Does John Forester still ride a bike?

[genec]

You criticize my psychological hypothesis because I do not have a degree in psychology. By the same standard, I presume that all of your opinions about cycling are completely illegitimate because you have no certificate in bicycle transportation? Opinions need to be evaluated on their content, not on the degrees held by their creators.


Does anyone hold "a certificate for bicycle transportation?" Is such a certificate available at any accredited institution?


While you base your argument on your claim that many cyclists support bikeways, you have not advanced any explanation of why they do so. Why should cyclists support the precise system which was designed to keep them under control as incompetent road users? You have not advanced any such reason, and those that others have advanced have been found insufficient. Why not apply your vaunted ability at detecting cults to cyclists' support of bikeways when there is no other reason than psychological for that support?

The relevant aspects of much of road design is nothing more than psycological... the center line in the middle of the road is nothing more than a simple line of paint, which due to the psycological aspects it conveys, manages to guide motorists, but offers no intrinsic margin of safety. Traffic calming techniques are based primarily on the psycological reactions of motorists to certain objects and situations in their path.

Why do cyclists appreciate bikeways? Simply due to the lack of other larger, faster, noisier vehicles not sharing said bikeways... thus offering cyclists the psycological reward of "owning their own space," vice the constant struggle of being ever on the alert for such things as distracted motorists moving at excessive speeds and unaware (or uncaring) of any other dissimilar vehicles... which motorists are quite willing to do.

In spite of the legal aspects of "vehicles" sharing the roads, the obvious physical aspects are quite relevant, yet fully disregarded except by all those with basic common sense.

[John Forester]

john's wacky theories do not make sense. There are MANY bicyclists- that know full well how to ride 'according to the rules of the road' that understand bicycling infrastructure can be a benefit to bicycling in communities.

I hypothise john foresters' claims of 'competant or incompetant' bicyclists is flawed and does NOT accurately represent the bicycling public.

There are many, many bicyclists that 'understand how to bicycle according to the rules of the road'
that will not ride all roads all the time.

'inferiority complexes' have little to do with personal choice regarding safety while on a bicycle.

vehicular bicycling is smart, aware bicycling, including use of bicycling infrastructure when appropriate without judgment or political analysis.


remember, bicyclists like john can ride in bike lanes in cities like lemon grove as a vehicular bicyclist, riding according to the rules of the road for vehicles. slower traffic keep right....


forestorite VCism- cult of personality, a politically polarizing ideologue that attempts to find fault with those that disagree with the foresterite POV.

"There are MANY bicyclists- that know full well how to ride 'according to the rules of the road' that understand bicycling infrastructure can be a benefit to bicycling in communities." It matters not whether or not these persons know how to ride according to the rules of the road; that's irrelevant to the discussion. The issue concerns how bikeways (which is the only part of bicycling infrastructure that I oppose) "can be a benefit to bicycling in communities." Benefit to bicycling in communities? What on Earth does that mean? Does this entity "bicycling" have like and dislikes, pain and satisfaction, psychological needs, or for that matter hunger? Your statement is just weasel words, words that sound as though they mean something when all they do is transfer superstition.

If bikeways confer benefit, the benefit that should be first considered is that to cyclists, who are people. The benefits to people have not been accurately described. Of course, bikeway construction benefits cities by bringing in money that has been collected nationwide, but I think that is rarely considered openly, except in political meetings.

You claim that " There are many, many bicyclists that 'understand how to bicycle according to the rules of the road' that will not ride all roads all the time." So what? The reason that you give is that: "'inferiority complexes' have little to do with personal choice regarding safety while on a bicycle." This claim is completely false. The choices made by the majority of people regarding safety while on a bicycle reflect their own opinions, and their own opinions do determine the kinds of roads on which they will cycle. I suspect that you agree with this statement, as I do.

While I think that we agree about the power of opinions in influencing behavior, there is a basic disagreement about facts. The opinions about cycling safety held by most people are largely based on the volume and speed of same-direction motor traffic, which is only a minor factor in accidents to cyclists. Basing one's actions regarding supposed safety on the minor factor instead of on the sum of all the major factors is a psychological error, accurately described as the cyclist-inferiority phobia, according to the standard criteria for phobias, except that of rarity.

[Bekologist]

quoting jf... "weasel words"

:roflmao:

john, your tired diatribe speaks volumes of your delusions, buddy.

There are many, many bicyclists that 'understand how to bicycle according to the rules of the road' that will not ride all roads all the time." So what?

what do you say? you don't care about bicyclists not comfortable on all roads all the time? what a callous disregard for bicyclists.

what gives john? pathetic, like I've said in this thread. you merit pity and scorn.

[John Forester]

Does anyone hold "a certificate for bicycle transportation?" Is such a certificate available at any accredited institution?

rest snipped



The Federal Highway Administration hands out certificates to those who have taken its courses in bicycle transportation. The same FHWA has an ongoing program to establish these courses in at least one university institution in each state. I have the proposed curriculum on my shelf.

Of course, in my opinion, the FHWA courses are worse than useless; they are harmful.

And, do not forget, I taught the first university-level, professional-education courses in bicycle transportation, for the University of California at Berkeley, and for which certificates were given.

[Bekologist]

maybe I should have said "BICYCLISTS".... man, and he calls ME a weasel....pathetic.

Benefit to bicycling in communities? What on Earth does that mean? Does this entity "bicycling" have like and dislikes, pain and satisfaction, psychological needs, or for that matter hunger? Your statement is just weasel words, words that sound as though they mean something when all they do is transfer superstition.

yes, john, bicyclists DO have likes and dislikes, pain and discomfort and satisfaction......

I'm going to ask again.... john, you no longer ride daily for transportation or utility bicycling, no longer ride to the store, is that correct? You've been seduced by the ease and convienence of the automobile for how long now?

when did you stop riding to the grocery store for your groceries? 30 years ago?
did you EVER ride on a regular basis to the grocery store as a dedicated transportational bicyclist?

[John Forester]

snip regarding certificate courses in bicycle transportation.



The relevant aspects of much of road design is nothing more than psycological... the center line in the middle of the road is nothing more than a simple line of paint, which due to the psycological aspects it conveys, manages to guide motorists, but offers no intrinsic margin of safety. Traffic calming techniques are based primarily on the psycological reactions of motorists to certain objects and situations in their path.

Why do cyclists appreciate bikeways? Simply due to the lack of other larger, faster, noisier vehicles not sharing said bikeways... thus offering cyclists the psycological reward of "owning their own space," vice the constant struggle of being ever on the alert for such things as distracted motorists moving at excessive speeds and unaware (or uncaring) of any other dissimilar vehicles... which motorists are quite willing to do.

In spite of the legal aspects of "vehicles" sharing the roads, the obvious physical aspects are quite relevant, yet fully disregarded except by all those with basic common sense.

You assert that the action of the centerline stripe is purely psychological and offers no intrinsic margin of safety. This is false. Centerlines are used only where there is sufficient roadway width to accommodate two cars in opposing directions. They therefore inform each driver that he can proceed without having to concern himself with a collision caused by inadequate width. Furthermore, the centerline is backed up by the force of law.

You say that bikeways offer cyclists the psychological reward of owning their own space, with other amplification in your own words. I think that that is a reasonably accurate description of the feeling, but, unfortunately, it is an entirely inaccurate description of the facts. Bike paths that interact with motor traffic do not provide ownership of the cyclist's own space; they require negotiation with the motorists with whom the cyclists must interact. Bike lane systems, by definition, are not space owned by the cyclist, but require exactly the same traffic skills as are required without the bike-lane stripe, and, indeed, a few more besides.

It is the contradiction between the belief and the fact that makes current bicycle advocacy an exercise in absurdity. That's not to say that society sometimes produces absurdities, for it often does, but what is most absurd about this situation is the vehement advocacy by bicyclists for the false belief.

[Bekologist]

absurd, you say?

[John Forester]

maybe I should have said "BICYCLISTS".... man, and he calls ME a weasel....pathetic.



yes, john, bicyclists DO have likes and dislikes, pain and discomfort and satisfaction......

I'm going to ask again.... you no longer ride daily for transportation or utility bicycling, no longer ride to the store, is that correct? You've been seduced by the ease and conveinence of the automobile for how long now?

when did you stop riding to the grocery store? 30 years ago? did you EVER ride to the grocery store?

Well, your argument would be more easily understood if you used correct English.

Have I regularly cycled to the grocery store? Yes, when I was living away from home with only my bicycle for transportation; months at a time, on occasion. When did I last ride to the grocery store? A few months ago, as I remember, about a mile each way, to that store. I don't like shopping and I don't usually shop in the small quantities possible by bicycle. However, until quite recently I cycled from a different grocery store quite frequently. I would ride to meet Dorris after her work, and on the homeward ride we would do whatever shopping was necessary and possible. That is, a ride of three miles or so from the grocery store as part of a ride of at least 22 miles by the shortest route, and 30 miles with lots of hills by any of the interesting routes.

[Bekologist]

hmm, I always shop using a bicycle.

"living away from home" with only your bicycle for transportation? what does that mean, when you were a teenager in college, 50 years ago???? you really DO subscribe to the auto superiority complex...

"small quantities"? I'm quite sure you don't understand utility bicycling.

the semantics of the words 'bicycling' and 'bicyclists' allow you to call me a weasel?

how intellectually highbrow of you, john.

[John Forester]

quoting jf... "weasel words"

:roflmao:

john, your tired diatribe speaks volumes of your delusions, buddy.



what do you say? you don't care about bicyclists not comfortable on all roads all the time? what a callous disregard for bicyclists.

what gives john? pathetic, like I've said in this thread. you merit pity and scorn.

Well, Bekologist, you have finally admitted your reasoning. Bike-lane stripes make some cyclists feel comfortable. It's not about safety, not about skill, not about legitimacy, only about comfort, and you criticize me for being callous about the comfort of cyclists. I write to you, Bekologist, that I am greatly concerned with the safety and legitimacy of cyclists, and the skill to operate safely and lawfully, far more concerned about those aspects of cycling than about a feeling of comfort that misleads people into decisions that make achievement of the more important goals less likely.

[Bekologist]

no, john, its much more than that.

bike lane stripes can encourage bicycling.

bicyclists can ride vehicularly in a well provided bike lane.

bike lanes can move riders away from the edge of the road, into a more visible, safer road position.

bike lanes can discourage curb hugging and darting in and out of parked cars.

bike lanes can correctly position thru cyclists to the left of right turning traffic at major intersections. bike lanes can make a distinctly uncomfortable road more palatable for even the most diehard vehicular bicyclists.

bike lanes legitimize road travel for bicyclists to other road users.

bike lanes condition drivers to expect to encounter bicyclists on the road.

bike lanes can make a community more conducive for bicycling.

your diatribe regarding cyclist inferiority and motorist superiority is what is absurd. you prostitute bicycling to the supremacy of automobile travel. you blindly refuse to recognize the effectiveness of efforts in cities around the world that HAVE encouraged greater bicycling for transportation.

your denial and angry diatribe merits pity, john.

[I-Like-To-Bike]

instead of the personal attack on JF's ideas (they can be a little strange but ultimately they make sense and fit the problem) please explain an alternative theory/hypothesis/reason and/or why he's wrong

You could do a dang search. But don't bother. JF has given you the answers that make sense to you and fit "the problem." Given that you think Forester Brand Science, Risk Analysis Techniques and Statistical Manipulations "make sense", nothing will convince you to alter your beliefs.

[I-Like-To-Bike]

If I have read more into your [JRA] writing than you think you have put into it, I think that error is understandable considering your actual writings.

IF? Ha! Forester routinely distorts others' writing and "reads" hidden messages and twisted meanings to criticize. It is a typical Forester method for debating straw man arguments of his own creation, and ignoring the valid arguments actually written by others.

Error? Forester's errors in "reading" others' writings fit 100% into his pattern of deliberate sophistry.

[The Human Car]

Benefit to bicycling in communities? What on Earth does that mean? Does this entity "bicycling" have like and dislikes, pain and satisfaction, psychological needs, or for that matter hunger? Your statement is just weasel words, words that sound as though they mean something when all they do is transfer superstition.


-100 Even a two year old can understand a "benefit to bicycling in communities" translates to a benefit to the activity of riding a bike in communities and those who would engaged in that activity would be people. It is your argument that is a weasel argument and serves no constructive purpose at all.

Let’s see if JF's insistence that cyclist is a better substitute here. A MUP that is within easy driving distance satisfies many peoples understanding of "benefit to cyclists in communities" but does not satisfy "benefit to bicycling in communities." "Benefit to bicycling in communities" gives a stronger sense of accommodating bike riding within the community by not only current cyclists but by potential new cyclists as well. But JF prefers usage that discourages the consideration of potentially new cyclists and dislikes the notion that the stress of riding a bike should be done within communities.

Totally, totally useless argument by JF.

[John Forester]

Bekologist asks the following question regarding my habits:

did you EVER ride on a regular basis to the grocery store as a dedicated transportational bicyclist?[/b]

I now see Bekologist's intent in pursuing this question; therefore I answer it now.

I was never a dedicated transportational bicyclist. I cycle because I enjoy cycling and have found that I can often combine enjoyment with useful transportation. Bekologist is free to carry on his life as he chooses, unusual though it probably is. For that matter, he is free to advocate that more people decide to live as he does. However, his way of life is not the criterion for being a cyclist, and has nothing at all to do with expert knowledge of bicycle transportation. Furthermore, his effort to persuade government to operate as if his way of life were public policy deeply involves him in the irrational tangle of bicycle advocacy, advocating the system that was designed to limit cyclists rather than benefit them. Bekologist is a bigot whose advice should be shunned as publicly harmful.

[John Forester]

-100 Even a two year old can understand a "benefit to bicycling in communities" translates to a benefit to the activity of riding a bike in communities and those who would engaged in that activity would be people. It is your argument that is a weasel argument and serves no constructive purpose at all.

Let’s see if JF's insistence that cyclist is a better substitute here. A MUP that is within easy driving distance satisfies many peoples understanding of "benefit to cyclists in communities" but does not satisfy "benefit to bicycling in communities." "Benefit to bicycling in communities" gives a stronger sense of accommodating bike riding within the community by not only current cyclists but by potential new cyclists as well. But JF prefers usage that discourages the consideration of potentially new cyclists and dislikes the notion that the stress of riding a bike should be done within communities.

Totally, totally useless argument by JF.

THC argues that "benefit to bicycling in communities" means better accommodation for bike riding within a community, which better accommodation will increase the amount of bicycling that is done within that community. He asserts, among other things, that I oppose something that he describes as "the notion that the stress of riding a bike should be done within communities." I suppose that THC means communities of humans, but then most cycling is done within such communities. It puzzles me that THC thinks that I oppose cycling within human communities. I think that THC is arguing that when X provides "benefit to cycling in communities" the statement means that X will increase the amount of cycling done in the area affected by X. Well, then, say what you mean rather than hiding behind weasel words that can mean anything at all. Clear statements allow the subject to be discussed rationally.

[John Forester]

To all of you who have been concerned about my weight, irrelevant though that concern is to this discussion.

I now weigh 6 pounds more than my best racing weight. My best racing weight was 165 pounds; if I dropped below that weight, my endurance suffered. I now weigh 171 pounds. However, the shape is different, as I have commented before.

[John Forester]

I stand by my statement.

jf is out of touch, and he merits pity for his delusions.

They sent him sacking from the League, dontchyaknow??? His delusions were interfering with advancing bicycling in America.

I certainly lost re-election to my position as director for the LAB. That reflects a difference in opinion, not necessarily a delusion. I advocated that the League base its policy upon support of vehicular cyclists rather than for bikeways and incompetent cycling on them, as designed by the motoring establishment. There are good reasons for my position, and it appears that none of those in these forums have been able to refute them. The other side bases its argument on the hypothesis that bikeways increase the amount of cycling sufficiently to reduce motoring. This effect, while desired by those, has never been demonstrated anywhere. If there is to be discussion of delusions, that subject is best discussed in terms of the failure of the bikeway hypothesis.

[The Human Car]

THC argues that "benefit to bicycling in communities" means better accommodation for bike riding within a community, which better accommodation will increase the amount of bicycling that is done within that community. He asserts, among other things, that I oppose something that he describes as "the notion that the stress of riding a bike should be done within communities." I suppose that THC means communities of humans, but then most cycling is done within such communities. It puzzles me that THC thinks that I oppose cycling within human communities. I think that THC is arguing that when X provides "benefit to cycling in communities" the statement means that X will increase the amount of cycling done in the area affected by X. Well, then, say what you mean rather than hiding behind weasel words that can mean anything at all. Clear statements allow the subject to be discussed rationally.
My point to JF is that you are nit picking just to nit pick. My point to Bek is not to be bullied by JF’s nit pick as Bek’s wording is more concise for his intentions than what JF suggested as a substitute.

[markhr]

no, john, its much more than that.

bike lane stripes can encourage bicycling.

bicyclists can ride vehicularly in a well provided bike lane.

bike lanes can move riders away from the edge of the road, into a more visible, safer road position.

bike lanes can discourage curb hugging and darting in and out of parked cars.

bike lanes can correctly position thru cyclists to the left of right turning traffic at major intersections. bike lanes can make a distinctly uncomfortable road more palatable for even the most diehard vehicular bicyclists.

bike lanes legitimize road travel for bicyclists to other road users.

bike lanes condition drivers to expect to encounter bicyclists on the road.

bike lanes can make a community more conducive for bicycling.

your diatribe regarding cyclist inferiority and motorist superiority is what is absurd. you prostitute bicycling to the supremacy of automobile travel. you blindly refuse to recognize the effectiveness of efforts in cities around the world that HAVE encouraged greater bicycling for transportation.

your denial and angry diatribe merits pity, john.

If bike lanes are in place then, yes, some cyclists may see them as necessary but if the cyclists then come across roads without cycle lanes they are more likely to be discouraged. At least with VC every road can be treated the same way.

How is riding next to traffic, effectively passing on the inside and especially at junctions being in completely the wrong place vehicular. Bike lanes do not encourage good road positioning.

The only bike lanes I've seen bar one (across a bridge in London) are on the inside of the road usually either next to parked cars or with gaps in it to allow for parked cars. Hardly conducive to a smooth, safe ride especially when you need to keep switching into traffic to go around them. Rather stay in the main traffic lanes and ignore the bike lanes. At least then you behave in a predictable manner rather than weaving along on the inside.

Bike lanes are hardly ever, in my experience, in the right place at junctions. Without exception they are inside the turning radius of the turning traffic and in the turn only lane. There have been a number of cyclist fatalities, especially of female cyclists, in London who apparently were following the bikelane stripe up the inside of a turning vehicle. Suffice to say they were crushed when the cyclist attempted to go straight and the vehicle, in it's turn only lane, continued to turn. Yes, there are visibility issues but the bike lanes effectively encourage cyclists to cycle badly in the first place. Rather have them use their vehicle driving experience on the bicycle and use signalling, road postioning, and so on for a safe vehicular ride.

Bike lanes may act as a nervous riders safety blanket but they do nothing to reinforce good vehicular cycling. If anything they continue on the "I am a cyclist and shouldn't be in traffic, I'm a driver and that cyclist shouldn't be in traffic" mentality.

Bike lanes only reinforce the driver's perception that cyclists are not vehicles have no place in the main body of traffic. What would work better bicycles painted at each central lane arrow at every junctrion and every hundred meters or so or a thin strip on the edge of the road? If people only ever expect cyclists outside the main body of traffic then, again, it re-inforces the perception that cyclists aren't vehicular. What happens then is either conflict when those drivers come across vehicular cyclists or encouragement to stay out of the traffic, off the road and use pedestrian facilities.

It's not about JF - it's about trying to cycle in a safe and responsible manner.

[genec]

The Federal Highway Administration hands out certificates to those who have taken its courses in bicycle transportation. The same FHWA has an ongoing program to establish these courses in at least one university institution in each state. I have the proposed curriculum on my shelf.

Of course, in my opinion, the FHWA courses are worse than useless; they are harmful.

And, do not forget, I taught the first university-level, professional-education courses in bicycle transportation, for the University of California at Berkeley, and for which certificates were given.

Wait a minute... the FHWA has a course which you consider useless.

You taught a course which you apparently consider valid. Who established that validity?

So if I understand this circular thinking correctly... you consider yourself the only one qualified to teach a bicycle transportation course; you no doubt have awarded yourself a certificate from your course, and you consider no other course valid; and you question the thinking of virtually any cyclist that is currently posting on BF as being invalid as they do not hold a certificate.

So in effect only those that think like you, and have taken your course (has this been peer reviewed... oh wait how could you have peers if one must take your course before being considered "valid") can be considered to hold a valid certificate in bicycle transportation.

Smacks of meglomania to me.

[genec]

You assert that the action of the centerline stripe is purely psychological and offers no intrinsic margin of safety. This is false. Centerlines are used only where there is sufficient roadway width to accommodate two cars in opposing directions. They therefore inform each driver that he can proceed without having to concern himself with a collision caused by inadequate width. Furthermore, the centerline is backed up by the force of law.

John, bike lanes are backed up by that same exact force of law.
And there is no intrinsic safety in either the line of paint at the center of the road nor at the side of the road... it is simply a line of paint... backed by law.


You say that bikeways offer cyclists the psychological reward of owning their own space, with other amplification in your own words. I think that that is a reasonably accurate description of the feeling, but, unfortunately, it is an entirely inaccurate description of the facts. Bike paths that interact with motor traffic do not provide ownership of the cyclist's own space; they require negotiation with the motorists with whom the cyclists must interact. Bike lane systems, by definition, are not space owned by the cyclist, but require exactly the same traffic skills as are required without the bike-lane stripe, and, indeed, a few more besides.

It is the contradiction between the belief and the fact that makes current bicycle advocacy an exercise in absurdity. That's not to say that society sometimes produces absurdities, for it often does, but what is most absurd about this situation is the vehement advocacy by bicyclists for the false belief.

By the way, for the sake of argument, are we discussing bike lanes, bike paths or what? The "bikeway" terminology as you use it is too generic. There is a VAST difference between a bike lane on a road and an isolated Bike Path which I refered to in my earlier comment as offering a cyclist the feeling that they own the space.

[John Forester]

Wait a minute... the FHWA has a course which you consider useless.

You taught a course which you apparently consider valid. Who established that validity?

So if I understand this circular thinking correctly... you consider yourself the only one qualified to teach a bicycle transportation course; you no doubt have awarded yourself a certificate from your course, and you consider no other course valid; and you question the thinking of virtually any cyclist that is currently posting on BF as being invalid as they do not hold a certificate.

So in effect only those that think like you, and have taken your course (has this been peer reviewed... oh wait how could you have peers if one must take your course before being considered "valid") can be considered to hold a valid certificate in bicycle transportation.

Smacks of meglomania to me.

You shouldn't be extending a bit of irony beyond all realism into utter fantasy. When so extended, it fails.

I do not question the thinking of most BF writers because they do not hold a certificate. I was responding to the assertion that my hypothesis regarding the cyclist-inferiority phobia cannot be accurate because I do not have a degree in psychology. In short, I was questioning the use of formal qualifications as the sole means of evaluating an hypothesis, rather than advocating that use. You just have got it wrong way round.

Then you go into the whole question of valid opinions regarding bicycle transportation. As we know, there are two main views, the vehicular-cycling view and the incompetent cycling on bikeways view. In my course I taught the vehicular-cycling view; the FHWA course teaches the incompetent cycling on bikeways view, as the means of complying with FHWA criteria for getting funds. At least, the University of California recognized the validity of the vehicular-cycling view, and dropped its course only because the FHWA offered its course at no cost, and at some political advantage, to the students.

You seem to view those who hold the vehicular-cycling view as being megalomanic. Since the vehicular-cycling view is in accordance with traffic law and traffic engineering, I think that it doesn't fit your description. On the other hand, the incompetent cycling on bikeways view, because it contradicts traffic law and standard traffic engineering principles, because its facilities were designed by motorists to institutionalize the view of cyclists as incompetent children, and because it is based on a hope of making a significant switch from motor to bicycle transportation, appears to me to be based on delusion, and when delusion is strongly promoted that activity is megalomanic.

[Bekologist]

bullshizzle. no bike advocate advocates for incompetant bicycling.

there is not a dogmatic rift between vehicular cycling and jhon's mischaracterized 'incompetant bicycling'. what artifice.

vehicular bicyclists can advocate for bike specific roadway infrastructure, well designed and implemented, to accomodate bicyclists on public roads.

[John Forester]

John, bike lanes are backed up by that same exact force of law.
And there is no intrinsic safety in either the line of paint at the center of the road nor at the side of the road... it is simply a line of paint... backed by law.



By the way, for the sake of argument, are we discussing bike lanes, bike paths or what? The "bikeway" terminology as you use it is too generic. There is a VAST difference between a bike lane on a road and an isolated Bike Path which I refered to in my earlier comment as offering a cyclist the feeling that they own the space.

The bike-lane stripe is not backed by law in the same way that the centerline stripe is. Even you so-called experts cannot decide the meaning of a bike-lane stripe. In some areas it mandates that the cyclist stay to the right, unless he has an acceptable excuse, while other areas don't make that requirement.

You object to my use of the term "bikeways". I use that term as it is used in the law and the regulations, to specify bicycle paths, bicycle lanes, and bicycle routes used for transportation. Of course, bicycle routes are largely out of the discussion, as they appear to be harmless.

Your complaint suggests that now you consider that only "isolated Bike Path[s]" produce in cyclists the feeling that they own the space. Well, that removes that excuse for all the other types of bikeways.

[John Forester]

My point to JF is that you are nit picking just to nit pick. My point to Bek is not to be bullied by JF’s nit pick as Bek’s wording is more concise for his intentions than what JF suggested as a substitute.

Accuracy is always preferable to slogans.

[Bekologist]

i suspect there are incompetant vehicular bicyclists.

[Bekologist]

I certainly lost re-election to my position as director for the LAB. That reflects a difference in opinion, not necessarily a delusion. I advocated that the League base its policy upon support of vehicular cyclists rather than for bikeways and incompetent cycling on them, as designed by the motoring establishment. There are good reasons for my position, and it appears that none of those in these forums have been able to refute them. The other side bases its argument on the hypothesis that bikeways increase the amount of cycling sufficiently to reduce motoring. This effect, while desired by those, has never been demonstrated anywhere. If there is to be discussion of delusions, that subject is best discussed in terms of the failure of the bikeway hypothesis.

You were sent packing. your delusions made it necessary to send you on your way. otherwise, your beliefs, supossedly so sensible, would have made the premier bicycling advocacy group in america embrace your policies. why did you get sent packing? the LAB's members had no interest in your methodology and dogmatism. are you going to call the LAB nothing but incompetant bicyclists now? :rolleyes:

You are deluded, your methods blow, and you are in denial of your damage to american bicycling advocacy.

[Bekologist]

The other side bases its argument on the hypothesis that bikeways increase the amount of cycling sufficiently to reduce motoring.

no john, bike infrastructure increases bicycling in communities. i could care less about the motorists that continue to choose driving.

[John Forester]

bullshizzle. no bike advocate advocates for incompetant bicycling.

there is not a dogmatic rift between vehicular cycling and jhon's mischaracterized 'incompetant bicycling'. what artifice.

vehicular bicyclists can advocate for bike specific roadway infrastructure, well designed and implemented, to accomodate bicyclists on public roads.

Yes, "vehicular bicyclists can [properly] advocate for bike specific roadway infrastructure, well designed and implemented, to accommodate bicyclists on public roads." The difficulty with your belief is that when those criteria are taken into account, with the accepted traffic-engineering and traffic-operating principles that they require, the result is not the bikeways that you advocate, but roads designed for vehicular cycling rather than for incompetent cycling. Naturally, for the past thirty years I have always argued for roads designed for vehicular cycling, just as you say I should.

The trouble with you and your associates, Bekologist, is that you start from bikeways that contradict standard traffic-engineering and traffic-operating principles and try to force justification for them (which results only in excuses), rather than starting with the standard knowledge and using it to design facilities that properly accommodate bicycle traffic. You start with bikeways, not because they are the proper design, but because public superstition about cycling believes them to make cycling safe, and because motorists recognize that bikeways do something to keep cyclists out of motorists' way.

[markhr]

You were sent packing. your delusions made it necessary to send you on your way. otherwise, your beliefs, supossedly so sensible, would have made the premier bicycling advocacy group in america embrace your policies. why did you get sent packing? the LAB's members had no interest in your methodology and dogmatism. are you going to call the LAB nothing but incompetant bicyclists now? :rolleyes:

You are deluded, your methods blow, and you are in denial of your damage to american bicycling advocacy.

dude - seriously get a grip please. Can we stop arguing about your obvious dislike for JF and start arguing facts please.

So far JF has produced reasonable and lucid argument while you don't appear to. As I've said before it's not about JF, it's about cycling safely and responsibly and arguments for and againt the various methods. Yes, there is more than one method but I don't belive that all are safe nor do I feel that all encourage good cycling practice.

[John Forester]

I stated: "The other side bases its argument on the hypothesis that bikeways increase the amount of cycling sufficiently to reduce motoring."

To which Bekologist replied:

no john, bike infrastructure increases bicycling in communities. i could care less about the motorists that continue to choose driving.

That may be your personal opinion, or it may not be, but we have seen, both in these forums and in the official excuse for bikeways, the claims that bikeways are justified by the hoped-for reduction in motoring. Which is exactly what I wrote.

Considering your other statements in these forums, many about me, I rather think that your reticence about the absence of anti-motoring among your own motives is disingenuous.

Your statement, insofar as it concerns the controversial aspects, is that bikeways (rather than non-controversial bike infrastructure) are justified by the increase in bicycling that is produced, and regardless of whether or not that bicycling is done safely in accordance with the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles. In short, you are entirely willing to use the cyclist-inferiority superstition as a means of increasing bicycling, because that is the appeal of bikeways that were designed to keep cyclists in their inferior place.

I think that an increase in cycling would be a good thing, but I think that an improvement in the behavior of cyclists would be better. Better still, of course, would be both. That's very different from your view.

[genec]

The bike-lane stripe is not backed by law in the same way that the centerline stripe is. Even you so-called experts cannot decide the meaning of a bike-lane stripe. In some areas it mandates that the cyclist stay to the right, unless he has an acceptable excuse, while other areas don't make that requirement.
The bike lane stripe is backed by the same agency in California that backs all the laws that govern the road, and this is true on a state by state basis. BTW the strength of the laws regarding that strip on the road are no stronger nor weaker than the laws that govern motorists speeding... which in fact also includes the basic speed laws which by definition allow "excuses" for motorists speeding.

BTW If need be I can quote the law regarding bike lanes in CA... so for you to say that the "...stripe is not backed by law in the same way that the centerline stripe is..." is indeed patently false.


You object to my use of the term "bikeways". I use that term as it is used in the law and the regulations, to specify bicycle paths, bicycle lanes, and bicycle routes used for transportation. Of course, bicycle routes are largely out of the discussion, as they appear to be harmless.

Your complaint suggests that now you consider that only "isolated Bike Path[s]" produce in cyclists the feeling that they own the space. Well, that removes that excuse for all the other types of bikeways.

I object to the term "bikeways" as there are vast differences between bike lanes and isolated bike paths... the latter which indeed offer what I mentioned earlier: (cyclists enjoy... ) due to the lack of other larger, faster, noisier vehicles not sharing said bikeways... thus offering cyclists the psycological reward of "owning their own space," vice the constant struggle of being ever on the alert for such things as distracted motorists moving at excessive speeds and unaware (or uncaring) of any other dissimilar vehicles... which motorists are quite willing to do.

Bike lanes do not offer the same isolation, but offer at a minimum "separation" which is the same expectation of any other stripe on the road... A motorist can cross the bike lane stripe just as easily as motorists cross the center line, and said crossings are controlled by the same law agencies. Thus there is no technical difference between those stripes.

[genec]

You shouldn't be extending a bit of irony beyond all realism into utter fantasy. When so extended, it fails.

I do not question the thinking of most BF writers because they do not hold a certificate. I was responding to the assertion that my hypothesis regarding the cyclist-inferiority phobia cannot be accurate because I do not have a degree in psychology. In short, I was questioning the use of formal qualifications as the sole means of evaluating an hypothesis, rather than advocating that use. You just have got it wrong way round.

Then you go into the whole question of valid opinions regarding bicycle transportation. As we know, there are two main views, the vehicular-cycling view and the incompetent cycling on bikeways view. In my course I taught the vehicular-cycling view; the FHWA course teaches the incompetent cycling on bikeways view, as the means of complying with FHWA criteria for getting funds. At least, the University of California recognized the validity of the vehicular-cycling view, and dropped its course only because the FHWA offered its course at no cost, and at some political advantage, to the students.

You seem to view those who hold the vehicular-cycling view as being megalomanic. Since the vehicular-cycling view is in accordance with traffic law and traffic engineering, I think that it doesn't fit your description. On the other hand, the incompetent cycling on bikeways view, because it contradicts traffic law and standard traffic engineering principles, because its facilities were designed by motorists to institutionalize the view of cyclists as incompetent children, and because it is based on a hope of making a significant switch from motor to bicycle transportation, appears to me to be based on delusion, and when delusion is strongly promoted that activity is megalomanic.


No sir, I did not hold that vehicular cycling nor its adherents are meglomaniacs... I hold that you are a meglamaniac based on your reasoning that only your course is valid, yet is not underwritten by any agencies, nor peers. Further you hold that the only valid certificates are those granted by you, based on your course, which is apparently only valid because you have determined it so. That is clearly delusional.

But rather than point fingers at the person... I must admit that I find it quite ironic that no group offers certification based on YOUR "program;" thus there is no way that a person can be certified as a bicycle traffic "engineer" in your method, nor is there any such requirement apparently, except by you.

[genec]

I now see Bekologist's intent in pursuing this question; therefore I answer it now.

I was never a dedicated transportational bicyclist.

If you were never a dedicated transportational bicyclist, then all your discourse on transportational cycling is just... theories.

Those of us that have been dedicated transportational cyclists have far greater insight and have put the actual practice of cycling in traffic into day to day "tests."

I myself lived car free for 7 years, and voluntarily commuted by bike for many more after that... I have toured the US and Baja on bicycle. I have well over 30 years experience of being a transportational and recreational cyclist. I also have a couple years of making a living as a pedicab driver... thus making my experience quite a bit more diverse I would have to say.

I hold therefore that my knowledge of actual cycling on real streets in real traffic is far greater than your limited theoretical knowledge... backed only by what you "think" may be true or may have surmised by limited studies.

Gee. Perhaps I should write a book.

[I-Like-To-Bike]

Accuracy is always preferable to slogans.

I agree. So - What are the Accurate Definition and Measurement Metrics that form the basis for the Mantra/Slogan "Vehicular Cyclists Fare Best"?

[markhr]

...
Gee. Perhaps I should write a book.

Please do dude - it'll be interesting to read but do expect both praise and criticism no matter what you write. You could serialise it in the books section here - what better way to have it checked than by 15000+ opinionated cycling nuts :)

[LittleBigMan]

jf is out of touch, and he merits pity for his delusions...

His delusions were interfering with advancing bicycling in America.
John Forester deluded me into thinking I could ride my bike to work in Atlanta without bicycle facilities.

Many of my coworkers tried to talk me out of that delusion over the years, but I just wouldn't listen. After over a decade of my living in this delusion, they've all given up. Some of them are even becoming deluded, themselves!

It's a sickness. :)

[markhr]

John Forester deluded me into thinking I could ride my bike to work in Atlanta without bicycle facilities.

Many of my coworkers tried to talk me out of that delusion over the years, but I just wouldn't listen. After over a decade of my living in this delusion, they've all given up. Some of them are even becoming deluded, themselves!

It's a sickness. :)

:lol:

[Brian Ratliff]

John Forester deluded me into thinking I could ride my bike to work in Atlanta without bicycle facilities.

Many of my coworkers tried to talk me out of that delusion over the years, but I just wouldn't listen. After over a decade of my living in this delusion, they've all given up. Some of them are even becoming deluded, themselves!

It's a sickness. :)

You be fishing with a red herring here. I think you know it too.

[EatMyA**]

I dont know what the deal with all these organizations that you're all talking about is, but I can say that in my experience, bicycle lanes suck! maybe something to do with more often than not someone trying to turn right all the time almost hitting me, I kept having to do suicide stops. Oh and the garbage , the garbage.

ONce I started driving and following "the rules of the road" I have been....not felt, but BEEN the safest. Oh and I ride in L.A. county, not a nice place to drive.

At first EVERYONE that has driven with me like this has been scared (mostly of getting hit from behind), but after some time NOT ONE has gone back to bike lanes, sidewalks, or in the worst case ridding against traffic.

sorry if I disagree but driving your bike on the road, just seems 100X safer than riding it on a bike lane.

[LittleBigMan]

You be fishing with a red herring here. I think you know it too.
How so?

[Brian Ratliff]

How so?

Are you saying I have to accept everything that Mr. Forester sells or nothing at all? I don't accept that.

[LittleBigMan]

Are you saying I have to accept everything that Mr. Forester sells or nothing at all? I don't accept that.
First, you said I was intentionally putting out a red-herring. To that, I say, "How so?"

In answer to your most recent comment, I say, "No." Is there anybody who you consider totally infallible? And if not, do you consider anyone totally wrong?

Isn't it possible to glean truth from people's ideas without canonizing them?

Or to discern error in their ideas without demonizing them?

What do we stand to gain in the pursuit of learning by polarizing ourselves along ideological lines? What do we gain from believing in stereotypes?

No, I don't idealize John Forester. Nor do I think he's the big, bad wolf.

:)

As I said, I don't hold legalistically to vehicular cycling precepts. I use them to my advantage. But there are times I have "sinned" by bombing down barren, cracked sidewalks to bypass a freight train-sized string of motorcars*. Ain't no way I'm gonna sit patiently in that God-awful mess on my bike, which by the way, was not designed to sit still any more than cars were designed to (but are forced to by the weakness of their design.)

:beer:

(But I avoid sidewalks in general, there are too many good roads to be had. :) )

*Not on my 'bent, on my $15 Marin MTB.

[LittleBigMan]

Given JF's acerbic, demonizing posts, that's very funny and supports the fact that you're quite the JF apologist.

I still love your pics. I mean that sincerely.

[Bekologist]

THINK jf is a loon?

dude is an anti-bicyclist, refuses to recognize the people he supossedly represents and instead sets an artifical, impractical, unobtainable metric for bicyclist 'competancy'.

[JRA]

I was never a dedicated transportational bicyclist.Somehow, I'm not the least bit surprised. :D

[LittleBigMan]

I cycle because I enjoy cycling and have found that I can often combine enjoyment with useful transportation.
Funny how a missing ingredient can change the flavor of a meal.

[LittleBigMan]

That's nice, but I don't see what that has to do with the apparent double standard that you have for JF, and the folks who think JF is a loon.
Your great pics have nothing to do with your opinions about cycling.

I don't have a problem with your opinions about cycling, either. What do I know about riding on mountains?

I just have a problem with your tendency to avoid discussing ideas and focus instead upon attacking people's personal character.

I guess I'm speaking into the wind.

[LittleBigMan]

It's not about my opinions, it's about JF's...

Why do you have a double standard?

Come again?