What happened to John Forester? [Archive] - Page 6

Bekologist

10-19-07, 09:33 PM

:rolleyes:

I'm having an Andy Kaufmann flashback right now... "Here I come, to save the day..."

little big man, admit it, you just don't like me, and don't like the idea of public space redesigned to support greater numbers of bicyclists in this country. you'd rather, like jhon, demand better bicycling skills to operate a bike along increasingly auto-centric roads.

who's really the elitist?

my point of view, that rights of way can be redesigned to benefit bicycling in communities, is much more populist and pro-bicycling than jhons and yours, in case you hadn't noticed.

joejack951

10-19-07, 09:43 PM

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.

Am I supposed to be more knowledgeable about the subject than the authors' in order to understand their conclusions? There was no mention of road diets, Bek. That's a huge stretch to think that the authors' implied a road diet by recommending "installing bicycle lanes next to on-street parking."

For the record, I'm intelligent enough to know that a cyclist not riding in the door zone of a vehicle will not get doored.

LittleBigMan

10-19-07, 09:56 PM

little big man, admit it, you just don't like me...
You need to tell the difference between disliking you and disagreeing with your comments.

...and don't like the idea of public space redesigned to support greater numbers of bicyclists in this country.
Since you're relatively new to these forums, let me tell you my age-old stance on that: build all the bike facilities you want, but build them with excellence, and with the same dedication that cyclists and motorists expect from all roadways. Nothing less will do.

(Where did you get the "you don't want more bicyclists" idea? ;) )

you'd rather, like jhon, demand better bicycling skills to operate a bike along increasingly auto-centric roads.
There are no bicycling skills for operating a bike on the road that are more complex than bicycling skills for operating a bike elsewhere. If you can ride a bike and drive a car, you can master road riding.

Some people prefer bike facilities, which I support. I guess you conveniently "forgot" that.

...my point of view, that rights of way can be redesigned to benefit bicycling in communities, is much more populist and pro-bicycling than jhons and yours, in case you hadn't noticed.
Since you have gotten my point of view about bicycling wrong in the first place, you can't even make that statement accurately.

...you'd rather, like jhon...
You can call me, "phete." :D

Bekologist

10-19-07, 09:58 PM

3 years versus your six is 'relatively new' to the forums? :rolleyes: what about jhon, the subject of this thread?

lilbig, how do you feel about the banning of lepers on bicycles from freeway speed roads?

LittleBigMan

10-19-07, 10:10 PM

3 years versus your six is 'relatively new' to the forums? :rolleyes: what about jhon, the subject of this thread?
You mean Jhon Frosterer? Your obsession with him is old news.

lilbig, how do you feel about the banning of lepers on bicycles from freeway speed roads?
Around here, I am banned from riding on freeways. In my case, freeways would take me so far out of the way that I would never ride on them anyway.

But I would support the right of cyclists to ride wherever they need to to get where they need to go (yes, even the sidwalk though it's second-rate pavement.)

Bekologist

10-19-07, 11:03 PM

oh well. out here we can ride on the interstates.

i've read in this very thread jhon wants bicyclists, lepers or not, banned from 'freeways' when there's a slower speed alternative. banned for the conveinence of motorists.

someday soon, i predict jhon will support banning bicycles from arterials if there's slow speed roads for bicyclists. the dude has turned into a real car loving anti-bicyclist. must be his affiliation with the american dream coalition.

oh yeah, this thread is about where had jhon gone. he's busy scheming up ways to erode bicycling participation in this country using pledges of competancy over infrastructure.

however, if fully 40 percent of all trips in america are less than two miles, it's apparant infrastructure improvements to public space that encourage non-motorized travel for short trips would be of much greater benefit than a few chestbeaters claiming the lane on increasingly auto-centric byways.

infrastructure is working to increase bicycling, sometimes to amazing rates, in cities around the world. jhon's little motorist superiority system predicated onto bicyclists, not so much.

LittleBigMan

10-19-07, 11:33 PM

infrastructure is working to increase bicycling, sometimes to amazing rates, in cities around the world. jhon's little motorist superiority system predicated onto bicyclists, not so much.
I don't know if you're right or not about "...bicycling infrastructure increasing bicycling, sometimes to amazing rates, in cities around the world." You haven't provided any proof of that whatsoever, to my knowledge.

But when I told you of my experiences in Atlanta of hassle-free cycling without facilities, you told me over and over again I was lying. Funny how you don't need evidence to support your point, and you also don't need any evidence to call me a liar.

I would greatly prefer a pro-facility advocate who lacked any hidden anti-Forester agenda to promote a clearer view of the benefits of bicycling infrastructure than you have done, however I patiently wait for a positive vision to emerge from your posts, rather than unrelated attacks against John Forester.

Bekologist

10-20-07, 12:14 AM

zeytoun

10-20-07, 01:17 AM

TheWheelman:
"You are obviously an idiot. Bears are much better cyclists then Bekologists. And, btw, I am happy to be called a simpleton for having my calculator in jello, because it means that I do math in my head."
http://l.yimg.com/img.tv.yahoo.com/tv/us/img/site/74/90/0000007490_20060920143725.jpg

pj7

10-20-07, 01:35 AM

Allister

10-20-07, 02:08 AM

Tom Stormcrowe

10-20-07, 08:55 AM

Doesn't everyone do their math in their head? It's much simpler for me to calculate a Polynomial in my head than program in the variables to a statistical calculator.
TheWheelman:
"You are obviously an idiot. Bears are much better cyclists then Bekologists. And, btw, I am happy to be called a simpleton for having my calculator in jello, because it means that I do math in my head."
http://l.yimg.com/img.tv.yahoo.com/tv/us/img/site/74/90/0000007490_20060920143725.jpg

joejack951

10-20-07, 10:10 AM

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.

"blah blah blah bike lanes. blah blah blah bike lanes."

Ok, so I exagerrated a little. But good grief, you'd think that if they went through so much trouble to put together this study that they would have done so with an open mind, not a predetermined conclusion that the city needs more bike lanes.

Here are some real quotes:

"The fact that many cyclists do not take steps to make themselves more visible at night suggests that they may not be fully aware of how inconspicuous they can be to drivers....Increasing cyclists conspicuity can be achieved in several ways. Bicycle lanes can provide a consistent and predictable space for cyclists, making them somewhat easier to detect. Some cities use special markings and/or coloured pavement to highlight conflict zones and to remind drivers to look out for cyclists."

"One of the key components of the Toronto Bike Plan is a 1,000-kilometre bikeway network, which is to be implemented over the next decade. The network will include various types of facilities and spot improvements to make travel by bicycle easier and safer. The impact of bicycle lanes and paths on overall safety is the subject of debate, but it is clear that the cities with the highest levels of bicycle use and the lowest injury rates are those that have provided plenty of bicycle-friendly infrastructure."

"However, the presence of bicycle lanes can serve to remind motorists to be alert for cyclists, and they can also channel cyclists into a more predictable and visible position on the road. For cyclists not comfortable mixing with traffic, they provide a better alternative than the sidewalk, and thus may reduce the incidence of sidewalk cycling and its associated problems."

Ok, I think I'm done now. The credibility of the authors' of this study is completely gone as soon as they even begin to imply that riding in a bike lane means that the cyclist is no longer riding in traffic. I have said that this is a common mistake proponents of bike lanes often make and sometimes disingenuously use to promote bike lanes. Many bike lane advocates on this forum have told me time and again that that is not true. Well, here it is again.

Brian Ratliff

10-20-07, 10:18 AM

Doesn't everyone do their math in their head? It's much simpler for me to calculate a Polynomial in my head than program in the variables to a statistical calculator.

Haven't you seen the kids these days? Do they even teach the multiplication table anymore, or does it stress their wee wettle brains too much and make them feel inferior? ;)

But... that being said...

I'd be impressed if you calculate a quadratic in your head (though less impressed if you used paper). And even more so if you could calculate a cubic... ;)

joejack951

10-20-07, 10:28 AM

Haven't you seen the kids these days? Do they even teach the multiplication table anymore, or does it stress their wee wettle brains too much and make them feel inferior? ;)

But... that being said...

I'd be impressed if you calculate a quadratic in your head (though less impressed if you used paper). And even more so if you could calculate a cubic... ;)

Only if X=1 :)

Brian Ratliff

10-20-07, 10:30 AM

"However, the presence of bicycle lanes can serve to remind motorists to be alert for cyclists, and they can also channel cyclists into a more predictable and visible position on the road. For cyclists not comfortable mixing with traffic, they provide a better alternative than the sidewalk, and thus may reduce the incidence of sidewalk cycling and its associated problems."

Ok, I think I'm done now. The credibility of the authors' of this study is completely gone as soon as they even begin to imply that riding in a bike lane means that the cyclist is no longer riding in traffic. I have said that this is a common mistake proponents of bike lanes often make and sometimes disingenuously use to promote bike lanes. Many bike lane advocates on this forum have told me time and again that that is not true. Well, here it is again.

Funny, this limus test on traffic cycling research you have. What would suit your sensibilities? I mean, seriously, WOLs are also for the purpose to avoid mixing with traffic too, though this be your preferred facility, if I remember correctly. Would you prefer that the authors not say up straight what we all mean by wanting "extra space"?

Why not call it what it is. You have an issue with any report, any study, any research, which would suggest that the answer you know is wrong, has merit. You have access to the back of the book, so you know the answer, and any research which is contrary to your answer is invalid.

That's okay. Just know that this is the mark of an ideology and a closed mind. I hate to say it, but you are sounding more and more like John Forester by the day. You used to have some originality to your postings, but now you seem to have adopted the ideas of Mr. Forester wholesale and without thought. Didn't you, in another thread, just ask about "cyclist advocacy" vs. "bicycle advocacy". I thought it was Mr. Forester wrote that reply, until I saw the name beside it.

Brian Ratliff

10-20-07, 10:31 AM

Only if X=1 :)

Or zero... :)

joejack951

10-20-07, 10:55 AM

Funny, this limus test on traffic cycling research you have. What would suit your sensibilities? I mean, seriously, WOLs are also for the purpose to avoid mixing with traffic too, though this be your preferred facility, if I remember correctly. Would you prefer that the authors not say up straight what we all mean by wanting "extra space"?

WOLs aren't for the purpose of avoiding mixing with traffic. They are there to help faster traffic pass slow traffic, just like an extra lane on the road would. For the record, I'd prefer WOLs only where intersections are infrequent. With frequent intersections, I'd prefer multiple narrow lanes.

Why not call it what it is. You have an issue with any report, any study, any research, which would suggest that the answer you know is wrong, has merit. You have access to the back of the book, so you know the answer, and any research which is contrary to your answer is invalid.

I know that it is wrong to promote bike lanes as a way to remove cyclists from traffic, because they aren't capable of doing that. Do you disagree?

That's okay. Just know that this is the mark of an ideology and a closed mind. I hate to say it, but you are sounding more and more like John Forester by the day. You used to have some originality to your postings, but now you seem to have adopted the ideas of Mr. Forester wholesale and without thought. Didn't you, in another thread, just ask about "cyclist advocacy" vs. "bicycle advocacy". I thought it was Mr. Forester wrote that reply, until I saw the name beside it.

I adopted those ideas of Forester (and whoever else) when they sounded logical and were proven by testing them out myself. I'm sorry to say it, but you sound more and more like Bek these days where anything that sounds like a JF idea is immediately dismissed.

RobertHurst

10-20-07, 11:32 AM

...
I know that it is wrong to promote bike lanes as a way to remove cyclists from traffic, because they aren't capable of doing that. Do you disagree?
...

JJ, I think in your haste you misread the statement in question. It does not claim that bike lanes remove riders from traffic. The statement was that, for riders who are uncomfortable riding in the street, luring them out there with bike lanes is a better option than leaving them on the sidewalk, where they would otherwise be. I'm not sure I entirely agree with that myself, but I don't see any magical properties ascribed to bike lanes there.

Haste is really important for the continued survival of the bike lane debate. Without it, people would step back and realize how small potatoes the whole issue is.

Robert

Spokebreaker

10-20-07, 07:00 PM

Ok.

You're an idiot if you think that bikes should be banned from roads with a speed limit greater than 35 mph. Period.

You're an idiot if you think that no non-limited-access road should ever have a speed limit greater than 35 mph. Period.

Ok, now we know you're capable of personal attacks, but you still haven't answered my question - WHY do you think that's silly?

I'm not an idiot, I just happen to have different ideas than you.

Cars can (key word!) kill people above 35 mph. They can also kill people at 5 mph, 10 mph, 15 mph, 20 mph, 25 mph, 30 mph, etc.

You are claiming that cars are "lethal to everyone (key word!)

Not at all - I claimed they "do" kill people. They do - fact. Do they kill all people? Of course not, and I never said anything of the sort. They kill 40,000 - 45,000 people per year. Since the number of drivers increases every year, that does mean they are getting safer, but they still kill an awful lot of people.

And high speeds are a major culprit - the 55 mph speed limit seriously reduced highway deaths.

they come in contact with, including other automobiles" which is patently false. For example, my wife was hit (she was inside a car) at 35 +mph and walked away with just a scratch. Not lethal.

Wow - I'm glad your wife is ok. Sadly, that is the exception rather than the rule - injuries are common at speeds above 35 mph. I'm not saying that deaths are common above 35, but deaths below 35 mph are rare for motorists. Deaths of cyclists and pedestrians at those speeds are still common, but that can be reduced if we can somehow make everyone more aware of each other and not wrapped up in their own little world while driving / riding.

Please provide a link to the data that shows that 45 mph speed limits cost 45-45k lives each year. (the data needs to be from planet Earth)

Silly all over again.

You're right, though I was speaking of 'excessive' speed in general (i.e. don't get hung up on the number). That's probably only 10-12k deaths.

As a side note, I don't expect those types of changes ever to happen - too many people think that traveling at speeds in excess of 35 mph is their God-given right. It's merely a convenience, and one we all accept because we are mostly insulated from the direct consequences of it.

I just question the wisdom of putting a bike lane immediately adjacent to a motorist lane where the traffic is going 3-4 times the average speed of the bicycle. If the bike lane is properly separated (or the width of a motorist lane, 12-14' wide), then I would consider it "safe" - but how many of those do we see here in the US?

And why SHOULD we have 40-45 mph streets in the city that aren't limited access? Is convenience really worth the extra stress it puts into everyone's lives? (Yeah, I know - that one's a value judgement, totally subjective, and not based in anything resembling fact)

ghettocruiser

10-20-07, 11:02 PM

But good grief, you'd think that if they went through so much trouble to put together this study that they would have done so with an open mind, not a predetermined conclusion that the city needs more bike lanes.

...Bike lanes and bike paths do not eliminate interactions between cyclists and motorists at intersections, where many other kinds of collisions occur...

....For example, examination of collisions that occurred on or near a bike lane may illuminate safety issues peculiar to these facilities, which could influence design. This exercise might also provide evidence about the effectiveness of bicycle lanes in increasing safety...

...The impact of bicycle lanes and paths on overall safety is the subject of debate, but it is clear that the cities with the highest levels of bicycle use and the lowest injury rates are those that have provided plenty of —bicycle-friendly“ infrastructure...

..On roads without bike lanes, the CAN-BIKE program teaches that cyclists can make themselves more visible by their position on the road. Often, the cyclist can increase the likelihood of early detection by riding further out from the curb...

These don't sound like the words of a study author who has predetermined anything.

csr

10-21-07, 12:12 AM

My opinion: Bikes don't belong on roads with a speed limit greater than 35 mph. Period.

It is not difficult to bicycle safely on roads with speed limits higher than this. I know this, and I'm a noob. The key is to avoid hugging the right. When you are visible, it is much easier for cars to handle the situation correctly. In accident summary studies, the issues normally involve human error, not speed. The errors are easy to avoid for a cyclist, and that, plus wearing a helmet, greatly reduces our chances of death by collision, and injury as well of course.

John Forester

10-21-07, 12:28 PM

naw, that can be the focus of yet another thread. (why are you bringing up your Atlanta idylls again?):rolleyes: and BTW, this thread IS about the Forestorist.

i'm justified (regarding the original post) to focus on jhon's admittances - in this very thread - he supports banning bicyclists, for the benefit of motorists, from 'freeways' if a slow speed road is available as an alternative.

bans on bikes along public rights of way. for the convienence of motorists.

when will jhon begin to lobby to ban bikes from high speed arterials too?

how far can jhon push his anti-bicycling agenda under the guise of bicycling 'advocacy?'

The fact that I have some sympathy for motorists does not mean that I am not an advocate for cyclists. I simply believe that both need to exist and can reasonably co-exist. All that you bicycle advocates can see is anti-motoring; that is the only standard by which you measure transportation.

Bekologist

10-21-07, 07:48 PM

what a crock.

joejack951

10-22-07, 06:05 AM

JJ, I think in your haste you misread the statement in question. It does not claim that bike lanes remove riders from traffic. The statement was that, for riders who are uncomfortable riding in the street, luring them out there with bike lanes is a better option than leaving them on the sidewalk, where they would otherwise be. I'm not sure I entirely agree with that myself, but I don't see any magical properties ascribed to bike lanes there.

Haste is really important for the continued survival of the bike lane debate. Without it, people would step back and realize how small potatoes the whole issue is.

Robert

Ok, so bike lanes may lure riders from the sidewalk onto the street according to the authors. How do they accomplish this? By making riders feel as though they aren't riding in traffic, just like on the sidewalk (at least in between intersections)?

bmclaughlin807

10-22-07, 06:09 AM

The best thing I can say about bike lanes is that I've never been purposefully harassed or threatened by motorists while in one. I have on several occasions been subjected to varying degrees of threats, intimidation, and actual assaults while riding in traffic lanes.

Yes, these interactions are few and far between, but they happen... and if they happen on a rider's first foray off the sidewalk or MUP, how likely is that rider to continue riding in the street?

Bekologist

10-22-07, 09:11 AM

Ok, so bike lanes may lure riders from the sidewalk onto the street according to the authors. How do they accomplish this? By making riders feel as though they aren't riding in traffic, just like on the sidewalk (at least in between intersections)?

On road bicycling infrastructure LEGITIMIZES road bicycling, joe. it brings the sidewalk bicyclist to the road cooridor because it legitimizes its use for bicycle travel. It is a dishonest stretch to purport bike lanes make riders feel like they 'aren't riding in traffic'.

what happened to jhon? he's busy scheming up ways to make bicycling more motorist friendly :D

invisiblehand

10-22-07, 10:12 AM

Ok, so bike lanes may lure riders from the sidewalk onto the street according to the authors. How do they accomplish this? By making riders feel as though they aren't riding in traffic, just like on the sidewalk (at least in between intersections)?

With the understanding that there is a large variance in the quality of bike lanes ...

Some bike lanes look attractive since they are designed in conjunction with other engineering changes to the street. So the street is widened, a lane is eliminated, and so on, creating more space allocated to the cyclist.

Bike lanes do seem to reduce minor motorist aggravation ... the honks and such.

I think that the legal consequences of getting in an accident while in a bike lane are much better (including tort).

Of course, there is the perception that they are much safer than interacting with traffic in a ceteris parabis argument. At least this is my anecdotal belief from conversations with local cyclists who seem to get giddy with a bike lane.

noisebeam

10-22-07, 10:18 AM

Bike lanes do seem to reduce minor motorist aggravation ... the honks and such.

I think that the legal consequences of getting in an accident while in a bike lane are much better (including tort).

In my experience they increase motorist aggrivation if the bike lane is present, but not used by cyclist for a good reason (debrs, destination positioning, door zone, etc.)

The legal consequences may be worse if a bike lane is present, but not usable by cyclist for good reason, and the cyclist is hit while in an adjacent vehicular travel lane.

Al

invisiblehand

10-22-07, 10:23 AM

It is a dishonest stretch to purport bike lanes make riders feel like they 'aren't riding in traffic'.

Hmmmm, I don't think that it is that much of a stretch. Again, I have not taken a poll while attending a local Washington Area Bicyclist Association meeting, but from a lot of casual cyclists I get the sense that they do look at the bike lane as a method for separating themselves from motorized traffic. Given the friendly and casual atmosphere, I don't grill people on precisely what they mean from their statements. But my interpretation is that many of these casual cyclists--generally advocates for reasons other than a love for cycling--think of the lane and a semi-permeable barrier between themselves and the motorized traffic around them.

invisiblehand

10-22-07, 10:32 AM

In my experience they increase motorist aggrivation if the bike lane is present, but not used by cyclist for a good reason (debrs, destination positioning, door zone, etc.)

Yeah ... I have heard of other complaints. I typically have not run into this issue. But there is a logic to it.

The legal consequences may be worse if a bike lane is present, but not usable by cyclist for good reason, and the cyclist is hit while in an adjacent vehicular travel lane.

Al

From a handful of experiences reported by other locals, I believe that it can be another thing for the cyclist to explain and therefore a hindrance. For instance, a friend was just hit by a driver making an illegal left onto a road while he was taking the lane for a standard reason--I am unable to recall it at the moment. While the police determined that the driver was at fault, there was a conversation with the police officer regarding why he was outside the bike lane. I have no data, but my own speculation is that on net the bike lane is a positive factor.

But remember, we are talking about casual cyclists' perceptions and why they might take the bike lane instead of the sidewalk.

bmclaughlin807

10-22-07, 10:36 AM

In my experience they increase motorist aggrivation if the bike lane is present, but not used by cyclist for a good reason (debrs, destination positioning, door zone, etc.)

The legal consequences may be worse if a bike lane is present, but not usable by cyclist for good reason, and the cyclist is hit while in an adjacent vehicular travel lane.

Al

My personal experience is that the people that get aggravated when there's a bike lane present and you're not in it are the same ones that get aggravated if there's no bike lane present and they perceive you as being in their way. I'll use the bike lane if present and safe, but if it's bad for whatever reason, I'll ride the line, or just left of it.

I've only ever had one bad experience while I was out of a bike lane on a road that had one, and that was while waiting for traffic to clear for me to make a left turn. He stopped behind me and honked, then screamed out his window at me for 'darting' out in front of him (even though I signaled and moved over well before my turn and while he was quite a ways back from me)

noisebeam

10-22-07, 10:46 AM

Spokebreaker

10-22-07, 02:02 PM

You claimed that they kill "everyone they come in contact with." That's idiotic.

Ah. Thanks for pointing that out. That should have read "can be lethal" rather than "are lethal". My mistake.

Claiming that "Speed Kills" and is solely responsible for those fatalities and thinking that reducing the speed limit would save all of those lives is also idiotic.

No, merely inaccurate. Not the same thing - consult a dictionary if you are confused.

No it didn't. Educate yourself:

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa346.pdf

Well, that's one study. I don't agree with their reading of the statistics. The study you quote is flawed - it doesn't take into account the change in safety equipment during those 20 years, nor other aspects of automotive design. It also does not take into account the reduction in relative speed that occurred when speed limits were raised.

I'm not going to debate that point further, though, because I don't have time to research the additional data.

You don't know what the hell you're typing about. For example, 2800+ fatalities occurred at 35 mph and below in 2004. Rare? You're off your rocker.

Do you routinely attack people personally in every response?

Yes, comparatively rare. 2,800 of 42,000 is less than 10%.

You also routinely commented on "irrational fears". Irrationality is subjective.

Your repeated personal attacks and apparent unwilligness to engage on ideas rather than subjective assesments is also noted.

Spokebreaker

10-22-07, 02:36 PM

What? You obviously did not read the analysis or you didn't understand it.

Your fears are very evident in your posts. To normal folks, your fears are irrational.

Thanks!

I read it and I understood it - I just disagree. I'll concede your point, however, since as I indicated in my previous post, I'm not willing at this point to take the time to do the research to refute it.

"normal" is entirely subjective. Your implication that I am "abnormal" I will take as a backhanded compliment. I suspect you didn't mean it as such, but it's not your choice how I receive it. :D

bmclaughlin807

10-22-07, 03:01 PM

I know everyones experiences are different, but I have only once every had any kind of negative motoist interaction while riding on a road with in a wide outside lane. That one time a motorist honked as they were passing in the adjacent lane.

I have had a handful (~6) of negative interaction while riding in a narrow outside lane, always due to motorist behind me being slowed to their aggrivation.

I have had most (~12) negative experiences riding on roads with bike lanes, both while in the bike lane and while riding outside of it, about 50/50 split. Those when I am in BL have been motorist thowing stuff, yelling or intentionally moving into BL to intimidate. These later have occured mostly while I was riding with others.

Al

Let's see if I can sum up my experiences:

Narrow lane, controlling position:
I've been physically assaulted twice while in a narrow outside lane...
hit once by a passing truck's mirror
Nearly left hooked while making a left turn on a green light and a cross-traffic motorist ran the red light and made a left turn
Left hooked once by an oncoming left turner
left hooked in a driving lane in a parking lot by oncoming motorist. Worst accident ever... did over $800 damage to the front of the truck.
Flying down a slight hill in the rain... 30 mph in a 30 mph zone - had a motorist stop at a stop sign to my left, then pull across in front of me... I barely avoided him.
Same hill, same speed, bus pulls up to the stop sign, then pulls out in front of me making a left turn towards me
Wide outside lane:
A few near right hooks
Sidewalk:
T-boned twice by cars pulling out and not checking for peds/bicyclists... both times I was going at low speeds (This was what taught me that motorists were NOT to be trusted. EVER)
Bike path crossings:
Physically assaulted for slapping the side of a car that nearly hit me while WALKING my bike in a crosswalk
Struck by a car that was stopped for traffic... I started to cross in front of him, and right as I got right in front of him the car in front moved and he stepped on his gas also
Car waiting at a red light for a left turn, I have the cross symbol... Driver looks right at me, and pulls across the crosswalk right in front of me, forcing me to slam my brakes and slide sideways to avoid hitting him. (Yes, he still has a red light)... I go around behind him, flip him off from the other side, and he exits his vehicle, chasing me down the bike path.
In a bike lane
A couple near right hooks?
In the lane with a bike lane
One irate driver honking, screaming, and threatening to run me over while I'm waiting to make a left turn
Narrow lane, position too far right

Numerous close passes and honks

Spokebreaker

10-22-07, 03:14 PM

If you had read it you would understand that the change in auto safety features over a 20 year period has nothing to do with the analysis of the decline in accidents and fatalities after the 55 mph speed limit was repealed in 1995. The comparison is made between 1995 accident and fatality rates (with 55 mph speed limit intact) and 1996, 1997 (with speed limits repealed).

[Personal attack removed]

"The study you quote is flawed - it doesn't take into account the change in safety equipment during those 20 years, nor other aspects of automotive design."

In the future, [personal attack removed], you would be better off if you actually educated yourself about a topic(s) before making so many silly claims.

You're right - I mis-read the executive summary and associated the charts with the 1974 enacting of the national speed limit. So strike that comment, because it is obviously in error. I'll try to review more carefully before commenting in the future. I think my other point that you so conveniently ignored still stands - the reduction may have had more to do with the reduction in relative speeds. Pre-repeal, many people drove 65-70 mph routinely, and many others drove the mandated 55. Post-repeal, most of those former 55 mph people were driving within 5 mph of the new speed limit. The reduction in relative speeds would lower the "accident" (crash) rate, as well as the fatality rate. This study does not take that into account. (it addresses the issue, but only in the context of proving its point - no acknowledgement that it could (could, not did) have biased the results enough to change the conclusions)

No, I do not at this time have the statistics to back that statement up, but it logically fits the facts as well as personal observations while driving in Detroit and SE Michigan during the time period in question.

Notice also that fatalities and crash rates increased in nearly all of the western states (i.e. rural areas) - Wyoming being a notable exception. The crash rates decreased in the eastern states and other states with a high urban percentage of drivers - areas where relative velocity and the accompanying lane changes are definitely a factor.

All of this only tenuously relates to the original discussion we've been having, since this study only applies to limited-access highways, which are the primary roads where speeds in excess of 55 mph are permitted. It does not necessarily apply to the majority of roads I was referring to, with speeds in the 35-55 mph range, since the data is aggregated and doesn't differentiate between highway deaths and all motorist deaths.

So, if you want to debate me on facts, please use facts that directly apply to the discussion at hand. Thanks.

joejack951

10-22-07, 03:23 PM

On road bicycling infrastructure LEGITIMIZES road bicycling, joe. it brings the sidewalk bicyclist to the road cooridor because it legitimizes its use for bicycle travel. It is a dishonest stretch to purport bike lanes make riders feel like they 'aren't riding in traffic'.

Bek, please go back and read what was written and by whom. The Toronto study of cyclist accidents was where the comment about bike lanes luring sidewalk cyclists onto the road originated:

"For cyclists not comfortable mixing with traffic, [bike lanes] provide a better alternative than the sidewalk, and thus may reduce the incidence of sidewalk cycling and its associated problems."

How does a bike lane keep a cyclist from mixing with traffic? If it doesn't, why are the authors claiming it does, or are they claiming that the bike lane will make sidewalk cyclists feel like they aren't mixing with traffic? In either case, I completely disagree with that strategy for numerous obvious reasons.

Allister

10-22-07, 04:24 PM

Bek, please go back and read what was written and by whom. The Toronto study of cyclist accidents was where the comment about bike lanes luring sidewalk cyclists onto the road originated:

"For cyclists not comfortable mixing with traffic, [bike lanes] provide a better alternative than the sidewalk, and thus may reduce the incidence of sidewalk cycling and its associated problems."

How does a bike lane keep a cyclist from mixing with traffic? If it doesn't, why are the authors claiming it does, or are they claiming that the bike lane will make sidewalk cyclists feel like they aren't mixing with traffic? In either case, I completely disagree with that strategy for numerous obvious reasons.

It doesn't. It's merely there to help them feel more comfortable doing it. I don't know how you read all that other stuff into it.

John Forester

10-22-07, 05:27 PM

On road bicycling infrastructure LEGITIMIZES road bicycling, joe. it brings the sidewalk bicyclist to the road cooridor because it legitimizes its use for bicycle travel. It is a dishonest stretch to purport bike lanes make riders feel like they 'aren't riding in traffic'.

what happened to jhon? he's busy scheming up ways to make bicycling more motorist friendly :D

Here's Bekologist making as many errors as his statements.

1: Cycling on the road is legitimized by the act of cycling on the roadway. "Every person propelling a vehicle by human power or riding a bicycle shall have all of the rights and all of the duties applicable to the driver of any other vehicle ... " UVC 11-1202

2: "It is a dishonest stretch to purport bike lanes make riders feel like they 'aren't riding in traffic'". You are the dishonest one, Bekologist, because there have been many reports of bike-lane cyclists feeling that the bike lane protects them from traffic.

3: So, I'm "busy scheming up ways to make bicycling more motorist friendly"? Quite fortuitously, but erroneously, you happen to have chanced a guess that has some truth to it. Just a few hours ago, I was writing an argument to get rid of some traffic-calming devices and other items, such as bike lanes, that endanger and confuse drivers of vehicles. Getting rid of such devices benefits all drivers, be they motorists or bicyclists.

Allister

10-22-07, 06:02 PM

Just a few hours ago, I was writing an argument to get rid of some traffic-calming devices and other items, such as bike lanes, that endanger and confuse drivers of vehicles.

I had no idea drivers were so readily confused.

John Forester

10-22-07, 06:12 PM

I had no idea drivers were so readily confused.

When the bike-lane supposed rule conflicts with the standard rule, there is confusion. Seen quite often, particularly for motorist right turns.

Allister

10-22-07, 06:21 PM

When the bike-lane supposed rule conflicts with the standard rule, there is confusion. Seen quite often, particularly for motorist right turns.

Which 'supposed' rule is that then?

rando

10-22-07, 07:10 PM

The fact that I have some sympathy for motorists does not mean that I am not an advocate for cyclists. I simply believe that both need to exist and can reasonably co-exist. All that you bicycle advocates can see is anti-motoring; that is the only standard by which you measure transportation.

that's total bull****, John. And I think you know it.

I-Like-To-Bike

10-23-07, 05:25 AM

that's total bull****, John. And I think you know it.

Got to disagree Rando. JF's ego will never permit any such self acknowledgement of his own errors, mistakes or statements of total or partial BS. In JF's world he has never, ever been wrong on any subject and no one ever will convince him (or his acolytes) otherwise.

Discussion/debate with that gang is futile; Facts, reality and logical argument are wasted on 'em.
Read him and his zombie-like ideologues and laugh. If a grain of truth or a good idea is presented, swell; just don't let the accompanying swill cause any concern. It is much more sensible and practical than taking these jokers seriously.

Spokebreaker

10-23-07, 07:55 AM

Why should anyone use facts, when you don't use facts yourself? Regardless, I'll continue to "debate" you with facts while you continue to conjure your "facts" out of thin air.

No thanks - you've proven yourself incapable of rational discussion without insult, and incapable of acknowledging different interpretations of the data, so I'm just going to ignore your personal attacks and limit myself to discussion with rational people who can speak civilly.

BTW, the exception of Wyoming does not prove your point - it merely suggests that Wyoming may have other factors causing it to buck the trend. I don't expect you to even acknowledge that point, however, and frankly I'll be surprised if you manage not to take the opportunity to attempt to belittle me, insult me, or call me names. Don't bother, you're going to be ignored and you can take your petty rants and insults somewhere else. Thanks for playing.

invisiblehand

10-23-07, 10:02 AM

The fact that I have some sympathy for motorists does not mean that I am not an advocate for cyclists.

I agree with this statement.

I simply believe that both need to exist and can reasonably co-exist.

I think that this is pretty reasonable too. That is, I find it hard to believe that driving will be replaced as the fundamental source of transportation in the US.

Mind you, I do think that some simple steps could produce positive results for "cyclists" and "bicyclists" alike--using the terminology in recent posts. Increases in the percentage of trips/commutes is certainly feasible and I imagine would result in a lot of positive synergies between the two. Again, realize that a 100% increase in the number of bike commutes would still leave cycling as a teeny tiny transportation alternative.

All that you bicycle advocates can see is anti-motoring; that is the only standard by which you measure transportation.

It is somewhat unclear what you mean John. But given that park/transportation resources are often funded by the public, it would be in our interest to promote strategies that benefit the public at large--which are predominantly "bicyclists"--while providing an arguably better environment for "cyclists." That is, I rather engage other groups to bring about a mutually beneficial solution. Since there are environmental groups, for instance, interested in reducing driving and providing alternatives, it seems to make sense to interact with them such that their efforts are more productive than when left alone.