-07, 08:16 PM
If you see something you think I've mischaracterized Mr. Forester on specifically, please point it out in a quote and tell me how I am wrong.You seem to have things backwards, since you are making the claims of what JF believes, then the responsiblity to demonstrate such is on your shoulders and should be done with complete, correct quotes.
We have already seen how you wrongly claim my beliefs and falsely attibute a quote to me.
randya
07-31-07, 08:26 PM
I make this point repeatedly around here that a trail that serves transportations needs first and recreational needs second are far more popular then just recreational trails. It also gets me really upset when they spend money for bike facilities in areas with low bike crash statistics and virtually none where there is a high crash rate. But I will note that I think all kinds of cyclists should be accommodated, the weekend roadies around here would appreciate a 3’ curb area as an optional place to ride and including such a space is actually cheaper in the long run as roads last longer. So I think having a strategic plan that has something for everybody is a really good idea as accommodating some cyclists is not that big of a deal.
+100
:beer:
something for everyone is a good plan, I fail to understand why the Foresterologists can't accept the fact that many people want trails and on-road facilities and they have a place in the transportation realm; and instead of simply fighting against trails and lanes, working to improve the engineering designs used.
tallard
08-01-07, 01:24 AM
I fail to understand why the Foresterologists can't accept the fact that many people want trails and on-road facilities and they have a place in the transportation realm; and instead of simply fighting against trails and lanes, working to improve the engineering designs used.
Because most BLs are horribly designed and hence endanger cyclists and reduce cyclists rights. Case in point, I've just returned to Whitehorse, Yukon, to spend the end of the Summer. Not a single BL here corresponds to any published BL standard, they are ALL INHERENTLY more dangerous than VCing but the local PCs and Wussessssss are so proud of all the little lines on the pavement.
- Downtown BLs are ALL in door opening zones
- Intersections are ALL BL missing, the BL becomes a car turn lane OFFICIALLY
- The 2 Mile Hill is a beautiful slow turn hill (5%grade?) with wide beautiful pavement. Cyclists are banned, relegated to the BLs. The West side BL is 2 directions, 2" each with debris, slight meanderings and disappears into grass near the bottom of the hill. The East side BL is a joke, something like the shape of a lazy river twisting through the prairies, ending before sidewalks at both ends of the hill.
- My friend's suburb access has 2 options, a Multi Use Path with a 30 KM/H limit and meandering, 50" from the road, and a little bicycle painted on the road's shoulder.
Not a single lane is continuous and cyclists are encouraged to dismount at the bridge and at major intersections. Yet the folks here think they are going in the right direction. The little city of less than 20,000 (only 10% downtown) souls also has a 100% helmet law with a 30km/h downtown speed limits and 60km/h burb speed limit, and if you don't wear a helmet you might as well be giving AIDS to all, a little nest of PC heaven. Sometimes it feels more like 20,000 Leagues Under The Sea, no wonder I left. Whitehorse also has the most pedestrian crossings I've ever seen in any city in the the world, seems like every 25 or 50 feet or so. Environmentally speaking, in winter time, cars here idle so much that this little itty bitty town has the worst air pollution anywhere in Canada for the winter months, as it's in a whole and the smoke can't get out. Idling here should be banned. But they're doing the opposite, forcing motorists to idle.
But I digress. When NON experts demand BLs the result is dumb BLs, the dumbing down and a loss of right and liberty for cyclists. So think honestly, how many experts do you think are on hand to direct city councils when it comes to BL construction in all the little towns in North America. Unfortunately THAT IS HOW most (I repeat MOST for all you exceptions oriented posters around :) ) BLs ARE IN THE REAL WORLD.
AND THAT MAKES THEM TOTALLY THE MOST DANGEROUS PLACES FOR UNSUPERVISED UNROADWORTHY KIDS. I can't pretend to defend all "Forestologists" as I haven't read his publications and I'm new to the site, but it's certainly the reason I'LL FIGHT BLs. But remember, in our society more legislation begets more legislation, it is a never ending positive feedback loop. And in the end, the only winners are the lawyers.
randya
08-01-07, 11:30 AM
^^you seem to miss my point entirely. The bike lanes you describe suck exactly because an engineer with real cycling experience was not retained / consulted.
rando
08-01-07, 12:06 PM
VC dogmatists are not interested in accomodating cyclists other than themselves and people who think as they do. that's why they don't work to change and improve infrastructure.
(for somebody who claims to never have read Forester, Tallard sure does a good job of toeing the party line.)
sggoodri
08-01-07, 12:46 PM
1+
CB: read Mr. Forester's ADC paper. In it, he says explicitly that there is only one type of cyclist to cater to in advocacy discussions. He calls these cyclists "voluntary transportational cyclists". He describes them as being basically upper middle class professionals who come from a sport cycling background (i.e. they bicycle primarily for exercise and love of cycling) and they choose to bicycle because they love to bicycle, not because it is the vehicle of economic (time and personal treasure economic, not environmental economic) choice. I think it is sggoodri (it might be Bruce Roser; I get them confused sometimes) who agrees, saying that these are the most common cyclists in his area and cycling the most miles, and so these are the ones to be catered to.
Here in Cary, NC, the greatest elasticity in transportation-oriented cycling miles is among these voluntary transportation cyclists who ride for enjoyment and exercise. Those with an economic or other hardship that prevents them from motoring are a very small group of potential cyclists here.
The voluntary transportation cyclists (who are a fairly wide range of cyclists with different types of bikes, clothing, and travel distances) tend to operate more or less in the vehicular manner and also have more political influence than those cyclists who wish to ride contrary to vehicular rules.
As a result, voluntary transportation cyclists in Cary were able to stop a town initiative to redesign an important commuting bike route with narrower outside lanes in order to accommodate a wider sidewalk to be designated as a two-way bike path, with a local ordinance requiring all cyclists to use the path and not the roadway. The voluntary transportation cyclists also obtained repeal of the mandatory sidepath use ordinance.
I believe this was a better outcome than letting the non-cyclists and sidewalk cyclists dictate the design of a roadway that is used by so many voluntary transportation cyclists in the vehicular manner.
genec
08-01-07, 01:03 PM
Here in Cary, NC, the greatest elasticity in transportation-oriented cycling miles is among these voluntary transportation cyclists who ride for enjoyment and exercise. Those with an economic or other hardship that prevents them from motoring are a very small group of potential cyclists here.
The voluntary transportation cyclists (who are a fairly wide range of cyclists with different types of bikes, clothing, and travel distances) tend to operate more or less in the vehicular manner and also have more political influence than those cyclists who wish to ride contrary to vehicular rules.
As a result, voluntary transportation cyclists in Cary were able to stop a town initiative to redesign an important commuting bike route with narrower outside lanes in order to accommodate a wider sidewalk to be designated as a two-way bike path, with a local ordinance requiring all cyclists to use the path and not the roadway. The voluntary transportation cyclists also obtained repeal of the mandatory sidepath use ordinance.
I believe this was a better outcome than letting the non-cyclists and sidewalk cyclists dictate the design of a roadway that is used by so many voluntary transportation cyclists in the vehicular manner.
But then utimatly only the voluntary transportation cyclists are happy... and others who may move from the park riding mode are not likely to graduate.
This is not to say that a sidepath is the right answer, but that perhaps something else may have worked to serve the VTCs AND encourage others to try the move into VTC mode.
I can understand not wanting a sidewalk sidepath... but so often there can be other compromises made that can suit a wider audiance if the dogmatic response is not to simply say "vehicular only."
Perhaps sharrows on a well marked road with some traffic calming might motivate park riders to move into a VTC mode.
rando
08-01-07, 01:52 PM
isn't anyone who rides a bike to get somewhere a voluntary transportational cyclist? (except those who can't afford any otehr transportation or have lost their license?)
sggoodri
08-01-07, 02:51 PM
isn't anyone who rides a bike to get somewhere a voluntary transportational cyclist? (except those who can't afford any otehr transportation or have lost their license?)
That is the distinction as it has been used. Those who can easily motor legally but prefer to cycle for transportation are considered voluntary transportational cyclists. Those who cannot motor for whatever reason but choose cycling over walking are considered by those who use these terms to be involuntary, although in truth they made the choice to cycle.
sggoodri
08-01-07, 03:07 PM
But then utimatly only the voluntary transportation cyclists are happy... and others who may move from the park riding mode are not likely to graduate.
This is not to say that a sidepath is the right answer, but that perhaps something else may have worked to serve the VTCs AND encourage others to try the move into VTC mode.
I can understand not wanting a sidewalk sidepath... but so often there can be other compromises made that can suit a wider audiance if the dogmatic response is not to simply say "vehicular only."
Perhaps sharrows on a well marked road with some traffic calming might motivate park riders to move into a VTC mode.
The voluntary transportation cyclists who prefer vehicular cycling only oppose engineering that (a) prevents them from following vehicular rules and associated defensive driving, (b) is accompanied by legal restrictions from following vehicular rules and associated defensive driving, (c) stigmatizes them for following the vehicular/defensive driving methods, or (d) reduces their safety and/or convenience.
Sharrows are fine, 25 mph speed humps are fine, wider lanes are fine, fewer lanes are fine, bike route signs and share the road signs are fine, increased street connectivity is fine, well-designed greenway paths in their own right of way are fine. Designated sidepaths, curbside bike lanes to the right of right-turning motor traffic, and increased debris accumulation are opposed.
tallard
08-01-07, 04:27 PM
. .... make cycling more acceptable and easier, and there is a good chance folks will use bicycles. That is pretty much what happens in parks... where cycling is easy and fun to do.
Wow talk about twisting someone's words, I was saying when you cycle "easily" along, there is practically no health benefit to your body, according to charts comparing exertion levels at various cycling speeds... Easier is NOT better :)
genec
08-01-07, 04:48 PM
Wow talk about twisting someone's words, I was saying when you cycle "easily" along, there is practically no health benefit to your body, according to charts comparing exertion levels at various cycling speeds... Easier is NOT better :)
Sorry... I went back and reread what I wrote... I did not mean "easier" as in less effort... (and actually I agree with you). I meant easier in uptake... easier to accept. As in not fighting that which should be done.
Sometimes in haste we shortcut the text used here or assume that we are all on the same page. :o
No word twisting was intended...
tallard
08-01-07, 04:51 PM
^^you seem to miss my point entirely. The bike lanes you describe suck exactly because an engineer with real cycling experience was not retained / consulted.
That WAS my point, there aren't hardly any qualified people to do this, so everyone in all towns and cities all across the continent's just pushing whatever homebred BL concept they've dreamed up in an imaginary world... I've cycled in possibly over a hundred cities/towns/communities and that's the reality of most BLs. Yes I've seen a bike path here and there that was away from cars and were enjoyable to ride and didn't have dangerous intersections, but that's in no way the realistic future of BLs and does very little to serve transportational purposes for adults or children. Most NON FORUM BL advocates have basically no statistical/engineering understanding of the safety implications of BLs.
When I was a kid and my parents were training me to be roadworthy, the first thing they put in my hands was the rules of the road booklet for student drivers, which included proper bike behavior, which is still completely valid today 30 years later. Of course I also occasionally sat in my dad's lap on the back roads in the car which gave me a sense of lane respect.
So the day I have a child to send to school in a non motorised fashion (because in the beginning, they will be bused along with every other kid, none of that obsessive parent driven trend of present day), I will have that child ride the sidewalk and step down at EVERY intersection and gradually educate her/him in the ways of the road and we will practice, together, until I am fully confident that my child is capable of behaving in a safe manner, whatever age that may be. I'll also tell her/him that when riding on the street you have the same rights as cars whereas when riding on BLs you must pay DOUBLE attention BECAUSE you are no longer part of regular traffic and are basically invisible to moronic car drivers, no matter if that is a bike lane or a bike path.
I have the right to the ALL PAVEMENT, why on earth would I encourage of small group of zealouts who want to place restrictions on that?
I ENCOURAGE RIGHTS TO PRIVACY AND FIGHT BREACHES AGAINST LIBERTY
tallard
08-01-07, 04:56 PM
Sorry... I went back and reread what I wrote... I did not mean "easier" as in less effort... (and actually I agree with you). I meant easier in uptake... easier to accept. As in not fighting that which should be done. Sometimes in haste we shortcut the text used here or assume that we are all on the same page. :o
No word twisting was intended...
Pfew:p
But to take on your slant on "easy uptake" as say, a teenager contemplating the array of pavement options, between say, 4" and 50", hmmm, I vote for 50". As a teenager I'D WANT IT ALL!
;)
JRA
08-01-07, 05:56 PM
I was saying when you cycle "easily" along, there is practically no health benefit to your body, according to charts comparing exertion levels at various cycling speeds... Easier is NOT better.Practically no health benefit when you cycle easily?
Wouldn't that depend a lot on what you mean by cycling easily, how long you do it, and what kind of shape you're in to begin with?
For many people there would be tremendous health benefits to cycling as slowly as 10mph, provided they do it regularly. I base this on charts developed by Dr. Ken Cooper, founder of the Cooper Aerobics Center (http://www.cooperaerobics.com/default.aspx).
I got curious about the minimum cycling speed for the training effect to occur, so I dug out my copy of the new aerobics (which is 37 years old and the pages are a little yellow :D).
It seems that the training effect occurs at as little as ten miles per hour.
To achieve the recommended 30 aerobic points per week (maintenance level for an under 30 year old male), you could cycle 12 miles at 10mph (6 points) five times a week.
Granted, most readers of this forum probably wouldn't get a lot of benefit from cycling at 10 mph but much of the general public could get tremendous health benefits from cycling regularly at that speed.
randya
08-01-07, 06:15 PM
...curbside bike lanes to the right of right-turning motor traffic, and increased debris accumulation are opposed.
so why not work for improving the design and maintenance of bike lanes, rather than opposing them completely?
:rolleyes:
would you be willing to publically advocate for sharrows? because it seems like whereas bike lanes of almost any design are acceptable, sharrows are still verbotten to many transportation departments, including Portland's.
Bekologist
08-01-07, 08:55 PM
sharrows going in in Seattle...... a forward thinking transportation engineering firm, with cyclists on the staff, helped with the master plan.
there are some hilly four lane arterials that have already become road dieted, with bike lanes for the uphill side and sharrows no the speedier downhill side; bike lanes that are accomodated at intersections and promoting no failure of vehicular bicycle operation.
this is all far off the mark of hows vc working for the school kids, but some of the roads are becoming better designed for bicyclists in seattle, and that includes bike lanes as well as sharrows as well as wide lanes and bike paths and end of trip facilities.
randya
08-01-07, 10:20 PM
sharrows going in in Seattle...... a forward thinking transportation engineering firm, with cyclists on the staff, helped with the master plan.
there are some hilly four lane arterials that have already become road dieted, with bike lanes for the uphill side and sharrows no the speedier downhill side; bike lanes that are accomodated at intersections and promoting no failure of vehicular bicycle operation.
this is all far off the mark of hows vc working for the school kids, but some of the roads are becoming better designed for bicyclists in seattle, and that includes bike lanes as well as sharrows as well as wide lanes and bike paths and end of trip facilities.
meh. anti-auto social engineering! :eek:
;) (totally joking!):p
who's the engineering firm? link to plan?
sggoodri
08-01-07, 10:36 PM
so why not work for improving the design and maintenance of bike lanes, rather than opposing them completely?
I attempt to improve the design of bike lanes where they get applied; but in many cases, where there isn't room to design them without serious problems that most of us here recognize, the only way to prevent a bad application is to oppose the bike lane.
What can I do about inadequate maintenance that I'm not already doing? The city is tired of hearing from me about debris in bike lanes on municipal streets, and have settled on a sweeping schedule of four times annually. The state, which is in charge of all of the arterial roads, has no money for sweeping, and there is no political will at the state level to address sweeping, because they can barely respond to the biggest maintenance problems such as bridges that are about to fall down and potholes big enough to tear the wheels off of cars. The state just started a massive repaving job on I-40 after the recently completed paving job on the same section of road turned out to be done incorrectly and started falling apart; they haven't figured out how to pay for this fiasco without robbing every other department's transportation project and maintenance budget, setting everybody back years.
Since the traffic engineers in charge of designing bike lanes and bike paths here now clearly didn't understand safe cycling principles, I have focused my attention on trying to educate them about vehicular cycling. I recently had several planners and engineers attend a Road 1 class that I organized and taught with another local LCI. My thinking is that if they become able to understand the operational issues involved, they will be better able to avoid designing in conflict with best cycling practices.
Here are some testimonials (intended for public distribution) that I received from municipal employees after they took our 9-hour course:
"This course is a good starting point for transportation design professionals to actually understand what it is they're designing for. Once cannot deliver a product without understanding the needs of the customer."
- Eric J. Lamb, PE, City of Raleigh Public Works Dept.
"The League of American Bicyclists Road 1 course was the most complete, well organized and pertinent instruction on effective road cycling I have received. I will be a safer, more confident cyclist because of it, and I'm looking forward to taking the other courses in the series."
- Tony Clark, Town of Cary Parks, Recreation and Cultural Resources Dept.
"As someone who has cycled for fun nearly all of my life, this class provided insight into utility cycling for transportation that has given me a new confidence to operate my bicycle as a vehicle. I particularly enjoyed the on-bike sessions and highly recommend this class to anyone interested in honing their cycling skills, learning about the rules of the road and experiencing on-road cycling the right way."
- Juliet Andes, Principal Planner, Town of Cary
"The class gave me a different perspective for biking with vehicular traffic. I now understand why "taking the lane" is important and will have more patience with bicycles that do. I also have more confidence with my riding abilities when I choose to ride in traffic."
- Kyle A. Hubert, PE, Town of Cary Engineering Dept.
would you be willing to publically advocate for sharrows? because it seems like whereas bike lanes of almost any design are acceptable, sharrows are still verbotten to many transportation departments, including Portland's.
Yes, I wrote most of the Capitol Area MPO's planning guidelines for Sharrows included in this document:
I have the right to the ALL PAVEMENT, why on earth would I encourage of small group of zealouts who want to place restrictions on that?
I ENCOURAGE RIGHTS TO PRIVACY AND FIGHT BREACHES AGAINST LIBERTY
who are you talking about?
well-designed bike facilities on some roads can make it easier, safer and more comfortable for kids to cycle to school.
bike facilities do not automatically come with mandatory use laws.
The Human Car
08-02-07, 12:00 PM
I attempt to improve the design of bike lanes where they get applied; but in many cases, where there isn't room to design them without serious problems that most of us here recognize, the only way to prevent a bad application is to oppose the bike lane.
What can I do about inadequate maintenance that I'm not already doing? The city is tired of hearing from me about debris in bike lanes on municipal streets, and have settled on a sweeping schedule of four times annually. The state, which is in charge of all of the arterial roads, has no money for sweeping, and there is no political will at the state level to address sweeping, because they can barely respond to the biggest maintenance problems such as bridges that are about to fall down and potholes big enough to tear the wheels off of cars. The state just started a massive repaving job on I-40 after the recently completed paving job on the same section of road turned out to be done incorrectly and started falling apart; they haven't figured out how to pay for this fiasco without robbing every other department's transportation project and maintenance budget, setting everybody back years.
I strongly disagree with this, only if you buy the notion that cycling is an insignificant issue is there no way to get rid of issues associated with bike lanes. Almost all problems associated with bike lanes can and will be fixed when cyclists are accepted as an equal issue with all other things that revolve around street designs. Sweeping is far less expensive that maintaining a landscaped median and I would be willing to bet that any location that complains about the cost of sweeping bikes lanes has more centerline miles of landscaped medians where people do not go or are utilize in any significant way that enhances the quality of life (though a popular use here for medians seems to be a place where people can let their dogs defecate and not clean up after them that I guess is governments way of saying accommodating dog doo-doo is a higher priority then accommodating cyclists.)
I will note that you do have a point in locations where there is insufficient width to be had it should be a policy of something good (or at least acceptable) or not at all.
TRaffic Jammer
08-02-07, 12:06 PM
Too many of our BL's in this city seem to have been made as traffic calmers.
rando
08-02-07, 12:53 PM
Hey Jammer, meat pylons= pedestrians?
TRaffic Jammer
08-02-07, 12:55 PM
Oh yes indeed! :lol: Hitting pylons is no fun, and you lose time off your run.
rando
08-02-07, 01:09 PM
:lol:
for the longest time I didn't know that term and then I watched this old video (the Need for Speed) on youtube about messengers and they used that term.
tallard
08-02-07, 02:38 PM
Practically no health benefit when you cycle easily?
I got curious about the minimum cycling speed for the training effect to occur, so I dug out my copy of the new aerobics (which is 37 years old and the pages are a little yellow :D).
It seems that the training effect occurs at as little as ten miles per hour.
I was speaking in relative context to daily activities... If someone's cycling style burns little more calories than housekeeping, that's what I call little health benefit.
55 . Sleeping
85 . Eating-Sitting
100 . Standing
110 . Driving -Cooking (moderate effort)
160 . Housekeeping (moderate)
180 . Shopping (mall or city street shops)
180 . Vacuuming (moderate effort, not self-propelled machine)
240 . Cycling (6mph)
270 . Playing in the pool with kids
290 . Raking leaves
320 . Gardening (general)
400 . Lawn mowing (push type mower)
410 . Cycling (12mph)
430 . Shoveling snow
600 . Cycling (15mph)
However, as you state, fitness (and weight) affects your calories burned. But my point is even at 190 lbs, you still have to cycle leisurely a whole hour to burn off one mars bar...
Most literature I've ever read sets beneficial activity to at least moderate effort. We may agree to disagree on how much effort is beneficial to society. OK. But I'm 'd be willing to bet that out of every 10 BL cyclists, 6 will average speeds less than 10 mph, 3 will average speeds between 10 - 15 mph and only 1 will average above 15 mph. So that the median speed on BLs is probably just under 10mph. That's been my sense of BL riding by the speed I pass by them on the street watching my own speedometer.
Now how that applies to kids (OP), well let's assume under 100 lbs, and mostly under 10 mph, especially when stopping to look four ways at all intersections, mostly less than a half hour,...
For children there is ONE NEARLY SURE WAY to ensure a safe ride to school, Children stop at ALL intersections and BAN RIGHT TURN ON RED.
randya
08-02-07, 02:58 PM
Since the traffic engineers in charge of designing bike lanes and bike paths here now clearly didn't understand safe cycling principles, I have focused my attention on trying to educate them about vehicular cycling. I recently had several planners and engineers attend a Road 1 class that I organized and taught with another local LCI. My thinking is that if they become able to understand the operational issues involved, they will be better able to avoid designing in conflict with best cycling practices.
This is an excellent idea and one well worth persuing with Transportation Departments in cities large and small across the US. I can even think of some transportation planners and engineers in Portland who would probably benefit immensely.
randya
08-02-07, 03:03 PM
I wrote most of the Capitol Area MPO's planning guidelines for Sharrows included in this document:
At the time of this writing, shared use arrows have not been approved by the National Committee on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (NCUTCD), and are considered experimental devices.
this is the crux of the problem. many municipalities, including Portland, are unwilling to use sharrows until they have been 'approved'.
sggoodri
08-02-07, 10:36 PM
Nice job.
this is the crux of the problem. many municipalities, including Portland, are unwilling to use sharrows until they have been 'approved'.
The guidlines document above is dated before some progress was made with NCUTLO, but I believe you are more familiar with the status of shared use arrows than I am.