Google sponsored links
Lots of mention has been made of cycling experts.
Lots of mention has been made by those who dispute that claim.
Who is right?
I think there is a lot of discussion to be made concerning accomodating cyclists in the U.S. After all, we have the internet, a sort of "Gutenburg's Press" of the modern age. Anyone can speak up, and that's good.
What say you?
(Is it possible we have truth on more than only one side?)
This is an archived thread, you can find the full version of this thread, with images, links and more content
here.
Ready to buy? Check out these two online bike stores:
-
http://www.nashbar.com (you can find the latest bike nashbar coupons in
this thread)
-
http://www.performancebike.com (you can find the latest performance bike coupons in
this thread)
Cya on the forums,
- The BikeForums Team
-
http://www.bikeforums.net
Isn't the only One True expert John Forester? To think anything else would be superstition.
Isn't the only One True expert John Forester? To think anything else would be superstition.
In the spirit of the original post, the answer would, of course, be "no."
The basic problem that I see is that traffic bicycling, partially by design and partially by circumstance, is mostly an ad hoc activity in terms of required and organized skill sets. Most people here, you, LBM, me, and most others have basically learned traffic cycling from experience with some guidance from books and the internet. If there is any measure of expertise, IMO, that measure would be experience. If you have been traffic cycling for a while and haven't given up from a perception of danger or intimidation, then you definitely have a skill set which can be equated with expertise.
The only problem with my view is that measuring expertise by using a measure of experience means that traffic cycling is basically an apprenticeship activity which automatically means that newer cyclists who might have good ideas cannot have those ideas correctly evaluated unless someone with more experience has explicitly tried and rejected the idea. In other words, there is a bunch of trails through the forest, but nobody has a full map.
Another problem with this situation is that the "experts" get too attached to their ideas (possibly a "not invented here" syndrome) and cannot give an accurate evaluation of the ideas of other "experts". It's a "I've got my trail through the forest and its the best thing since sliced bread so any other trail through the forest is necessarily flawed". I see a lot of this here, both in the descriptions of the skill set involved as well as in the philosophies used as a basis for advocacy.
my feeling on one purported 'expert' is
with his basis for contemporary american road cycling based on a model of 1950's British roads and drivers, his notions of bike infrastructure rooted in early 1970's plans for accomodations, and his mistaken impression of american cyclists split into two camps only, the competant and the incompetant,
that guy is NOT up to date and NOT an expert, sorry.
A ranting, quixotic lunatic, perhaps, but an expert, hardly.
Lots of mention has been made of cycling experts.
Lots of mention has been made by those who dispute that claim.
Who is right?
I think there is a lot of discussion to be made concerning accomodating cyclists in the U.S. After all, we have the internet, a sort of "Gutenburg's Press" of the modern age. Anyone can speak up, and that's good.
What say you?
(Is it possible we have truth on more than only one side?)
I'm not sure I understand what your post/question is. Do you mean "who is right" or "who are the experts". That question seems more in line with the opening remarks. I'm also assuming you mean "expert in cycling" from a traffic engineering, road, route, and trail design perspective and not "expert in cycling" in the way that Lance A, Sheldon Brown, Grant Peterson, or Cycle America are experts.
There are allot of experts with convincing credentials.
Forrester would certainly be among them, but so would the people at LAB, Adventure Cycling, Rails to Trails Conservancy, Thunderhead Alliance, Bikes Belong Staff, it's required by law for state DOT's to have bicycle coordinators..they should count (but quality may vary), Oberstar and Blumenauer should make any short list, my city and two adjacent to mine have hiried different "expert" consulting firms to help with their bicycle planning, we have a local transit non-profit group with a full time bicycle specialist who I would consider an expert, and in my region we have a full time professional bicycle advocate who lobby's federal, state, and local government to influence cycling laws, grants, and regulation. All experts.
It's not requiried that experts agree with each other. I can't think of a single field where that's the case. Just ask the "experts" in National Security (Iraq), Astronomy (Pluto), Cancer (stem cells), or anything else. So, the "Who's Right" question seems out of place.
Scot
This thread has me contemplating how different the various place Ive lived / commuted
have been. Now I can add a chapter on the WPB area of S. Florida which is by far the
most 'different' (??)than what Im used to. :eek:
All of these places have required a different style of riding than the one before.
An "Expert' is anyone who can adapt and whos quantum thought process would lead
them to believe that no two places are alike and no single type of riding or ideology will
encompass all of those different situations.
At the risk of sounding arrogant.....I am the only 'expert' I listen to.
:)
Sheldon Brown is an expert. other than that, I am an expert on my route.
Who is right?
Who is right about what?
There is no way to answer the question unless it is made more specific.
Lots of mention has been made of cycling experts.
Lots of mention has been made by those who dispute that claim. I'm not sure what you're driving at.
But if you're implying that VC-ism is a brand of cycling expertise, then I'd agree-- that's part of what VC-ism is-- VC-ism is indeed a brand-- a very poorly defined and poorly marketed brand, to be sure, but a brand nonetheless.
If you're further implying that some people have a very low opinion of the VC brand, I'd say you're right on.
If VC-ism were just a brand of expertise, then it might be possible to answer the question of whether VC-ism has any validity (whether VC-ism is right), but VC-ism is also a brand of political opinion (which requires value judgements), for which there is no right or wrong, only bias and preference.
In my personal opinion:
VC-ism is very right about some things: most importantly, the fact that it's possible to ride a bicycle safely on the road and the assertion that, generally, the most effective way to get places on a bicycle is to ride on the road.
VC-ism is very wrong about some things: the whole 'the only way to ride is VC' load of cow manure; the 'anyone who disagrees with us is stupid, mentally defective or otherwise a social deviant load of BS; and, especially, the belief that John Forester knows jack about psychology or social science. It should be obvious to anyone that, regardless of whatever expertise JF may have in the fields of bicycle physics and engineering (where his expertise is far from insignificant), that John Forester doesn't know squat about psychology and his understanding of social science is quite limited (and greatly influenced by his biases). The importance John Forester gives to his ridiculous cyclist inferiority phobia theory is laughable, as are Forester's Captain Queeg-like 'the world is against me/us' conspiracy theories.
John Forester is truly an expert in some aspects of cycling. Unfortunately, he has chosen not to stick with what he knows. His expertise has come to be defined by those things about which he doesn't know squat, by things that are a matter of preference and opinion, and by his truly insulting, condescending style. Some think criticism of Forester is unjustified ("poor John Forester" :rolleyes:). I disagree. As far as I'm concerned, John Forester's repugnant behavior, his incessant personal attacks on those with the audacity to disagree with is wacky theories, has not gotten near the criticism it deserves.
I think there is a lot of discussion to be made concerning accomodating cyclists in the U.S. After all, we have the internet, a sort of "Gutenburg's Press" of the modern age. Anyone can speak up, and that's good.
What say you?It's true that the internet has provided a medium for the exchange of ideas that has, in some cases, allowed ordinary people to come up with solutions and answers that have alluded the experts. But that kind of thing usually takes a great number of normal people. I severely doubt that BikeForums A&S has enough posters for such a thing to occur.
(Is it possible we have truth on more than only one side?)I think it's not just possible. I think it's likely.
The VC brand of expertise has part of the truth. But it doesn't have the whole truth - not even close.
It's not requiried that experts agree with each other.
Exactly.
So, the "Who's Right" question seems out of place.
Given the first quote of yours above, the "Who's Right" question seems quite appropriate.
The variety and experience of cyclists on these forums makes this medium the perfect place to pose such a question. The answers that follow can only cause us to gather more understanding than before.
The VC brand of expertise has part of the truth. But it doesn't have the whole truth - not even close.
Hence, we have a discussion.
What would the search for solutions be without discussion?
One of the problems is expert in what kind of cycling:
Recreational trail riding
Mountain biking
Racing and Tri-athletes
Side path biking
Bike lane biking
Road (club) riding
BMX
Kids cycling (Safe Routes To School)
Utilitarian transportation cycling
Touring
(I am probably forgetting some groups.)
Outside the machine all these sub groups use, there is very little in common. So the first question is should the expert we recognize try and unite as many cycling groups as they can or should each group promote it’s own expert and cause at the expense of the other groups?
I will also mention that I tried to order the list according to popularity, which might have some barring on wither we should unite or fight for our own special interests.
I will also mention that I tried to order the list according to popularity, which might have some barring on wither we should unite or fight for our own special interests.
A very crucial point.
But how?
Don't we all agree on many points?
Isn't it the same problem everyone faces in politics?
From what I've gathered in these forums, people unite on certain issues, but split on others.
Yet we all agree about the freedom to ride a bicycle for transportation, if we choose.
A very crucial point.
But how?
Don't we all agree on many points?
Isn't it the same problem everyone faces in politics?
From what I've gathered in these forums, people unite on certain issues, but split on others.
Yet we all agree about the freedom to ride a bicycle for transportation, if we choose.
The freedom to ride a bike for transportation is what is in the minority, the most at stake issue to be lost and the issue with the least amount of sympathetic supporters (as opposed to riding for fun and exercise.) Most people still don’t get that a bike’s speed efficiency falls somewhere near a car or a bus for urban transit.
Lets say we had some agreement on the bike lane point. The trail riders and Mt bikers would want bike lanes to the trails, the kids would want bike lanes to school, the rodies would want bike lanes on the secondary country roads, the transportation cyclist would want bike lanes on or paralleling major urban arterials and the touring cyclists would want bike lanes on the major highways connecting cities. Basically there is no overlap on the detail even if there is an agreement on a general point.
The general issue is freedom to ride a bicycle. I’ll even take that one step further by adding the freedom to ride your bicycle from your front door without requiring the use of a car to take it some place else that is nice to ride. This is similar too but not identical to using a bicycle for transportation.
Since I personally think the different groups should unite for the most effectiveness and therefore it is the responsibility of the bike advocates to make sure every group gets something. This is somewhat easy as trails are fairly expensive and signed bike routes and bike lanes are relatively cheap. So as long as you can get some money for the transportation side of things you can get a lot of mileage for the buck.
As in a lot of things it is how effectively one can wield public and political support.
The basic problem that I see is that traffic bicycling, partially by design and partially by circumstance, is mostly an ad hoc activity in terms of required and organized skill sets. Most people here, you, LBM, me, and most others have basically learned traffic cycling from experience with some guidance from books and the internet. If there is any measure of expertise, IMO, that measure would be experience. If you have been traffic cycling for a while and haven't given up from a perception of danger or intimidation, then you definitely have a skill set which can be equated with expertise.
The only problem with my view is that measuring expertise by using a measure of experience means that traffic cycling is basically an apprenticeship activity which automatically means that newer cyclists who might have good ideas cannot have those ideas correctly evaluated unless someone with more experience has explicitly tried and rejected the idea. In other words, there is a bunch of trails through the forest, but nobody has a full map.
Another problem with this situation is that the "experts" get too attached to their ideas (possibly a "not invented here" syndrome) and cannot give an accurate evaluation of the ideas of other "experts". It's a "I've got my trail through the forest and its the best thing since sliced bread so any other trail through the forest is necessarily flawed". I see a lot of this here, both in the descriptions of the skill set involved as well as in the philosophies used as a basis for advocacy.
Brian's statement is accurate as far as it goes, but it is entirely inadequate. To be an expert in bicycle transportation requires knowledge and understanding of a wide field of facts and science. Transportation, particularly urban transportation; urban patterns; optics; human factors; bicycle operation; bicycle mechanics; psychology; governmental operations; to name some.
my feeling on one purported 'expert' is
with his basis for contemporary american road cycling based on a model of 1950's British roads and drivers, his notions of bike infrastructure rooted in early 1970's plans for accomodations, and his mistaken impression of american cyclists split into two camps only, the competant and the incompetant,
that guy is NOT up to date and NOT an expert, sorry.
A ranting, quixotic lunatic, perhaps, but an expert, hardly.
1950s British roads and drivers? Never experienced these. 1970s plans for bikeways? Indeed, and the same arrangements and designs apply today. American cyclists split into two camps, competent and incompetent? While this is one of the several dividing lines, these are not two camps.
Not up to date? No facts there; you need to present new facts with which I am unfamiliar, or new opinions that should supersede mine.
By the way, two camps? Yes, indeed, the ranting Bekologist camp and that of more reasonable discussion.
I'm not sure I understand what your post/question is. Do you mean "who is right" or "who are the experts". That question seems more in line with the opening remarks. I'm also assuming you mean "expert in cycling" from a traffic engineering, road, route, and trail design perspective and not "expert in cycling" in the way that Lance A, Sheldon Brown, Grant Peterson, or Cycle America are experts.
There are allot of experts with convincing credentials.
Forrester would certainly be among them, but so would the people at LAB, Adventure Cycling, Rails to Trails Conservancy, Thunderhead Alliance, Bikes Belong Staff, it's required by law for state DOT's to have bicycle coordinators..they should count (but quality may vary), Oberstar and Blumenauer should make any short list, my city and two adjacent to mine have hiried different "expert" consulting firms to help with their bicycle planning, we have a local transit non-profit group with a full time bicycle specialist who I would consider an expert, and in my region we have a full time professional bicycle advocate who lobby's federal, state, and local government to influence cycling laws, grants, and regulation. All experts.
It's not requiried that experts agree with each other. I can't think of a single field where that's the case. Just ask the "experts" in National Security (Iraq), Astronomy (Pluto), Cancer (stem cells), or anything else. So, the "Who's Right" question seems out of place.
Scot
Many "experts" with "convincing credentials"? The trouble is, credentials aren't credible. Take the credentials in bicycle transportation issued by the Federal Highway Administration as the result of taking the FHWA courses in bicycle transportation. The FHWA's students have learned how to apply the FHWA and AASHTO bikeway standards in the approved way. That's true of most bike planners. Since the standards have always been wrong, having originally been designed to make motoring more convenient by discriminating against cyclists, credentials based on naive knowledge of such standards are worthless.
...By the way, two camps? Yes, indeed, the ranting Bekologist camp and that of more reasonable discussion.
Good one!
much snipped
If VC-ism were just a brand of expertise, then it might be possible to answer the question of whether VC-ism has any validity (whether VC-ism is right), but VC-ism is also a brand of political opinion (which requires value judgements), for which there is no right or wrong, only bias and preference.
In my personal opinion:
VC-ism is very right about some things: most importantly, the fact that it's possible to ride a bicycle safely on the road and the assertion that, generally, the most effective way to get places on a bicycle is to ride on the road.
VC-ism is very wrong about some things: the whole 'the only way to ride is VC' load of cow manure; the 'anyone who disagrees with us is stupid, mentally defective or otherwise a social deviant load of BS; and, especially, the belief that John Forester knows jack about psychology or social science. It should be obvious to anyone that, regardless of whatever expertise JF may have in the fields of bicycle physics and engineering (where his expertise is far from insignificant), that John Forester doesn't know squat about psychology and his understanding of social science is quite limited (and greatly influenced by his biases). The importance John Forester gives to his ridiculous cyclist inferiority phobia theory is laughable, as are Forester's Captain Queeg-like 'the world is against me/us' conspiracy theories.
John Forester is truly an expert in some aspects of cycling. Unfortunately, he has chosen not to stick with what he knows. His expertise has come to be defined by those things about which he doesn't know squat, by things that are a matter of preference and opinion, and by his truly insulting, condescending style. Some think criticism of Forester is unjustified ("poor John Forester" :rolleyes:). I disagree. As far as I'm concerned, John Forester's repugnant behavior, his incessant personal attacks on those with the audacity to disagree with is wacky theories, has not gotten near the criticism it deserves.
The VC brand of expertise has part of the truth. But it doesn't have the whole truth - not even close.
JRA claims: "VC-ism is very wrong about some things: the whole 'the only way to ride is VC' load of cow manure." Considering that vehicular cycling concerns only riding on the road, JRA is correct in his claim, but his claim is irrelevant. Vehicular cycling is riding according to the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles. Undoubtedly, there are other ways of cycling on the road that are not in accordance with the rules of the road. Some ways disobey the rules of the road; does JRA advocate those ways? Some ways simply give up some of the rights that apply to drivers of vehicles, such as the right to make a left turn in the vehicular way. That leaves the cyclist able to use the pedestrian method, which is lawful but is generally less effective. Does JRA advocate giving up some rights? While vehicular cycling is not the only way (which supports JRA's claim), it is the best way.
JRA claims: "especially, the belief that John Forester knows jack about psychology or social science. It should be obvious to anyone ... that John Forester doesn't know squat about psychology and his understanding of social science is quite limited (and greatly influenced by his biases)." Well, bicycle advocates have for decades been tying themselves in psychological knots trying to justify their unyielding advocacy of the specific system that was specifically designed by motorists to make motoring more convenient, with the result that it discriminates against cyclists. My applications of psychology and social science to which you object have been to explain this paradoxically absurd behavior. So far as I know, my explanation is the only one that has been advanced to explain this paradoxically absurd behavior. JRA and the other people who object to this explanation do so not because it is inaccurate, but because it accurately describes the motives for their bikeway advocacy. Instead of advocating bikeways, people who care for the welfare of cyclists ought to be advocating vehicular cycling as the proper method and for governmental action to properly accommodate vehicular cyclists.
In my book there are no "experts," but there are quite a few qualified "authorities." To me there's a difference.
Qualified by what? Experience and knowledge.
Some are more qualified than others.
[All of it sniped]
So you are saying that we should all fight for our own special interest then?
So you are saying that we should all fight for our own special interest then?
Of course it is natural for people to advocate their own interests. Therefore, your statement carries little meaning. However, when considering bicycle transportation in American society, it is obvious to a well-informed person that, when considering the welfare of cyclists operating on the roadway, they should operate as drivers of vehicles. That is so obvious that many of you so operate. It is therefore also just as obvious that government and society should arrange their policies to properly accommodate such operation. However, it is plainly obvious that you bicycle advocates fail to consider the welfare of cyclists in your pursuit of some other goal, most probably reducing motoring, and oppose governmental and social action to do what is necessary to correct the defective policies that cause defective operation concerning bicycle transportation. A proper policy regarding bicycle transportation should be based on the welfare of cyclists, not on any other consideration.
Of course it is natural for people to advocate their own interests. Therefore, your statement carries little meaning. However, when considering bicycle transportation in American society, it is obvious to a well-informed person that, when considering the welfare of cyclists operating on the roadway, they should operate as drivers of vehicles. That is so obvious that many of you so operate. It is therefore also just as obvious that government and society should arrange their policies to properly accommodate such operation. However, it is plainly obvious that you bicycle advocates fail to consider the welfare of cyclists in your pursuit of some other goal, most probably reducing motoring, and oppose governmental and social action to do what is necessary to correct the defective policies that cause defective operation concerning bicycle transportation. A proper policy regarding bicycle transportation should be based on the welfare of cyclists, not on any other consideration.
Ah yes the welfare of transportation cyclists, your major concern, which is like being concerned for the safety of Audi A4 (a top safety pick car) drivers by offering only them a special driving safety course. Transportation cyclists are a fairly safe bunch as is and represent only ~2% of the cycling population and that is the focus of your issues? And lets see effective out reach to the transportation cyclists is primarily through bike clubs so those that are transportation cyclists and bike club members is ~0.008% with those actually taking the course would be something like 0.0002% of the cycling population. So somehow magically doing something for 0.0002% of the cycling population is supposed to equate doing something for the general cycling population.
So when people like me bring up the question what about other groups that are over represented in the crash stats such as SUVs? The response is something like well they would be safer if they were driving an Audi and every kind of driver would benefit from a special driving safety course. On one hand you can’t disagree with that logic but on the other hand people are not trading in their SUVs for an Audi and no one is marketing a safety course to SUV owners. All your grandiose words fail to make one bit of difference to segments of the population that represent a significant portion of the bicycle crash statistics. One significant group in bicycle crash stats are kids and nothing you are doing is improving their welfare. Saying they should trade in their sidewalk riding habits for another style without any sort of empowerment is just empty talk and is not improving the welfare of cyclists.
However, it is plainly obvious that you bicycle advocates fail to consider the welfare of cyclists
What a load of hooey from a so-called 'expert'
In practice, expert is a relative term.
What a load of hooey from a so-called 'expert'
not really - why are you guys so adamant about promoting exclusive use of infrastructure, i.e., degrees of sepparation from motor vehicles either through wider lanes, bike lanes or completely disconnected paths, rather than inclusive with everyone treated the same?
not really - why are you guys so adamant about promoting exclusive use of infrastructure, i.e., degrees of sepparation from motor vehicles either through wider lanes, bike lanes or completely disconnected paths, rather than inclusive with everyone treated the same?
"Fully inclusive" with everyone treated the same doesn't work on 50 and 60MPH arterials where motorists are loath to being slowed down.
Fully inclusive works when the road speeds are lower. Just lower the speeds to human scale (vice auto scale) and cyclists and motorists work well together.
I'm never promoting the 'exclusive' use of anything.
but I recognize that roads can be designed to be more cyclist accomodating.
to think otherwise is denial and foolishness.
bikes and 50 MPH arterials are NOT a good mix, despite some -very few- cyclists willing to operate according to the rules of vehicles on these types of roads.
I dispute the value of any 'expert' that fails to recognize the validity of engineering accomodations for bicycling.
"Fully inclusive" with everyone treated the same doesn't work on 50 and 60MPH arterials ... I'm not sure what your definition of "fully inclusive" is, but I've been regularly pedaling in the ordinary travel lanes of such roads for more than a quarter of a century (that's time, not distance;) without getting run over.
... where motorists are loath to being slowed down. What, so there are roads where drivers like having to slow down for someone else? :rolleyes:
I'm not sure what your definition of "fully inclusive" is, but I've been regularly pedaling in the ordinary travel lanes of such roads for more than a quarter of a century (that's time, not distance;) without getting run over.
What, so there are roads where drivers like having to slow down for someone else? :rolleyes:
Fully inclusive eh... so on multilaned busy 50 and 60 MPH roads, you are riding in the travel lane between cars that are attempting to move at the speed limit?
Or are you riding on 50 and 60 MPH "country roads" with sightlines that permit motorists to evaluate you from some distance off.
If you are indeed cycling in the travel lanes of multilaned busy roads with typical speeds of 50 and 60MPH, how do you deal with this type of motorist: http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=321572 those motorists that regularly zip in and out of traffic and have little regard for safe distances and probably don't even see you as they swerve from lane to lane?
Or are you riding in WOL and off to the side where possible... being less than "fully inclusive?"
BTW the "fully inclusive" comment came from an earlier poster that wanted to know why we ask for wider lanes? I can understand sharing the road but keeping to the right, or taking a lane with light traffic and depending on longer sight lines, but are you implying taking a lane on a 50-60MPH arterial with heavy traffic? That is fully inclusive... is that what you do?
And as far as drivers slowing down... they never want to, in spite of the small effort it takes, and what the laws dictate.
...are you implying taking a lane on a 50-60MPH arterial with heavy traffic? That is fully inclusive... is that what you do?...
Yes, you'd be pleasantly suprised that motorists slow down and give a WIDE berth especially if you're in the middle of the lane. I work on the principle that if they can squeeze past without changing lanes then I'm not far enough away from the kerb. Anyway...back to the experts.
... if they can squeeze past without changing lanes then I'm not far enough away from the kerb.+1
Yes, you'd be pleasantly suprised that motorists slow down and give a WIDE berth especially if you're in the middle of the lane. I work on the principle that if they can squeeze past without changing lanes then I'm not far enough away from the kerb. Anyway...back to the experts.
Not here. Did you follow the link to my earlier tale of the motorist that was upset because I was driving a car too slow? (I was giving room to a cyclist)
Probably not.
... how do you deal with ... those motorists that regularly zip in and out of traffic ... The same way almost all the other drivers do; stay in the center of the travel lane (that's what John Franklin call the "primary position") and avoid running into anyone else.
Or are you riding in WOL ... Sometimes I feel comfortable enough with the road/traffic situation to travel in the "secondary position" (toward the edge of the travel lane). While that has the advantage of reducing social pressure from overtaking traffic, that's also the position in which I've experienced a significantly higher percentage of passes that were uncomfortably close when the lane wasn't 13 feet or wider.
... taking a lane on a 50-60MPH arterial with heavy traffic? That is fully inclusive... is that what you do? Yes, unless I feel comfortable with sharing the travel lane with wide traffic that may overtake. BTW, higher speed and dense traffic just means that I have to wait longer for gaps that are long enough for me to merge into.
And as far as drivers slowing down... they never want to... I can't think of anyone I know, whether they're pedaling or motoring, who likes having to slow down.
Not here. Did you follow the link to my earlier tale of the motorist that was upset because I was driving a car too slow? (I was giving room to a cyclist)
Probably not.
The thread where you slowed down and watched him fume? Yeah, that was pretty funny and sad - kudos to you though. Anyway, no, I didn't follow the link, sorry.
So you are saying that we should all fight for our own special interest then?
Of course it is natural for people to advocate their own interests. Therefore, your statement carries little meaning. However, when considering bicycle transportation in American society, it is obvious to a well-informed person that, when considering the welfare of cyclists operating on the roadway, they should operate as drivers of vehicles. That is so obvious that many of you so operate. It is therefore also just as obvious that government and society should arrange their policies to properly accommodate such operation. However, it is plainly obvious that you bicycle advocates fail to consider the welfare of cyclists in your pursuit of some other goal, most probably reducing motoring, and oppose governmental and social action to do what is necessary to correct the defective policies that cause defective operation concerning bicycle transportation. A proper policy regarding bicycle transportation should be based on the welfare of cyclists, not on any other consideration.
The same way almost all the other drivers do; stay in the center of the travel lane (that's what John Franklin call the "primary position") and avoid running into anyone else.
Sometimes I feel comfortable enough with the road/traffic situation to travel in the "secondary position" (toward the edge of the travel lane). While that has the advantage of reducing social pressure from overtaking traffic, that's also the position in which I've experienced a significantly higher percentage of passes that were uncomfortably close when the lane wasn't 13 feet or wider.
Yes, unless I feel comfortable with sharing the travel lane with wide traffic that may overtake. BTW, higher speed and dense traffic just means that I have to wait longer for gaps that are long enough for me to merge into.
Here that could mean waiting until rush hour is finished... as the motorists are driving at 50MPH with about 1 car length distance between each other... no long gaps exist.
I can't think of anyone I know, whether they're pedaling or motoring, who likes having to slow down.
And yet we cyclists insist that others must slow down for us.
And yet we cyclists insist that others must slow down for us."Cyclists" don't insist on that. By law, the act of overtaking and passing is secondary* to every person's right to safe travel in the public ways. In other words, a driver who has decided to travel faster has a legal (and, IMHO, moral) responsibility for not violating the right of way of those who have been overtaken.
*Limitations on privilege of overtaking and passing (http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/HTML/BySection/Chapter_20/GS_20-150.html)
On all roads (even freeways), slow or stopped traffic must always be expected by drivers:
UVC 11-801.Basic rule (http://www.ohiobike.org/NCUTLO/uvc11pt2.htm)
... every person shall drive at a safe and appropriate speed ... when special hazards exist with respect to pedestrians or other traffic ..."
"Cyclists" don't insist on that. By law, the act of overtaking and passing is secondary* to every person's right to safe travel in the public ways. In other words, a driver who has decided to travel faster has a legal (and, IMHO, moral) responsibility for not violating the right of way of those who have been overtaken.
*Limitations on privilege of overtaking and passing (http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/HTML/BySection/Chapter_20/GS_20-150.html)
On all roads (even freeways), slow or stopped traffic must always be expected by drivers:
UVC 11-801.Basic rule (http://www.ohiobike.org/NCUTLO/uvc11pt2.htm)
... every person shall drive at a safe and appropriate speed ... when special hazards exist with respect to pedestrians or other traffic ..."
Yup no problem... except those darn motorists don't know the law. Best you come out west here and inform them. I was told just last week by a driver of an Escalade that "we don't stop for them" in reference to a cyclist in front of me...
Yeah, I know the law... now about the rest of the road users...
Preach all you want about the law... remember that wonderful pic of the cyclist killed in a bike lane with an open car door... by law motorists are supposed to ensure that the way is clear before opening a car door too. Reality bites.
Any idea what the law is regarding drivers text messaging in a moving motor vehicle...
Theory is one thing, reality is quite another.
I'm never promoting the 'exclusive' use of anything.
So you approve of motorist driving in the bike lanes.:roflmao:
communities interested in promoting and advancing bicycling should promote varied types of bicycling infrastructure-
traffic calmed bicycle boulevards, wide outside lanes, sharrows on roads, bike lanes, bike path networks, public service messages, driver education and non-travel bicycling infrastructure like signage, routes, maps, racks, public transit accomodations.
I don't promote bike lanes exclusively, nor the use of bike lanes on every road. No sensible bike advocate promotes only one type of bike facility, or lack thereof.
Theory is one thing, reality is quite another.Scientifically rigourous analysis of "real world" accident data provides the least biased view of reality. Here are some quotes from an April 2007 study: Road safety and perceived risk of cycle facilities in Copenhagen (http://www.ecf.com/files/2/12/16/070503_Cycle_Tracks_Copenhagen.pdf)
An excerpt from the preface:This before-and-after study covers the construction of one-way cycle tracks* and lanes**, blue cycle crossings and raised exits. It is the biggest study of its kind so far carried out in Denmark.* A cycle track is separated from other roads or other parts of the same road by structural means
** cycle lane - a part of a road designated for cycles
From the introduction: ...a comprehensive study to examine the effects cycle facilities in Copenhagen were having on road safety, traffic volumes and perceived risk... The amount of data is enormous with more than 8,500 accidents, 1,500 traffic counts and 1,000 interviews investigated and many results are therefore statistically significant.
From the body of the study:
Road safety of cycle tracks*
The construction of cycle tracks has resulted in a slight drop in the total number of accidents and injuries on the road sections between junctions of 10% and 4% respectively. At junctions on the other hand, the number of accidents and injuries has risen significantly, by 18%. A decline in road safety at junctions has undoubtedly taken place after the construction of cycle tracks. If the figures for the road sections are combined with those for the junctions, an increase of 9-10% in accidents and injuries has taken place.
From the body of the study again:
Road safety of cycle lanes**
The construction of cycle lanes has resulted in an increase in accidents of 5% and 15% more injuries. These increases are not statistically significant. The decline in road safety can be seen both at junctions and on sections. The increases occurred especially amongst cyclists and moped riders where increases in injuries is tendential amounting to 49%.
Scientifically rigourous analysis of "real world" accident data provides the least biased view of reality. Here are some quotes from an April 2007 study: Road safety and perceived risk of cycle facilities in Copenhagen (http://www.ecf.com/files/2/12/16/070503_Cycle_Tracks_Copenhagen.pdf)
An excerpt from the preface:* A cycle track is separated from other roads or other parts of the same road by structural means
** cycle lane - a part of a road designated for cycles
From the introduction:
From the body of the study:
From the body of the study again:
Interesting report, but what does it have to do with 50MPH roads and motorists that drive over the speed limit, exhibit no courtesy to fellow road users, and fail to treat cyclists as drivers of vehicles?
the only "expert" in cycling is NOT the internet, it is NOT books, it IS the RIDER that takes it upon himself to LEARN all he can and know it inside and out, forwards and backwards, to suit HIS own personal needs.
Don't care who the "experts' are, but I trust the opinion of someone who gets out and rides in traffic everyday, rather than someone who vomits pure theory onto the internet.
bikes and 50 MPH arterials are NOT a good mix, despite some -very few- cyclists willing to operate according to the rules of vehicles on these types of roads.
Actually the speed of the arterial isn't very important to me, and in fact if the design speed of the road is faster I can move along more quickly myself. The problem arises with 50 MPH speeds, lanes that are too narrow to support sharing, and too few lanes for easy passing.
My route to my LBS from work takes me from downtown to midtown via Piedmont Avenue. During most of the day traffic is very fast along that stretch. But it's a wide one way arterial, with an ample number of lanes to make passing very easy, so I could really care less about how fast motorized traffic is moving.
You can getting a good idea of Piedmont along this stretch by visiting this link (http://www.bikely.com/maps/bike-path/PiedmontRoute), selecting satellite view, and zooming in on the south/north arterial. The south part of the route is five lanes, after it crosses Ponce De Leon it narrows to fewer lanes and the speed slows down considerably. The southern faster stretch is as easy to cycle as the slower northern stretch, and you can bet I don't delay any motorists along that section.
My route to my LBS from work takes me from downtown to midtown via Piedmont Avenue. During most of the day traffic is very fast along that stretch. But it's a wide one way arterial, with an ample number of lanes to make passing very easy, so I could really care less about how fast motorized traffic is moving.
I love Piedmont's one-way design (except when I want to go the other direction. :p) It's perfect for cycling and using an entire, narrow lane for myself. Sometimes I jaunt over to Publix from work (I work at Piedmont and International) during lunch to pick up goodies.
Hey, Larry, have you met Mike at Intown Bicycles on Monroe by Piedmont Park? Nice guy, nice shop. When I first met him, he told me his shop was "all about bicycle transportation." I patronize him alone, since spreading my "wealth" around would be like a little bit of butter spread over too much bread. :D Of course, the upscale neighborhood surrounding his shop demands a multi-faceted approach to cycling, so he caters to all kinds of folks. He dabbled in recumbents for a while until Burley discontinued building them. Mike commutes from Decatur to Atlanta on his Litespeed, and his employees are regulars.
(Beware the following shameful plug)
http://www.intownbicycles.com/
(BTW, that looks like Mike's Litespeed in the pic. :D )
Larry, I've ridden Piedmont's entire length, all the way to Buckhead, then north up Peachtree past Lenox and Brookhaven until it turns into Peachtree Industrial, and into Chamblee (after that, I detoured parallel past Chamblee Station on into Dunwoody. Fun!) Eventually, Peachtree Industrial becomes a limited-access highway in Doraville, so fuggetaboudit. ;)
But you don't need that artery that far north to Chamblee, anyway. There are so many neighborhood routes through Atlanta, North Decatur, Tucker, etc. that no matter where you go (if you have the stamina) there's a road of your choice to take you there. Just look at a map and explore!
I have to admit, rush hour can be a psychological challenge in some places, but with a map, all things are possible...
:beer:
Oh, but enough about me...
:)
I love Piedmont's one-way design (except when I want to go the other direction. :p) It's perfect for cycling and using an entire, narrow lane for myself. Sometimes I jaunt over to Publix from work (I work at Piedmont and International) during lunch to pick up goodies.
Hey, Larry, have you met Mike at Intown Bicycles on Monroe by Piedmont Park? Nice guy, nice shop. When I first met him, he told me his shop was "all about bicycle transportation." I patronize him alone, since spreading my "wealth" around would be like a little bit of butter spread over too much bread. :D Of course, the upscale neighborhood surrounding his shop demands a multi-faceted approach to cycling, so he caters to all kinds of folks. He dabbled in recumbents for a while until Burley discontinued building them. Mike commutes from Decatur to Atlanta on his Litespeed, and his employees are regulars.
(Beware the following shameful plug)
http://www.intownbicycles.com/
(BTW, that looks like Mike's Litespeed in the pic. :D )
Larry, I've ridden Piedmont's entire length, all the way to Buckhead, then north up Peachtree past Lenox and Brookhaven until it turns into Peachtree Industrial, and into Chamblee (after that, I detoured parallel past Chamblee Station on into Dunwoody. Fun!) Eventually, Peachtree Industrial becomes a limited-access highway in Doraville, so fuggetaboudit. ;)
But you don't need that artery that far north to Chamblee, anyway. There are so many neighborhood routes through Atlanta, North Decatur, Tucker, etc. that no matter where you go (if you have the stamina) there's a road of your choice to take you there. Just look at a map and explore!
I have to admit, rush hour can be a psychological challenge in some places, but with a map, all things are possible...
:beer:
Oh, but enough about me...
:)
Intown Bicycles is the LBS I use, and I know Mike well. In fact the link I posted to my map of Piedmont in this thread was really a route from downtown to Intown Bicycles (straight up Piedmont, right on 10th, left on Monroe). I was there Thursday, spent too much money, and chatted with Mike for awhile.
Actually the speed of the arterial isn't very important to me, and in fact if the design speed of the road is faster I can move along more quickly myself. The problem arises with 50 MPH speeds, lanes that are too narrow to support sharing, and too few lanes for easy passing.
It might not matter to you, but I would add that to many people the problem arises with speeds under 50 mph as well. I'll wager many cyclists would say speeds of 35-50 would preclude them riding a route.
It might not matter to you, but I would add that to many people the problem arises with speeds under 50 mph as well. I'll wager many cyclists would say speeds of 35-50 would preclude them riding a route.
If I were unwilling to interact with traffic in the 35-40 MPH range I'd never be able to leave my street. Is
this the bar you want to set for transportational cycling?
Previous -
Top -
Next
Copyright 1999 - 2007
BikeForums.Net - All rights reserved.
Common bike forum topics in clue bicycles, cycling, mountain biking,
cycling jerseys, shorts, socks, shoes and bike equiptment selection.