Vehicular Cycling (VC) - What happened to John Forester?

Nah, it's like riding on the shoulder of a busy highway - either you pick up the necessary skills quickly or you get run over. Assuming one survives the experience, you learn very quickly either way. :-)

Yes, but he's fun to have coffee and doughnuts with on the Hawthorne Bridge. :)

Come now Pete, cut the new guy some slack, he has no idea what he just stepped into here. :D
Anyhow, it's about time for Serge to start with his nightly pet theory bag-o-shait, I wouldn't want to see you get worn out just yet. ;)

Pretty please?

This is a pointless post for no reason other than I am bored at this very moment; I'm sure that will change in 10...9...8...7...

Yes, but he's fun to have coffee and doughnuts with on the Hawthorne Bridge. :)


mmmm..... doughnuts.

I haven't had doughnuts while bicycling since Easter Sunday in Portland, what ARE you people doing down there? bicycling infrastructure, a focus on bicycling as transportation, one of the highest rates of bicycling in large cities in North America, AND doughnuts for bicyclists....

I know, those doughnuts are over the top, aren't they? I mean free doughnuts for bikers? Socialism, I tell you, it's all socialism. :p

I think a phenomenal amount of bicycle commuters and free socialist bike doughnuts :D

beats a bitter cup of VC koolaid drunk alone amidst exhaust fumes on a clogged arterial anyday.

let's say the premise is that local roads shouldn't have speed limits over 35 mph. what's wrong with that?

according to jhon and his cronies at the american dream coalition, it isn't fast enough for the motorists! gots to get the speed of the roads higher, so they can start banning bikes in favor of automobiles, randya.

Why would anyone be proud of being a simpleton?

Thanks for the compliment, but spending less time on the internet than you and having never added a perfectly-good-working-order computer to landfills by buying the latest model like all of the more-environmental-than-thous that I know, do all the time, does not equal simpleton. So, just buy a popcorn (oops - I forgot: your elitist faction of the cycling community prefers Starbucks) and enjoy reading your buddy from our fine neighbor to the north's selective parsings (and/or, is the author from whom he's parsing a liar?) of his favorite pdf.

So you're suggesting I'm fabricating information that I've provided a direct link to because you do not have the basic ability (or motivation) to access the document.

That's probably among the weakest remarks that anyone has posted on BF recently. Nicely done, you're in elite company.


I'll spoon feed you though, here is an html version of the document that you could have easily found yourself if you cared in the least, which you don't.

http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:5NfmUZmItnAJ:www.toronto.ca/transportation/publications/bicycle_motor-vehicle/pdf/car-bike_collision_report.pdf

Of course, I don't blame you for not reading it, it's just a big conspiracy among non-chainguarders to make money in the ever-lucrative bike lane installation business.

Now, can you provide ANYTHING about the study that gave you that 9 times figure, or are you going to admit that you made it up?

I know, those doughnuts are over the top, aren't they? I mean free doughnuts for bikers?
Is this for real? Free doughnuts for bicyclists? Does Portland have room for one more?

No non-limited-access road should ever have a speed limit greater than 35 mph. Period.


On my commute, driving a car, one's average speed is almost exactly 25 mph over a 14 mile stretch, regardless of the prevailing maximum speed of motor traffic, which is usually about 45 or 50 mph.

It's really hard to drive slowly when everyone else is going faster, but it saves gas and doesn't lose more than a minute or so over the entire commute. But it's hard to convince others of that. They just race from one stop light to the next.

:p

On my commute, driving a car, one's average speed is almost exactly 25 mph over a 14 mile stretch, regardless of the prevailing maximum speed of motor traffic, which is usually about 45 or 50 mph.

It's really hard to drive slowly when everyone else is going faster, but it saves gas and doesn't lose more than a minute or so over the entire commute. But it's hard to convince others of that. They just race from one stop light to the next.

:p

yeah, what's up with that? I have learned how fast I need to go to hit all the lights in my car along my commute. everyone thinks you're crazy and they zoom past to sit at the light.:rolleyes:

http://www.toronto.ca/transportation/publications/bicycle_motor-vehicle/pdf/car-bike_collision_type10.pdf

Let's see:

12% of all collisions... that sounds almost as low as you said.

But.. removing accidents where the rider was on the sidewalk, we're up to about 17%

Now, forget skinned elbows, what about fatal accidents...

The Toronto study found that overtaking accidents caused 40% of all the cycling fatalities in the study, and more than half of fatalities where the cause of the accident could be classified.

Or, based on the way the study approximated fault, 80% of fatalities when the cyclist was not at fault were motorist-overtaking collisions.

But I wonder why you asked for the link to the study anyways? Of course, as these guys (the city coroner and his ilk) are not real "chain-guarders", they'll say anything to keep their jobs, right?

Now provide, something, ANYTHING that indicates there are nine times as many cyclists hit from the sides and front as from behind. Url of where we might find the numbers, years and locations, please.

I forget where we left off before on this, but I do remember discussing the fact that the report you are referencing and basing your comments on "hit from behind" accidents on, is using combined numbers of motorists brushing cyclists as they pass and rear ending cyclists. Neither of us has the breakdown on how exactly these overtaking collisions happened so I just wish you would point this out when you reference that report, instead of making it sound like 12% of Toronto motorist/cyclist collisions are cyclists being rear ended.

It comes down to what is one's primary mode of travel. If one chooses to bike on good days and only when good routes are available (as indicated in Forester's ADC paper (http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=5471668&postcount=105), which he now spins differently (http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=5471940&postcount=107)) then you are a voluntary cyclist.

If, on the other hand, your primary means of transit is by bike, vice car (not withstanding the use of other plane, train, taxi, or rental car as needed for away travel), then you are a "dedicated" cyclist. Even if you have the means to acquire a car... as many car free cyclists have... the fact that you have chosen to make a bike your primary means of transit means that you will find yourself in the position of using bicycles for all your everyday needs, vice just those few trips which you deem "ideal" for cycling.

Ask yourself this... what is in the garage? What are you likely to use to go to work? What would you use to go shopping. How do you visit friends? What role is a bike in your life... is it primarily for recreation, or do you use it for everything? If someone called you right now and said come over... and asked how long it would take... do you even think in terms of using a car and freeway minutes?

A dedicated cyclist is one who would likely get there by bike before even considering renting a car.

A voluntary cyclist is one who "chooses which trips to make by bicycle according to their needs and desires." -- Forester. from http://www.americandreamcoalition.org/forester.pdf

Of course you may have seen his spin... (http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=5471940&postcount=107)

Does owning a car a motorist make? Not if the vehicle isn't driven. I know lots of people that have some classic car sitting in a back yard or in a garage... they never use that vehicle. They are "dedicated**" to some other means of transit; perhaps a bike, or motorcycle or even another car...

** sorry I keep going back to that term "dedicated" as I somewhat dismissed it earlier (http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=5470658&postcount=89)... it's just I don't like the term Forester uses... "involuntary," as if one is forced to ride a bike. His use of that term somewhat shows his mindset, I believe.

First, my background information. I own two cars though neither of them are registered at the moment. One is still insured. I also almost always have my fiance's car at my house as she lives in Philly and usually doesn't need her car there. So while I have a car available, I still usually ride my bike. Wednesday, I needed to go into Philly though and being overtired from lack of sleep among other things, I decided to drive there instead of biking the 45 mile round trip. This isn't the first time that I've driven a bikeable distance because I was either tired or had too much to carry. I'm the same guy who gets pulled over for cycling on a busy road during rush hour and who also likes to bike into work when there's a few inches of sleet on the roads and a -5F windchill.

Am I voluntary? Am I dedicated? Do I enjoy cycling?

To answer your other questions, depending on which friend or family called and how quickly they needed me or what I had to bring over (I often get calls to look at a car problem requiring me to bring a lot of tools), I might bike or drive. I have hauled 60+ lbs. of tools with me before but only because I had the time and the ride wasn't too far (14 miles). If they asked me how it would take for me to get there, I'd ask how soon they needed me and make my decision on whether to bike or drive based on their answer. If I have an hour to across town, I'll bike. If I'm needed immediately, I'd drive. If I needed to go to my sister's house 70 miles away and come back the same day, I'm driving.

(drive = use an automobile in the context of this post)

Hey John Forester... Spin this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zz3zMzVdlX8

Neither of us has the breakdown on how exactly these overtaking collisions happened so I just wish you would point this out when you reference that report, instead of making it sound like 12% of Toronto motorist/cyclist collisions are cyclists being rear ended.


Sure. We left off with me questioning the relevance of a distinction.

http://bikeforums.net/showthread.php?p=5060542&highlight=mirror#post5060542

Sure, some cars brush by and cause no injuries or even no crash. Happened to me a few times.

But my point was 4 of 10 fatalities in this study were caused by motorists coming up behind the bike. Not surprising, given that other road users are hit from behind often as well.

So one more time: provide a SHRED of statistical evidence that motorist-overtaking is rare in accidents that seriously injure the cyclist. One SHRED. ANYTHING.

Sure. We left off with me questioning the relevance of a distinction.

http://bikeforums.net/showthread.php?p=5060542&highlight=mirror#post5060542

My personal feeling is that the distinction is important because so many cyclists choose a position far to the right in an attempt to stay out of the way of motorists (hence why bike lanes are so celebrated). My experience, and that of many others, is when riding further left, motorists tend to give you a lot more space than when further right, thus reducing the chances of being clipped, although arguably increasing the chances of being rear ended.

Sure, some cars brush by and cause no injuries or even no crash. Happened to me a few times.

But my point was 4 of 10 fatalities in this study were caused by motorists coming up behind the bike. Not surprising, given that other road users are hit from behind often as well.

So one more time: provide a SHRED of statistical evidence that motorist-overtaking is rare in accidents that seriously injure the cyclist. One SHRED. ANYTHING.

First off, your question keeps evolving.

Now provide, something, ANYTHING that indicates there are nine times as many cyclists hit from the sides and front as from behind. Url of where we might find the numbers, years and locations, please.

Your own Toronto study shows this, unless you start moving numbers around to make your point. You then post this "critical quote":

Alright let me read you a critical quote:

Collisions involving motorists overtaking cyclists are among the top three most frequent collision types and, like the “Door Prize” (Type 6), they occur most often in the central area. These collisions also involved significantly more adult cyclists (age 25 to 40) than most other crash types. .

It's true that overtaking collisions are in the top 3 of that study although at 12% of all collisions (with ~5% being average and many of the collision types being things only children might do) I don't think it's much to get overly concerned about.

Your new quesiton is this:

So one more time: provide a SHRED of statistical evidence that motorist-overtaking is rare in accidents that seriously injure the cyclist. One SHRED. ANYTHING.

Given the number of collisions studied, I think we should all be able to conclude that motorist overtaking collisions that result in death are pretty rare in general (in terms of how people die). We're talking about 4 deaths here. If you look at the stat for "major injuries" as a result of this type of collision, you'll find that out of 277 cases, only 2.7% results in major injuries (that's between 7 and 8 cases). Also note that while the study claims that lighting and weather had nothing to do with the collision rate, 15% of all the overtaking collisions happened at night (41-42 of those 277). Do you know how many of the deaths occurred at night (involving lit or unlit cyclists)?

This study leaves a lot of unanswered questions even though it is pretty thorough.

what happened to jhon forestor?

hypothetically, he's working counter to transportational bicycling, scheming up ideas, drumming up Chainguard automotons to support banning bikes from high speed transportation cooridors, and strategizing with the american dream coalition on how to get bikes banned from high speed arterials if a slow speed route is nearby.

Joe, my question isn't "evolving" anywhere, unless you and the wheelman are the same person.

I had questions for both of you. He made one argument, you made another. They seem to be based on the same non-existent data, though, and neither of you answered the question. Nobody from the VC-ride-further-left-for safety camp has given even a weak attempt at providing data, other than re-interpreting that which I spoon fed to them. Nothing at all.

And I agree 4 fatalities isn't many. I never suggested otherwise, or that I think cycling is dangerous, or that I am afraid to take the lane. The question was simply one of relative risks. That's all.

Joe, whenever someone like the wheelman, who refuses to reveal his sources, posts false statements like "danger from the rear is the smallest danger of all to begin with." I'll present these statistics and let people decide for themselves.

I'm not going to try to convince those whose minds are already long since made up.

Joe, my question isn't "evolving" anywhere, unless you and the wheelman are the same person.

I had questions for both of you. He made one argument, you made another. They seem to be based on the same non-existent data, though, and neither of you answered the question. Nobody from the VC-ride-further-left-for safety camp has given even a weak attempt at providing data, other than re-interpreting that which I spoon fed to them. Nothing at all.

Sorry, the "so one more time" part at the beginning of your question had me thinking you had already asked the same thing (or perhaps you had in another thread and that's what you were referring to). My mistake if that was the case.

And I agree 4 fatalities isn't many. I never suggested otherwise, or that I think cycling is dangerous, or that I am afraid to take the lane. The question was simply one of relative risks. That's all.

Joe, whenever someone like the wheelman, who refuses to reveal his sources, posts false statements like "danger from the rear is the smallest danger of all to begin with." I'll present these statistics and let people decide for themselves.

I'm not going to try to convince those whose minds are already long since made up.

You are have been presenting these statistics as if they prove your point but I don't think that they do per my previous reply. It's good to have those stats around though for argument's sake. They do tell us something, like cyclists are hit 9 times more often by motorists coming from ahead or the side than from behind, and that motorist overtaking collisions that cause serious injury are rare (unless you consider 3% of 12% of the total collisions to be "common"), though cyclists who are killed are often killed by being hit from behind. The question remains on how exactly these hits occurred since 15% of the total hit from behinds did occur at nighttime, a time noted for being hazardous for hit from behinds for unlit cyclists.

Suffice to say I encourage everyone to read the study themselves.

I think that the conclusions reached by the study authors differ considerably from Joe's.


And you still haven't provided any additional data yourself Joe. Not a shred.

And you still haven't provided any additional data yourself Joe. Not a shred.

Nor have I ever claimed to have any other than personal experience.

Suffice to say I encourage everyone to read the study themselves.

I think that the conclusions reached by the study authors differ considerably from Joe's.

I found this gem of a conclusion so far (I need to read the rest):

This contrasts with situations in which motorists would not expect to come into conflict with motorised traffic (motorist right-turn, right on red, entering on-street parking, opening a car door, etc.). It should not be surprising that darkness was not found to be a frequent factor in situations like these, where drivers may not feel a need to scan for potentially conflicting vehicles. Counter-measures to collisions like these should focus primarily on increasing drivers awareness of the need to watch for cyclists. Infrastructure enhancements (prohibiting right-turns at red lights, installing bicycle lanes next to on-street parking) also may reduce the potential for some of these conflicts at particular locations.

what happened to jhon forestor?

hypothetically, he's working counter to transportational bicycling, scheming up ideas, drumming up Chainguard automotons to support banning bikes from high speed transportation cooridors, and strategizing with the american dream coalition on how to get bikes banned from high speed arterials if a slow speed route is nearby.

Reasonably sane people, and people operating under the rules for polite discussions and scientific discussions, introduce a hypothesis when there is some evidence for it. You, Bekologist, have introduced a personally nasty hypothesis for which there is no evidence and, against which, is the evidence of the person with the best possible evidence, myself. The evidence of your hypothesis clearly shows that you do not belong in the classes of person entitled to advance hypotheses. However, when I advance the hypothesis that you, Bekologist, in the subject under discussion, are an ignorant, illogical, ideological liar, your own writings have provided all the evidence necessary to demonstrate the accuracy of the hypothesis.

I found this gem of a conclusion so far (I need to read the rest):


Am I to gather you think they are unaware of the risks of parked cars?


Improvements such as bike lanes and wide curb lanes could reduce the number of —Motorist Overtaking“ and —Dooring“ collisions, by encouraging drivers to give cyclists more space. It is generally easier for motorists and cyclists to share the road when separate lanes are clearly defined. Bike lanes and bike paths do not eliminate interactions between cyclists and motorists at intersections, where many other kinds of collisions occur.

Reasonably sane people, and people operating under the rules for polite discussions and scientific discussions, introduce a hypothesis when there is some evidence for it. You, Bekologist, have introduced a personally nasty hypothesis for which there is no evidence and, against which, is the evidence of the person with the best possible evidence, myself. The evidence of your hypothesis clearly shows that you do not belong in the classes of person entitled to advance hypotheses. However, when I advance the hypothesis that you, Bekologist, in the subject under discussion, are an ignorant, illogical, ideological liar, your own writings have provided all the evidence necessary to demonstrate the accuracy of the hypothesis.
Wow, and I thought it was just a joke at someone elses expense. ;)
PS: I was sincerely wondering why you hadn't posted in a while, not wanting to start another JF bashing thread... though I have been enjoying the mass of humor that the turn of events this thread has taken has provided me I have to admit.

Am I to gather you think they are unaware of the risks of parked cars?


Originally Posted by Same Document, Different Section

Improvements such as bike lanes and wide curb lanes could reduce the number of —Motorist Overtaking“ and —Dooring“ collisions, by encouraging drivers to give cyclists more space. It is generally easier for motorists and cyclists to share the road when separate lanes are clearly defined. Bike lanes and bike paths do not eliminate interactions between cyclists and motorists at intersections, where many other kinds of collisions occur.



This is absolutely silly. In an overtaking situation, and particularly in a dooring situation, the question is not how much space the motorist is willing to give, but how much space the cyclist takes. The cyclist is in front, he can take as much space as he thinks necessary. It is up to the overtaking motorist to overtake in a safe manner, regardless of the lateral position of the cyclist on the roadway.

Am I to gather you think they are unaware of the risks of parked cars?

It certainly sounds that way. They seem to think that painting bike stencils to the right of a white line will make people exiting a vehicle more likely to look for a cyclist first. This is very wishful thinking with nothing but conjecture to back it up.

Most shockingly though is they fail to even mention that cyclists should avoid the door zone in the first place and that education about this might help reduce these types of collisions.

Ghettocruiser writes:
"Of course, I don't blame you for not reading it, it's just a big conspiracy among non-chainguarders to make money in the ever-lucrative bike lane installation business."

And then he later quotes a "different section" of the "same document":
"Improvements such as bike lanes [are great, bla-bla-bla]."

TF: Thank you for not only not blaming me for, but also for vindicating, my decision not to waste time trying to open the document. As you've just confirmed for me, the document's authors are biased toward cyclist-inferiority cycling.

Ladies and gentlemen, the sophomoric debating style of Ghettocruiser (other examples of which include his _complete_ twistings, in other posts, of the meanings of my responses) is a textbook example of why only a handful of Chainguarders bother to waste their time in this forum.

Ghettocruiser writes:
"Of course, I don't blame you for not reading it, it's just a big conspiracy among non-chainguarders to make money in the ever-lucrative bike lane installation business."

And then he later quotes a "different section" of the "same document":
"Improvements such as bike lanes [are great, bla-bla-bla]."

TF: Thank you for not only not blaming me for, but also for vindicating, my decision not to waste time trying to open the document. As you've just confirmed for me, the document's authors are biased toward cyclist-inferiority cycling.

Ladies and gentlemen, the sophomoric debating style of Ghettocruiser (other examples of which include his _complete_ twistings, in other posts, of the meanings of my responses) is a textbook example of why only a handful of Chainguarders bother to waste their time in this forum.

This is absolutely silly.

actually john, not silly at all, but bonifide.

what is silly, however, is your reiteration in this very thread that you support banning bicyclists on some high speed 'freeways' to benefit motorized travel, if slow speed roads serve the same destinations. you support banning bikes from some roads because of speed differentials.

it won't be long before you slip completely off your rocker and begin to lobby to ban bikes from high speed roads and arterials for the benefit of motorized travel. your can't see how far you've slipped.

It certainly sounds that way. They seem to think that painting bike stencils to the right of a white line will make people exiting a vehicle more likely to look for a cyclist first. This is very wishful thinking with nothing but conjecture to back it up.

obviously joe hasn't figured out simply placeing a bike lane outside of the door zone reduces dooring collisions.

It's pretty simple, joe.

(by placement of well provided bike lanes -outside of the door zone- ) "Improvements such as bike lanes and wide curb lanes could reduce the number of —Motorist Overtaking“ and —Dooring“ collisions, by encouraging drivers to give cyclists more space. It is generally easier for motorists and cyclists to share the road when separate lanes are clearly defined. "

It certainly sounds that way. They seem to think that painting bike stencils to the right of a white line will make people exiting a vehicle more likely to look for a cyclist first.

Odd. It sounded to me like they were recommending the bike lanes and lane widening to increase the space between the parked cars and the cyclists in the default riding position. John picked that up but dismissed it as unnecessary, stating that "It is up to the overtaking motorist to overtake in a safe manner" even though the lack of motorists doing this was the reason the topic came up.

As for the other guy on this thread who still can't/won't open a PDF, his *contribution* to this discussion simply reveals that invented statistics and a complete lack of information can't be disguised by a little bit of mudslinging. Solid effort though, especially on the double-posting, it makes you twice as good.

It wasn't a compliment but I'm not surprised that you can't understand that, being a simpleton.



Time spent on the internet has nothing to do with you not being able to download a simple application.



If you have a "perfectly good working order computer" then you should be able to read pdfs, unless you're a simpleton.



What faction is it that I belong to exactly? I never knew I belonged to some elite faction, let alone any faction. Do I get a badge or something?




Sorry, zombie, I don't do Starbucks, or any coffee for that matter.



This isn't about reading his parsings, it's about why you're a simpleton.

1. We already knew what faction of the _cycling_ community you're a member of: The cyclist-inferiority, leper-cycling-advocacy faction. But I wasn't addressing you about that in this discussion.

2. Now, we additionally know that you're a member of the faction of _society_ that will constitute the main characters in my book of the title "Pedestal of Ignorance" (check bookstores if I ever get around to writing it).

Only an ignorant person would think that "simpleton" is never, or that "elitist" is always, a compliment.

I think we should all support the right of lepers to ride bicycles.

don't discriminate, wheelman.

of course, if motorists are being inconvienced by lepers on bikes, jhon forestor will support banning them from high speed roads.

Ghettocruiser wrote:
"Solid effort though, especially on the double-posting, it makes you twice as good."

TF: You've never seen me intentionally double-post, nor do I think you'd want to, because when I do do it intentionally the second copy _is_ twice as good as the first. You, on the other hand, have been _intentionally_ double-posting your "ONE SHRED" question all day and only shooting yourself in the foot each successive time you do it.

Indeed. I should have known better than to ask you to back up your inane remarks. My foot hurts.

Odd. It sounded to me like they were recommending the bike lanes and lane widening to increase the space between the parked cars and the cyclists in the default riding position. John picked that up but dismissed it as unnecessary, stating that "It is up to the overtaking motorist to overtake in a safe manner" even though the lack of motorists doing this was the reason the topic came up.

The part that I quoted mentioned nothing about lane widening. All they recommended to reduce doorings (and doorings only) was to install bike lanes next to curb side parking. Wide curb lanes didn't get brought up until the part you quoted where motorist overtaking collisions were also mentioned. Unless the authors are very scattered brained, you'd think they'd be more consistent than that. Also, cyclists getting doored hasn't nothing to do with motorists not providing enough space while passing. John picked up on this which is why he dismissed roadway width as a fix for either doorings. John also alluded to the oft quoted experience of cyclists who don't hug the edge of the road that motorists will give a cyclist more space if the cyclist is riding in a manner that takes up more space. This is a "free" fix for many of the motorist overtaking collisions that have you so concerned.

obviously joe hasn't figured out simply placeing a bike lane outside of the door zone reduces dooring collisions.

It's pretty simple, joe.

(by placement of well provided bike lanes -outside of the door zone- ) "Improvements such as bike lanes and wide curb lanes could reduce the number of —Motorist Overtaking“ and —Dooring“ collisions, by encouraging drivers to give cyclists more space. It is generally easier for motorists and cyclists to share the road when separate lanes are clearly defined. "

Sure, simple. Just add 11 feet of roadway width and problem solved. So simple :rolleyes:

Where in the authors' conclusions do they mention buffering bike lanes from curbside parking? Their conclusion reads pretty clear to me: "installing bicycle lanes next to on-street parking."

I think we should all support the right of lepers to ride bicycles.

don't discriminate, wheelman.

Of course I support the right of lepers to ride bicycles! To use another example, you apparently don't think that my appointing of myself as Wheelman implies that I don't support the right of women to ride bicycles, since your only comments on _that_ were to question whether I'm a "real" wheelman. But isn't "wheelman" a little bit un-PC in the same way that "non-leper cyclist" is? Be consistent, Bekologist.

Both lepers and women have the same right as anyone else to ride bicycles. However, both lepers and women _also_, just like anyone else _when_ riding their bicycles, fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles. The last time I checked, this forum was about _bicyclists'_ rights. For devoted bicyclists'-rights advocates, the above-mentioned principle (and if you don't like Forester I'll re-phrase it just for you, in an oversimplified way: the same right as anybody else to be on the road) must come first, and all other aspects of correctness - political and otherwise - second.

In short, women and lepers who are real cyclists, don't, in my experience (said experience consisting of discussing this general matter with plenty of women but no lepers yet that I know of), get worked up about semantics traditions that don't affect adherance to the principle that cyclists fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles.

boy, joe. ever heard of 'road diets'?

despite what 'conclusions' you think are drawn in that study, I believe in your intelligence enough that you can extrapolate how a bike lane placed outside of the door zone, or a wide curb lane, can reduce the number of doorings.

wheelman, YES, if you drive 20 days a month, i question you appointing yourself a 'wheelman.'

how you feel about discrimating against lepers riding bicycles is totally different. although, i believe that if a leper was inconviencing a motorist on a freeway, jhon forestor would support banning them, and the rest of us bicyclists in favor of the motorists.

soon, his anti-bicycling motorist ADC advocacy will extend to non-freeway roads that are high speed, and will support banning lepers and other bicyclists without discrimination. I mean, with discrimination. against lepers and non-lepers alike.

:roflmao:

Hey John Forester... Spin this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zz3zMzVdlX8

I'll spin it for you, Gene. I already save at least 1.5 tons of pollution emitted into the atmosphere every year, and have for many years. Nobody asked me to do this, nor paid me to. It's my preferred lifestyle, and I'm dedicated to it, even though I'm 48 years old, now.

Do you use air conditioning? If you said "yes," you're contributing to global warming. Do you cook? Use electricity? Throw away paper, plastic, glass, or aluminum?

i don't know, little big man. if 40 percent of all trips in america are less than two miles, it seems readily apparant that infrastructure improvements in public space to encourage non-motorized travel for short trips would help reduce greenhouse gas emmissions oodles more than a few chestbeaters claiming the lane on increasingly auto-centric byways.

wheelman, YES, if you drive 20 days a month, i question you appointing yourself a 'wheelman.'
Looks like Beck is now the "elite cyclist," and anyone who drives a car to work is not. Ubercyclist Beck. :rolleyes:

Used to be the "Foresterites" were criticised for being "elite cyclists" who didn't care about "average cyclists' needs."

But now, look! You have to give up your car to be a "true cyclist" (according to Beck.)

i don't know, little big man. if 40 percent of all trips in america are less than two miles, it seems readily apparant that infrastructure improvements in public space to encourage non-motorized travel for short trips would help reduce greenhouse gas emmissions oodles more than a few chestbeaters claiming the lane on increasingly auto-centric byways.

I agree but everytime a cyclist like Ms. Sparling dies needlessly in a badly designed bike lane my personal reaction usually favors the vehicular model; others cry for more facilities. I'm dubious whether the US has the will to make the committment to change attitudes and do facilities right. but if you look a century out into the future, I don't see a lot of petrol fueled vehicles plying the streets much anymore, either...

i don't know, little big man. if 40 percent of all trips in america are less than two miles, it seems readily apparant that infrastructure improvements in public space to encourage non-motorized travel for short trips would help reduce greenhouse gas emmissions oodles more than a few chestbeaters claiming the lane on increasingly auto-centric byways.

Who's beating his chest, now?

I'd rather not chase away potential cyclists by telling them they have to give up their cars, first.

Also, it's better to ride a bike, instead of driving, once a month than not at all.

But no, we all have to be like Super-Beck. Pipe dream.

One thing you don't mention is that it's quite possible to make two-mile, five-mile, even 20-mile trips without "bike facilities." Go ahead and build them, but don't tell me it's rocket science to ride on the road without them, I won't buy it because that's what I've been doing happily for years.