Does John Forester still ride a bike?

[larryfeltonj]

I didn't do data entry on punch cards to commodores. duh.

Whew!! I was afraid I'd missed out on an important aspect of IT history!



and just stop with the thinly veiled insults. he's stated himself in this forum he's only picked up 'sundries' by bike, because, for some reason or other, shopping by bike wasn't convenient for him.
Can't speak to the size or weight of items he's picked up. Maybe he'll chime in and elucidate at some point. But I got beaucoup of useful info from his writings on outfitting of a bike for utility shopping.


I'm not going to go back and search his intolerable posts about him not shopping by bike, but, judging by his comments made on this forum, sounds like he's never hauled a couple panniers full of groceries.

don't infer I'm speaking out of my ass, even politely.
I'm required to be polite. I'm a refined southern gentleman. On the other hand I know a great deal about the art of conversing through one's intestinal tract. That is also a requirement of southern social skills.



can't stand the sacred cow getting gored, eh?

[larryfeltonj]

can't stand the sacred cow getting gored, eh?

In my previous post I'd included a comment on this line, but edited it out in the fear that I would be invoking the 1960s diversity PC era for which my generation has been so roundly trounced.

But I really have to ask ... why would you want to gore a sacred cow? Is it a hostility to tradition, or
cattle, or the Hindu religion?

[rando]

because the sacred cow is full of manure?

[sbhikes]

I remember abacuses.

The facts:

John Forester is a speaker for hire available from the American Dream Coalition, an organization that promotes auto-centric urban development and celebrates the automobile as the Greatest Invention.

John Forester was hired from that site to come and speak in Santa Barbara by a group that opposes traffic calming and road projects that encourage alternative transportation. He spoke directly against the kinds of projects that our local bicycle coalition was at that time supporting.

John Forester admits to never having been a dedicated transportational cyclist but claims to be an expert on transportational cycling. He claims now to be too old to ride a bicycle much anymore. What's better? Book-learned or experience?

John Forester posts offensive psychological theories on the Internet claiming that those who do not want to cycle in heavy traffic on ill-accommodated streets suffer from actual DSMIV-defined pathologies.

John Forester has a problem with women.

He may have written a book long ago that has helped a lot of people, and he may have once been a very active bicycle advocate. But that is not what he is anymore. If anything, he is a pro-automobile advocate who works to promote urban development that furthers the utility of car ridership and diminishes the utility of bike and bus ridership, and he uses his cachet as a well-known bicycle advocate to promote auto-centric development.

In other words, he quit being a bike advocate long ago and now sells bike advocacy out for car advocacy. He also works very hard to generate a core of followers who will also sell out bike advocacy, but unbeknowingly, because they are usually too dazzled by hero worship to see it.

[larryfeltonj]

I remember abacuses.


I did consulting work on the abacus after upgrading from cobol and rpg.

I don't really have any problems with people here critiquing Forester's urban planning theories.

I don't even have problems with criticisms of his theories with regard to cycling policy, as long as the criticisms are
reasonably coherent.

The notion that Forester has little practical experience as a cyclist, and that there is nothing to learn from his work is
ignorant, and I suspect in some cases the ignorance is willful.

[Bekologist]

He may have written a book long ago that has helped a lot of people, and he may have once been a very active bicycle advocate. But that is not what he is anymore. If anything, he is a pro-automobile advocate who works to promote urban development that furthers the utility of car ridership and diminishes the utility of bike and bus ridership, and he uses his cachet as a well-known bicycle advocate to promote auto-centric development.

In other words, he quit being a bike advocate long ago and now sells bike advocacy out for car advocacy.

so true it's pathetic.

[joejack951]

so true it's pathetic.

Your wholehearted agreement with Diane based on nothing but conjecture and a few misinterpretted statements posted on the internet is what is pathetic.

[joejack951]

John Forester was hired from that site to come and speak in Santa Barbara by a group that opposes traffic calming and road projects that encourage alternative transportation. He spoke directly against the kinds of projects that our local bicycle coalition was at that time supporting.

I'm sure there are plenty bicycle advocacy groups out there promoting stuff that would make cycling worse for everybody. What is so wrong about a cyclist advocate challenging these projects? Is your local bicycle coalition infallible? Do they prior experience/data with implementing the same types of traffic calming that they are suggesting or do they just think it's a good idea because it sounds nice?

[larryfeltonj]

John Forester is a speaker for hire available from the American Dream Coalition, an organization that promotes auto-centric urban development and celebrates the automobile as the Greatest Invention.
.

I've had some dealings with a few of the founding leaders in the American Dream Coalition over the past five or six years, and though most of them don't seem to care for me for some reason (go figure ... you'd think my wit and charm would make me a very popular fellow wherever I go ...) I was always entertained by the congnitive dissonance of Libertarians who supported bans on density, and were fans of the largest public works project in the history of humankind (the interstate highway system).

I actually wrote this poem for some of their leaders in 2003, after a couple of years of interacting with them in an internet forum. Some of them found it amusing, but for some reason I think it was left out of their published materials:

The Phelton Rides a Train

by the Phelton himself (shameless self-promoter that he is)

It was on a fine morning in Transportaland
The transcars were lined in a row
The crowd on the hill dressed in full battle gear
smiled down on the strip malls below.

But as they were milling around and about
With banners and bagpipes and swords
A slow sulky silence fell over them all
as they all became restless and bored

For months they had gathered relating their tales
of defeating the car-bashing crew
But lately their enemy list had been sparse
And now there was little to do.

But a rumbling and grumbling arose from the ground
the clatter was stinging their ears.
the warriors looked down as the earth split in two
and a small subway tunnel appeared

A strange wiry creature with top hat and tails
disembarked from an odd little train
It glanced side to side with a skeptical eye
Then smiled as as it glanced once again.

"I'm the Phelton" it said with a doff of it's hat
and I bring you all greetings and cheer
I come from the City, away and afar
tell me .. is there a coffee house near?"

"For I have been riding for hours on end
on this wonderful magic machine
I crave conversation I crave a good stroll
but mostly I'm craving caffeine"

The warriors were shocked and the warriors were stunned
the warriors were simply aghast
they froze in their tracks and they froze on their feet
Til one of them spoke up at last.

"It's blasphemy, creature, and criminal, too
to suggest such a terrible sight,
as a densely packed city with sidewalk cafes
With people out strolling at night"

They rattled their pikes and they clattered their swords
they chanted and ranted and roared
"Desist and dismount you deplorable beast,
decamp we demand and implore"

"It's statistically proven with table and chart
Your City is no longer there.
You're defeated, discredited, quite out of touch,
and your prattling is too much to bear".

"We've graphed and we've analyzed, summed and regressed
til we've come to the only conclusion
That the City is evil the City is dead
... So stop spreading noise and confusion".

They glared at the Phelton they glared at the train
... held their breath til their faces turned blue
"Begone evil creature, begone we demand
and take this conveyance with you!!!"

The Phelton replied with a smile so benign
That the birds formed a choir overhead
"I assure you my friends that despite what you've heard
my City is quite far from dead"

"It's teeming with people it's singing with song
It's buzzing along like a hive
I assure and affirm and will even allow
my City is very alive"

"But as I am never inclined to offend,
or to wear out my welcome or stay
I'll get back on my train, and leave you again
and quietly rumble away"

So the Phelton with flourish, the Phelton with flair ...
hopped into the door of the train
And with chugging with clatter and whistling and whirrr...
The Phelton was moving again...

There was much celebration in Transportaland
as the story was widely repeated
Of how thanks to the vigilant warrior crew
The Phelton was soundly defeated.

But the piper was sad as he stood empty handed
Looking dejected and grim
For the Phelton departing had made an inquiry
and purchased the bagpipes from him.

Now whenever an artist depicted the saga
The image contained without fail
A sinister Phelton a'perched on a train
With top hat and bagpipes and tails.

[Helmet Head]

I've had some dealings with a few of the founding leaders in the American Dream Coalition over the past five or six years, and though most of them don't seem to care for me for some reason (go figure ... you'd think my wit and charm would make me a very popular fellow wherever I go ...) I was always entertained by the congnitive dissonance of Libertarians who supported bans on density, and were fans of the largest public works project in the history of humankind (the interstate highway system).

Both bans on density and support for the interstate highway system are contrary to libertarianism.

What makes you think these folks were libertarian?

[LittleBigMan]

I remember abacuses.

The facts:

John Forester is a speaker for hire available from the American Dream Coalition, an organization that promotes auto-centric urban development and celebrates the automobile as the Greatest Invention.

John Forester was hired from that site to come and speak in Santa Barbara by a group that opposes traffic calming and road projects that encourage alternative transportation. He spoke directly against the kinds of projects that our local bicycle coalition was at that time supporting.

John Forester admits to never having been a dedicated transportational cyclist but claims to be an expert on transportational cycling. He claims now to be too old to ride a bicycle much anymore. What's better? Book-learned or experience?

John Forester posts offensive psychological theories on the Internet claiming that those who do not want to cycle in heavy traffic on ill-accommodated streets suffer from actual DSMIV-defined pathologies.

John Forester has a problem with women.

He may have written a book long ago that has helped a lot of people, and he may have once been a very active bicycle advocate. But that is not what he is anymore. If anything, he is a pro-automobile advocate who works to promote urban development that furthers the utility of car ridership and diminishes the utility of bike and bus ridership, and he uses his cachet as a well-known bicycle advocate to promote auto-centric development.

In other words, he quit being a bike advocate long ago and now sells bike advocacy out for car advocacy. He also works very hard to generate a core of followers who will also sell out bike advocacy, but unbeknowingly, because they are usually too dazzled by hero worship to see it.
You said, "facts." But you mixed facts with your own spin, resulting in a Forester-kiwi-strawberry-motor-oil smoothie.

I don't always agree with John Forester, but I don't know anyone I always agree with.

As the late New York Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan said, "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts." And not smoothies.

So have at it. Attack John Forester's own "facts." Argue your heart out. But try to keep from mixing facts with opinion, and stating opinion as fact.

[larryfeltonj]

Both bans on density and support for the interstate highway system are contrary to libertarianism.

What makes you think these folks were libertarian?

I know that, which is the reason I pointed out the contradictory nature of the positions. Several of the people in that network at least informally identified with libertarianism. The defense of density bans came from Randal O'Toole in particular, and the mechanism he saw for enforcing it was homeowner's covenants. The interstate highway system was often meshed with libertarian leanings in two manners. One was the position some of the road-oriented libertarians hold that creating the conditions for commerce was a valid role of government, and that the road network is one of the primary means of facilitating that. The second was that the highway system was user funded through the dedicated gas tax. I've heard at least variations on the themes above put forward by various people in those networks including O'Toole, Wendell Cox, and Tom Rubin (who puts more emphasis on the public transit accounting issue, but falls within that umbrella of libertarian-leaning activists with a tendency to support increased road building).

It's been a long time since I've carried on conversations with those folks, but I think what I've written is a pretty fair assessment.

To tell the truth, despite my significant leanings to the left, I didn't disagree with everything they put forward. Wendell Cox wrote pretty extensively on Atlanta, and one of his proposals was a new arterial grid at approximately one mile intervals to help solve the problem of a paucity of east/west routes north of 10th street. I actually thought it was an interesting idea, although the political feasibility was doubtful to me (it would've required disrupting Buckhead, one of the most affluent areas in the region).

[randya]

Randal O'Toole did some good work back when to stop old-growth logging, but then he took a wierd turn into La-La land.

[Bekologist]

..that kind of sounds like john's story as well....did some good, then took a step into la-la land.

[sbhikes]

you mixed facts with your own spin
What part is spin?

John Forester is a speaker for hire available from the American Dream Coalition...

John Forester was hired from that site to come and speak in Santa Barbara...

John Forester admits to never having been a dedicated transportational cyclist...

John Forester posts offensive psychological theories on the Internet...

John Forester has a problem with women...


Tell me which one of these statement are not facts.

The last one perhaps? Can you show me some proof he doesn't have a problem with women? Or is his his problem with me personally?

[larryfeltonj]

What part is spin?


Tell me which one of these statement are not facts.

The last one perhaps? Can you show me some proof he doesn't have a problem with women? Or is his his problem with me personally?

I was intending to ask you your basis for asserting that Forester has a problem in particular with women. The manner in which you're presenting this question is unanswerable, but it's pretty obvious to both those of us who identify with the VC approach, and to those who don't, that Forester can be a difficult person, and that he is not a person who exudes personal warmth in polemic.

But I do suspect that Forester's communication norms with you have a lot more to do with the fact that you're a bike lane advocate than that you're a woman.

[Six jours]

Well, I swore off A&S because so many of you -- moderators included -- are unpleasant. (Did I coin the term "A&S holes" or did I unwittingly copy it from someone else?) But I've been drinking (again) and now feel as though the world would be a sadder place if I did not enlighten you all with my brilliant posts.

I barely know who John Forrester is, and I'm only passingly familiar with "vehicular cycling". I'm sure most of you could dazzle and befuddle me with lots of "VC" terms. All I'm really sure of is that I've been rolling around on my bike in various capacities (racing on road and track, coaching on road and track, randonneuring, pass-bagging, and just generally riding wherever I feel like riding) for about a quarter century now, and I feel like that qualifies me to talk a little bit about what works and what doesn't. And a lot of what I hear about "VC" strikes me as just plain foolish. I like bike lanes. I don't know crap about the politics of them; who's for them and who's against. All I know is that bike lanes get me a little further away from 4000 pound hunks of metal piloted by half-attentive morons. How anyone can describe that as a bad thing is beyond me. Folks who think I should vacate the bike lane in favor of riding around in front of those moron-directed two-ton hunks of metal? Please...

Overall, though, what I really don't understand is the amount of attention given to the entire subject. Cycling, for all the hoopla given it here, is a fantastically safe activity. And commuting by bicycle is not some mystical art requiring detailed knowledge of all sorts of esoterica, to be handed down by "certificated" experts. You're just riding a bicycle to work, for chrisakes. It isn't rocket science and you don't need the secrets of Tibetan monks to manage it. I dropped off a library book while riding my bicycle this evening, and -- gasp -- it didn't take anything special to do it. I didn't have to think about the social ramifications of it, and there were no deep political motivations. I had no agenda beyond avoiding the 25 cent fine, and -- oh my god -- I rode in the bike lane almost all the way there. Why "sport" cyclists have been managing just fine with the existing infrastructure for the last 100 years but commuters now need to radically restructure the whole thing escapes me entirely.

Yeesh. I'm running out of steam (and tequila!) and barely remember whatever point I was trying to make. Maybe it was "Commuters need to lighten up" or something like that. Maybe I'll just curl up underneath my desk until it comes to me.

[larryfeltonj]

All I know is that bike lanes get me a little further away from 4000 pound hunks of metal piloted by half-attentive morons. How anyone can describe that as a bad thing is beyond me. Folks who think I should vacate the bike lane in favor of riding around in front of those moron-directed two-ton hunks of metal? Please...

....


Why "sport" cyclists have been managing just fine with the existing infrastructure for the last 100 years but commuters now need to radically restructure the whole thing escapes me entirely.

Yeesh. I'm running out of steam (and tequila!) and barely remember whatever point I was trying to make. Maybe it was "Commuters need to lighten up" or something like that. Maybe I'll just curl up underneath my desk until it comes to me.


After the hangover has subsided :) you may want to think about the contradiction between these two thoughts coexisting in your head.

[Six jours]

Tequila never has nasty after effects. :p

But I think I take your point, in that bike lanes have not been around for a hundred years. What I mean to say is that "sport" cyclists have managed just fine by riding near the side of the road, as opposed to the middle of it. As I understand "VC", "taking the lane" is a key concept, and one with which I find serious fault.

The main point, overall, is that the great majority of us have gotten along just fine by staking out the few feet of lane next to the curb, rather than feeling entitled to the whole lane. Why the commuters suddenly decided that being in the way of other road users was a good idea is beyond me.

[larryfeltonj]

The main point, overall, is that the great majority of us have gotten along just fine by staking out the few feet of lane next to the curb, rather than feeling entitled to the whole lane. Why the commuters suddenly decided that being in the way of other road users was a good idea is beyond me.

Because remaining too close to the curb when the lane is too narrow encourages motorists to try to pass within the lane. Before I'd ever read anything about vehicular cycling or bicycle commuting, when I was still in the muddling-along stage of my cycling , one of the first things I noticed was that when I'd hug the curb cars would pass me much too closely.

[EDIT] I'm adding this for clarification. I don't know what your understanding of the circumstances under which vehicular cyclists advise "taking the lane", but if the lane is sufficiently wide to share, in other words if the car has ample room to pass, then I would tend to remain far enough to the right to share the lane until either I need to position myself to turn left or pass through an intersection.

[The Human Car]

The main point, overall, is that the great majority of us have gotten along just fine by staking out the few feet of lane next to the curb, rather than feeling entitled to the whole lane. Why the commuters suddenly decided that being in the way of other road users was a good idea is beyond me.
Some cyclists are [afraid of | don’t like to] ride in traffic, some cyclists are [afraid of | don’t like] cars passing too close, some cyclists are [afraid of | don’t like] car’s executing right turns across their path, some cyclists just like to ride.

For me the point of these discussions should be if there is something that is keeping you from riding or if you feel riding is unsafe there is some advice that will help but the thrust should be about enjoying riding a bike.

[LittleBigMan]

..."sport" cyclists have managed just fine by riding near the side of the road, as opposed to the middle of it. As I understand "VC", "taking the lane" is a key concept, and one with which I find serious fault.
Then you should simply ride where your experience tells you to.

As for me, I had too many close calls with drivers trying to squeeze past me. I don't get that when I ride further out into the lane, and I don't get flats (usually) anymore either.

(Welcome to the A&S holes forum, we can always use one more! :D But you'll have to be a bit nastier if you want to fit in. The above post needs a little salt & peppa. :p)

[sggoodri]

What I mean to say is that "sport" cyclists have managed just fine by riding near the side of the road, as opposed to the middle of it. As I understand "VC", "taking the lane" is a key concept, and one with which I find serious fault.

The main point, overall, is that the great majority of us have gotten along just fine by staking out the few feet of lane next to the curb, rather than feeling entitled to the whole lane. Why the commuters suddenly decided that being in the way of other road users was a good idea is beyond me.

It is my observation that sport cyclists typically choose routes with a low traffic-to-road-width ratio and low volumes of junction traffic that might cross their paths. Commuter cyclists, by contrast, are more likely to use routes that have high traffic volumes in narrow lanes, and a great deal of cross traffic, because these are the routes that serve destinations where bicycle commuting is most common, e.g. in urban areas.

Urban cyclists have determined from experience that "taking the lane" is a valuable defensive driving technique under many of the conditions that they experience, such as where the lane is narrow or there is significant risk of right-hook and other crossing traffic. Pure sport cyclists who operate almost excusively where narrow-lane squeeze-plays and junction conflicts are rare tend to be less aware of this benefit.

I highly recommend you consider taking a League of American Bicyclists Road 1 course. It's really the best way to get a feel for how to cycle most effectively in traffic, particularly in urban situations. (Disclaimer: I'm an LCI and love teaching the class, which is why I do it for barely more than it costs me in material expenses.) Both highly experienced road cyclists and novice cyclists have told me that the class gave them a new awareness of how they could improve their comfort and safety in traffic.

-Steve Goodridge, bike commuter, LCI1690

[sbhikes]

Six Jours, I feel so enlightened. Thank you. What the A&S Holes need is more wisdom and common sense like you have.

There are too many folks here who believe you SHOULD wave your fanny around in front of all moron-directed two-ton hunks of metal in order to break their pilots from their stupors and get them to show some kind of response. Then and only then pull over. Why that doesn't strike them as crazy I do not know. Maybe people who feel this is the best strategy should try more tequilla.

[joejack951]

Steve makes a good point about "sport cyclists" which I would have classified myself as before I started commuting. I was able to get along most of the roads that I wanted to ride keeping to the right generally without any problems. I was also riding early in the morning or later at night when traffic was much less dense. When I started commuting, everything changed and suddenly what seemed like an open shoulder for me to ride in was now a heavily used turn lane. It took a little while for me to get comfortable with it, and I'll admit that reading Effective Cycling helped, but I eventually realized that the best thing I could do for myself while cycling was to act like any other vehicle on the road (keeping in mind the narrowness and slowness of my vehicle). This more often than not, where I live at least, places me in the traffic lane. It's a markedly different style of riding than how I started out but it allows me to deal with any road and any condition that I have encountered so far, and I can't think of many possibilities that I have not encountered.

[Bekologist]

I suspect neither john or joejack have personally experienced the squeeze play from an articulated bus while cycling taking the full lane, doing 30mph downhill on a narrow laned, double yellow striped street.

does john still ride? bicycling his memories.

[The Human Car]

But I do suspect that Forester's communication norms with you have a lot more to do with the fact that you're a bike lane advocate than that you're a woman.
I suspect it has to do with the fact that she is a really good bike lane advocate.

[joejack951]

I suspect neither john or joejack have personally experienced the squeeze play from an articulated bus while cycling taking the full lane, doing 30mph downhill on a narrow laned, double yellow striped street.

does john still ride? bicycling his memories.

Ah, but of course the our great cycling hero Bek has which makes him superior to everyone who he ASSumes has not (not like that experience says much about anything though).

[Bekologist]

...you mentioned you couldn't think of many riding experiences you haven't encountered, joe, and I was just bringing one possibilty up- no need to get all snippy!

have you been squeezed by a bus while bicycling the speed limit and fully taking the lane?

that experience is to bring to light that some drivers, even 'professional' drivers, will disrespect bicyclist fully acting as vehicles....something neither john or you seem to realize.

[Six jours]

It is my observation that sport cyclists typically choose routes with a low traffic-to-road-width ratio and low volumes of junction traffic that might cross their paths. Commuter cyclists, by contrast, are more likely to use routes that have high traffic volumes in narrow lanes, and a great deal of cross traffic, because these are the routes that serve destinations where bicycle commuting is most common, e.g. in urban areas.
I think this is very true. And in situations where one is forced to ride shoulderless streets with heavy traffic, I can see how occassionally taking the lane can be a useful thing for the cyclist -- bearing in mind that you are in the way of other road users, that you are going to anger some of them, and that common manners dictate that you stop being in the way as soon as possible.

But my prior discussions on the matter show that the above sensibilities often don't appply to the hardcore VCer. I gather at least some of these folks are ignoring the perfectly good bike lane in favor of riding around in traffic, believing they're making a political statement by being in the way -- and thinking all other cyclists are wrong for not following suit.

[joejack951]

...you mentioned you couldn't think of many riding experiences you haven't encountered, joe, and I was just bringing one possibilty up- no need to get all snippy!

have you been squeezed by a bus while bicycling the speed limit and fully taking the lane?

that experience is to bring to light that some drivers, even 'professional' drivers, will disrespect bicyclist fully acting as vehicles....something neither john or you seem to realize.

How about I'm going 20mph on a 25mph approaching a short steep downhill (where I'll go over 30mph and stay at ~25mph until the next stop sign). The short downhill completely hides oncoming traffic but the landscaping truck driver behind me (towing a long trailer) decides to pass anyway ignoring my hand signal. Of course, there's oncoming traffic that he doesn't see which is forced to come to a screeching halt while I also stop and allow him to bully his way through. Is that disrespecting enough? It was enough for me to call the company and report the driver for being a JAM.

On the roads where I encounter buses, the speed limits are all too high for me to ever be keeping up with traffic.

[Six jours]

that experience is to bring to light that some drivers, even 'professional' drivers, will disrespect bicyclist fully acting as vehicles....something neither john or you seem to realize.
I hear a lot from VCers about how "taking the lane" prevents close passes -- but then, someone on this forum posted helmetcam footage of himself taking the lane, which showed people making close passes (swerving halfway into the other lane and still squeezing by the cyclist with little distance to spare) in addition to angrily cutting back into the lane in front of the obstructing cyclist and making rude comments as they passed.

Which seems, to little old wine drinker me, like a pretty obvious outcome to riding around obstructing traffic.

[rando]

It is my observation that sport cyclists typically choose routes with a low traffic-to-road-width ratio and low volumes of junction traffic that might cross their paths. Commuter cyclists, by contrast, are more likely to use routes that have high traffic volumes in narrow lanes, and a great deal of cross traffic, because these are the routes that serve destinations where bicycle commuting is most common, e.g. in urban areas.

I'm one of the exceptions, I guess! I commute on those low volume roads just fine.

[sbhikes]

I hear a lot from VCers about how "taking the lane" prevents close passes -- but then, someone on this forum posted helmetcam footage of himself taking the lane, which showed people making close passes (swerving halfway into the other lane and still squeezing by the cyclist with little distance to spare) in addition to angrily cutting back into the lane in front of the obstructing cyclist and making rude comments as they passed.

Which seems, to little old wine drinker me, like a pretty obvious outcome to riding around obstructing traffic.

Switched to wine for breakfast then, did you? You are still making too much sense.

[The Human Car]

I'm one of the exceptions, I guess! I commute on those low volume roads just fine.

The grid system in Tempe rocks! I just wish more places were like that.

[genec]

It is my observation that sport cyclists typically choose routes with a low traffic-to-road-width ratio and low volumes of junction traffic that might cross their paths. Commuter cyclists, by contrast, are more likely to use routes that have high traffic volumes in narrow lanes, and a great deal of cross traffic, because these are the routes that serve destinations where bicycle commuting is most common, e.g. in urban areas.



Most likely this is due to the commuters having to gain access to areas that don't have low volume low speed traffic. This is where the misnomer of "find an alternate route" often comes in... if the only way to get to your business is to take high speed high volume roads... that is what you are going to do.

In my case for instance... All the roads that lead to work are 45-50+MPH mulilaned arterials... period. Which is quite typical for even light industrial areas.

[Six jours]

This is where the misnomer of "find an alternate route" often comes in... if the only way to get to your business is to take high speed high volume roads... that is what you are going to do.

In my case for instance... All the roads that lead to work are 45-50+MPH mulilaned arterials... period. Which is quite typical for even light industrial areas.
The fellow with the helmetcam gave me the same line. Then he showed his videotape, which contained footage of him riding by dozens of intersections where the multilane arterial he was riding to work intersected with quiet two laners.

I don't doubt that there are some folks who have absolutely no other options -- but in all my life I've seen so few metro areas that were made up of nothing but multilane arterials that I have a hard time believing it's an at all common scenario. Especially in SoCal, the huge majority of such arterials are paralleled by quiet two-laners.

I think the moral of the story is to never underestimate the power of self-delusion.

[joejack951]

I hear a lot from VCers about how "taking the lane" prevents close passes -- but then, someone on this forum posted helmetcam footage of himself taking the lane, which showed people making close passes (swerving halfway into the other lane and still squeezing by the cyclist with little distance to spare) in addition to angrily cutting back into the lane in front of the obstructing cyclist and making rude comments as they passed.

Which seems, to little old wine drinker me, like a pretty obvious outcome to riding around obstructing traffic.

How many people made close passes? How many fully changed lanes to pass and cut back in with plenty of clearance? Do you have any experience that would show that the outcome would be any better or worse if he didn't take the lane or do you just avoid situations like that?

[joejack951]

The fellow with the helmetcam gave me the same line. Then he showed his videotape, which contained footage of him riding by dozens of intersections where the multilane arterial he was riding to work intersected with quiet two laners.

I don't doubt that there are some folks who have absolutely no other options -- but in all my life I've seen so few metro areas that were made up of nothing but multilane arterials that I have a hard time believing it's an at all common scenario. Especially in SoCal, the huge majority of such arterials are paralleled by quiet two-laners.

I think the moral of the story is to never underestimate the power of self-delusion.

Yes, "quiet" two laners with no passing lanes and filled with stop signs and long traffic lights which are commonly used by people in a huge hurry wishing to avoid the traffic on the major arterials. That is my other option on the way to work and honestly, the multilane arterials are way easier to ride and I experience far less road rage on them.

[Six jours]

How many people made close passes? Two or three, in the few minutes of video I saw.

How many fully changed lanes to pass and cut back in with plenty of clearance?
Most of them.


Do you have any experience that would show that the outcome would be any better or worse if he didn't take the lane or do you just avoid situations like that?

I occassionally ride roads like that, and am mostly treated well. People move as far over as they can, or switch lanes entirely. For all the rage around here, the fact is that most drivers are pretty decent folks and really aren't trying to run you over. Intentionally putting yourself in the way of those nice folks, though, is going to make some of them angry, and that's not good for cyclists. I can't believe such an obvious thing even deserves explanation.

[Six jours]

Yes, "quiet" two laners with no passing lanes and filled with stop signs and long traffic lights which are commonly used by people in a huge hurry wishing to avoid the traffic on the major arterials. That is my other option on the way to work and honestly, the multilane arterials are way easier to ride and I experience far less road rage on them.
Ah, but there is indeed a choice, which is what I suspect is the case in most instances. You are choosing to ride on a busy artery and further are choosing to impede fellow road users. This is certainly your choice, but I do not believe it a wise, prudent, or courteous one.

[Six jours]

Short version: I think I'm a pretty typical driver. When I see a cyclist I do what I can to avoid running him over or scaring the daylights out of him. I'll move as far to the left as practical when I see a cyclist on the side of the road. But if I were to encounter a cyclist taking up a whole lane, moving 30 or 40 miles slower than other traffic, and refusing to yield, I'm going to think he's a whackjob who needs to get the hell out of the way, and I'm not going to be the slightest bit surprised if other road users abuse him.

[joejack951]

Two or three, in the few minutes of video I saw.

Most of them.

I occassionally ride roads like that, and am mostly treated well. People move as far over as they can, or switch lanes entirely. For all the rage around here, the fact is that most drivers are pretty decent folks and really aren't trying to run you over.

Ok, so two or three in a clip intended to show close passes. Seems pretty minor especially when it's not like he was getting squeezed into the curb at all.

Intentionally putting yourself in the way of those nice folks, though, is going to make some of them angry, and that's not good for cyclists. I can't believe such an obvious thing even deserves explanation.

Now I'm lost. Intentionally? Seems better than unintentionally I guess. Why again am I more concerned about slowing someone down for a few seconds than getting clipped by someone travelling 2-3X my speed? How is getting close passed at high speed a good thing for me, a cyclist, yet so obviously good for other cyclists? If people are pretty decent and don't want to run me over, where's the benefit in putting myself in a situation where I might get run over by someone who doesn't see me in time or by someone driving a wider than average vehicle or towing a trailer? Or does this just not happen in your mind?

[joejack951]

Ah, but there is indeed a choice, which is what I suspect is the case in most instances. You are choosing to ride on a busy artery and further are choosing to impede fellow road users. This is certainly your choice, but I do not believe it a wise, prudent, or courteous one.

How would it be any different on the two lane roads with no passing lanes where I leave people no choice but to wait behind me until a clear passing oppurtunity occurs using the oncoming lane or I find a safe spot to move over? Either way, I'm slowing some people down and some of those people will get upset. Oh well.

[genec]

The fellow with the helmetcam gave me the same line. Then he showed his videotape, which contained footage of him riding by dozens of intersections where the multilane arterial he was riding to work intersected with quiet two laners.

I don't doubt that there are some folks who have absolutely no other options -- but in all my life I've seen so few metro areas that were made up of nothing but multilane arterials that I have a hard time believing it's an at all common scenario. Especially in SoCal, the huge majority of such arterials are paralleled by quiet two-laners.

I think the moral of the story is to never underestimate the power of self-delusion.

Feel free to google the maps of San Diego and take a look at the various canyons that block parallel roads.

No problem, I'll wait.

In one area the freeway is actually open to cyclists, as it provides the only direct access to a northern canyon that is used primarily for light industrial. There are parallel routes. Both are mulilaned arterials marked at 50MPH... so the choice is 70MPH or 50MPH. You chose the alternative you want.

Where I live, there are only two roads that cross the canyons and freeways... period. The only roads that go north (I work north) out of where I live are 45MPH, 50MPH and 65MPH respectively, and two freeways. Chose your alternative. I usually use the 45MPH road. It only has 6 lanes. (3 each way). No one drives 45MPH.

There are nice parallel roads crisscrossing the downtown area... But I don't live or work there.

Never underestimate reality.

BTW for the record, John Forester apparently does not ride north. :rolleyes:

[genec]

Yes, "quiet" two laners with no passing lanes and filled with stop signs and long traffic lights which are commonly used by people in a huge hurry wishing to avoid the traffic on the major arterials. That is my other option on the way to work and honestly, the multilane arterials are way easier to ride and I experience far less road rage on them.

The fellow with the video cam I believe was in Phoenix... where the "quiet two laners" do not connect through off of the main arterials.

There is quite a bit of that type of hierarchal "bulb" construction here too, where an arterial feeds a bunch of smaller two lane streets that feed small walled neighborhoods. There are no connections between the neighborhoods, except the arterials. In many cases the arterials are like riding through a walled canyon... walls, sidewalks, arterials, sidewalks and walls... that is all you see... with crossing streets that offer access only to isolated homes. (not even grocery stores or libraries or any "community" type services.) It is kinda creepy actually. "Stepford homes."

[genec]

Short version: I think I'm a pretty typical driver. When I see a cyclist I do what I can to avoid running him over or scaring the daylights out of him. I'll move as far to the left as practical when I see a cyclist on the side of the road. But if I were to encounter a cyclist taking up a whole lane, moving 30 or 40 miles slower than other traffic, and refusing to yield, I'm going to think he's a whackjob who needs to get the hell out of the way, and I'm not going to be the slightest bit surprised if other road users abuse him.

Yup, typical driver. No matter that the law says you are wrong. Forester agrees with the law... typical motorists may not.

You stated what you think is really going to happen... so how does "cyclists fare best when act and are treated as drivers of vehicles" work for you?

If a cement truck was in front of you moving at 30 or 40 MPH slower and refusing to yield... what would you do then?

[Six jours]

Ok, so two or three in a clip intended to show close passes. Seems pretty minor especially when it's not like he was getting squeezed into the curb at all.
The clip was intended to show how wonderful life is when you "take the lane" and instead showed the quite predictable close passes and angry words inspired by intentionally being in the way. I don't experience close passes very often while riding the shoulder, let alone the bike lane. And I don't remember the last time a motorist yelled at me for being in his way. So two or three close passes plus a verbal confrontation within the space of a few minutes would constitute a very bad day for me. Hardly a persuasive argument for me to start riding out in the middle of the lane.

Now I'm lost. Intentionally? Seems better than unintentionally I guess.
Non sequiter.

Why again am I more concerned about slowing someone down for a few seconds than getting clipped by someone travelling 2-3X my speed?
Because it's not a simple binary equation. Your choices are not A) momentarily inconveniencing a motorist or B) dying. The helmetcam evidence is that "taking the lane" does not prevent close passes, but certainly does incite motorists.

How is getting close passed at high speed a good thing for me, a cyclist, yet so obviously good for other cyclists?
Huh?

If people are pretty decent and don't want to run me over, where's the benefit in putting myself in a situation where I might get run over by someone who doesn't see me in time or by someone driving a wider than average vehicle or towing a trailer? Or does this just not happen in your mind?
I don't see how "taking the lane" offsets the risk of any of those circumstances. I'd ceratinly rather "not be seen" by a motorist while I am on the shoulder, thus experiencing a close pass, than "not be seen" by a motorist while I am in the middle of the road, thus experiencing massive trauma.

How would it be any different on the two lane roads with no passing lanes where I leave people no choice but to wait behind me until a clear passing oppurtunity occurs using the oncoming lane or I find a safe spot to move over?
The two lane roads are almost always slower than the arterials, and almost always less crowded. There is almost always a safe opportunity to ride near the side of the road, and drivers almost always have a safe way of getting around you with no real impediment. Your argument, though, seems to be you are always forced to "take the lane", thus impeding traffic regardless of the type of road you are using. My argument is that, even assuming you are forced to "take the lane" on a major artery, you can instead use side routes where you can safely ride the shoulder. Thus you are safe, motorists are unimpeded, and we are left only with the argument that you don't like stop signs so should be able to ride anywhere you want and to hell with other road users.

Either way, I'm slowing some people down and some of those people will get upset. Oh well.
This, to me, is the driving force behind most if not all the "VC" attitude: The "screw you, car driver!" attitude. This is obviously never going to sit too well with the car-driving majority, and is likely to upset a lot of cyclists too. I for one don't appreciate fellow cyclists creating pissed-off bike-hating motorists.

[Six jours]

Feel free to google the maps of San Diego and take a look at the various canyons that block parallel roads.

No problem, I'll wait.

In one area the freeway is actually open to cyclists, as it provides the only direct access to a northern canyon that is used primarily for light industrial. There are parallel routes. Both are mulilaned arterials marked at 50MPH... so the choice is 70MPH or 50MPH. You chose the alternative you want.

Where I live, there are only two roads that cross the canyons and freeways... period. The only roads that go north (I work north) out of where I live are 45MPH, 50MPH and 65MPH respectively, and two freeways. Chose your alternative. I usually use the 45MPH road. It only has 6 lanes. (3 each way). No one drives 45MPH.

As I wrote earlier, I don't doubt there are some people who have no other choice. If you feel the best way to deal with high speed traffic is to place yourself in front of it, then you do what you think is best for you -- but bear in mind that you have a relatively unique situation, and even in your situation, there are extremely experienced and knowledgable cyclists who would not do as you do.

I will go as far as to say that I believe "VC" has some intelligent points -- but the attitude that it is always right for all cyclists in all situations (not that I am saying this is you, genec) is demonstrably false, in addition to being fairly obnoxious.

[Six jours]

The fellow with the video cam I believe was in Phoenix... where the "quiet two laners" do not connect through off of the main arterials.

San Diego, actually. Seems to be a hotbed of "VC".