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

Hey psycho, who is this "we" that you're not speaking for?

What exactly makes me a member of the "cyclist-inferiority, leper-cycling-advocacy faction"? While you're at at what exactly defines the "cyclist-inferiority, leper-cycling-advocacy faction"?

You're right, this discussion wasn't about me, it was about a simpleton who can't open a .pdf on his computer. That would be you. So why exactly can't you open a .pdf? And why would that deficiency make you proud?



I never made that claim. The fact remains that in this case, you being a simpleton is not something positive, nor complimentary.

But the "fact" _doesn't_ remain. Your continued reference to it as a "fact", proves that it is you who is a simpleton.

*PLONK*

i think the simpleton who the discussion is about is jhon forestor-


a guy that thinks 'serious' bicyclists need no accomodations (although they can be used quite appropriately) and 'casual bicyclists better get serious or stay off the roads altogther.

not bicycling OR bicyclist advocacy.

what a crock.

What part of John's statement that motoring needs to "exist", don't you understand?

joejack951 wrote:

"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"

TF: _And_/or, tired partly _because_ - let me guess - you'd been spending so much time in an internet discussion about cycling. That sounds very familiar; I too do less cycling and more motoring on the days when I've tried too hard to keep up on the internet discussions of the more-devoted-than-you-or-me cyclists. I don't understand how some of these more-devoted-than-you-or-me-cyclists (on the various internet cycling forums) can maintain the posting volume that they do and still have time to be cyclists. I suspect that a lot of them must have soft jobs and/or do a lot of their posting on their boss's time.

:roflmao:

when I need to go somwhere 22.5 miles away, I ride my bike!

but wheelman and joejack, not so much bicycling for the self-proclaimed 'vc' acolytes of jhon's 'a little bit better than absentminded than anarchy- but not much!' delusional traffic parity method.

that's funny stuff, wheelman, put yourself down for not bicycling as much as some of the rest of us, then spin it to complain about our work ethics. :rolleyes:

what about jhon and his allegiance to the www.americandreamcoalition.org .... does his collusion with urban sprawl, motorist advocacy organizations fool anyone about jhon's lack of bicycling advocacy anymore?

jhon's just a tool for autocentric, bicycle unfriendly transportation networks and communities.

*plonk*
*splorg*

FYI, the distincation is being made being bicycle advocacy and (bi)cyclist advocacy, the former being advocacy directed at trying to get more people riding bicycles and the latter being directed at those who ride bicycles. Does that make more sense?

but IMO these are not and should not be mutually exclusive. it's all part of advocacy/accomodation for cyclists and the machines they ride. these wierd distinctions are used by zealots to try to discredit others, in fact it's all a crock of ca-ca.

I agree with this statement.



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.



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.

As you note, there are three groups: the public, the anti-motoring bicycle advocates, and the vehicular cyclists, each with its own view. The public fear same-direction motor traffic and cycling in it, and therefore love bikeways because they think that bikeways protect them from traffic and eliminate the need to ride in it. Vehicular cyclists recognize that obeying the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles is by far the best way to travel by bicycle, and that bikeways neither make cycling safe nor reduce the need for vehicular cycling skills. Anti-motoring bicycle advocates advocate the publics' view because they believe that only by appealing to the public will they be able to recruit sufficient former motorists to achieve their anti-motoring goal. This is despite the fact that many of these anti-motoring bicycle advocates have decided that cycling in the vehicular manner is in their own best interest.

The public do not want bikeways as such. They want to be able to cycle safely, comfortably, and conveniently without exercising traffic skills but while often performing some useful transportational function. They want bikeways because they have been conned into believing that bikeways enable them to achieve their vision. Some of the public restrict themselves to as little contact with motor traffic as possible, thus practically eliminating any ability to produce transportational benefits, while others push themselves into motor traffic because that is necessary to make transportational trips. The public's attitude causes them to cycle incompetently and dangerously, whether or not there is a bikeway.

The anti-motoring bicycle advocates praise and advocate the public's belief in bikeways, regardless of their own individual knowledge, because their goal is to recruit former motorists into bicycle transportation. Because they see the unpopularity of traffic-cycling skills, they assert that these are not necessary and denigrate those who assert otherwise.

Vehicular cyclists aim to get lawful, competent cycling recognized as the social and engineering standard, just as it is in traffic law, so that as many cyclists as choose will cycle lawfully and competently in reasonable safety, on roads properly designed for such operation.

When one considers the welfare of the individuals concerned in these activities, it is clear that vehicular cycling provides the best choice. It is also clear that both the physical facilities themselves, bike lanes or bike paths, and the mode of thought that erroneously declares them to be benefits, are opposed to vehicular cycling. They make vehicular cycling more difficult to understand, the superstition on which they are based undermines the known value of vehicular cycling, and they contradict the rules of the road and known traffic-engineering principles.

Given these almost total disagreements in all aspects between bikeway superstition and known traffic principles, it is practically impossible to reach a mutually beneficial agreement. Anti-motoring bicycle advocates know this; that is why they so strenuously oppose vehicular cycling, but it is also why they speciously ask for mutual agreement, as if they had truth on their side.

:roflmao:

when I need to go somwhere 22.5 miles away, I ride my bike!

Hey, I've had to go somewhere 140 miles away, and I rode my bike! I ride my bike as much as I can for transportational purposes (because I enjoy it) but when I'm dead tired and absolutely need to be somewhere still, the thought of cycling 45 miles just isn't appealing. But I'm sure this has never happened to Bek though.

As you note, there are three groups: the public, the anti-motoring bicycle advocates, and the vehicular cyclists, each with its own view.

And there's your first error.

Bekologist wrote:
"that's funny stuff, wheelman, put yourself down for not bicycling as much as some of the rest of us, then spin it to complain about our work ethics."

TF: Only according to _your_ "spin" was I questioning your work ethics for having time to be an allegedly more devoted cyclist than me. The fact of the matter is that I only questioned your work ethics for having time to be an allegedly more devoted cyclist than me _and_ own a car as you do (the time-consumption of the maintenance of which, even to have it just sit and rust, largely negates whatever money-savings, a.k.a. time-savings, you glean by being an allegedly devoted cyclist than me) _and_ still having time left (or, is it your boss's time?) in which to conduct a sustained average of 7.12 spleen-ventings per day on this forum.

John Forester: There's a conspiracy behind every grassy knoll on the bikeway.

No wonder he can't accomplish anything.

spleen-ventings
You're just jealous because you no longer have a spleen. (the "PLONK" from earlier was the sound of the spleen splatting on your desk next to your antiquated, non pdf-receiving, computer after a particularly vitriolic bout of hacking, was it not?)

As you note, there are three groups: the public, the anti-motoring bicycle advocates, and the vehicular cyclists, each with its own view.Over-simplify much?

--J

Over-simplify much?

--J

I'll make the Forester breakdown even simpler. There are those cyclists that agree with John Forester on every issue, and the rest are incompetent, lawless know nothings.

I'll make the Forester breakdown even simpler. There are those cyclists that agree with John Forester on every issue, and the rest are incompetent, lawless know nothings.

I don't take too kindly to being called an incompetent, lawless know nothing. Oh, wait a minute: You're _more_ of one! But thanks for putting my name in the paper.

He wasn't calling you an incompetent, lawless, know-nothing. According to John Forester you wouldn't be, since you are one of his followers that agrees with him on everything.

That's what I thought.

i think the simpleton who the discussion is about is jhon forestor-


a guy that thinks 'serious' bicyclists need no accomodations (although they can be used quite appropriately) and 'casual bicyclists better get serious or stay off the roads altogther.

not bicycling OR bicyclist advocacy.


Bekologist's propaganda still swirls around the verbal absurdities of the past. "Serious bicyclists", indeed, has reappeared, although "accommodations" has not so long a history.

Shall we try his argument using words whose meaning has been less diluted?

Here is my position, restated to correct Bekologist's misuse of words. I argue that any cyclist using the roads should obey the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles (That's the meaning of Bekologist's "serious bicyclists"). There is no question about whether or not such competent and lawful cyclists should be "accommodated" on the roads; the issue concerns whether bikeways are the appropriate accommodations.

Here is the implicit argument of Bekologist's words, restated using normal words. Bekologist argues that bike lanes and some other types of bikeways should be built because many people who do not want to obey the rules of the road (Bekologist's "casual bicyclists") believe that these "accommodations" allow cyclists to operate safely without obeying the rules of the road.

While there is plenty of evidence to support the public superstition side of Bekologist's argument, there has never been any evidence to support the real side of Bekologist's argument, and plenty of evidence against it.

Bekologist also claims that considering that cyclists using roads should obey the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles is neither "bicycling OR bicyclist advocacy". That argument is obviously false; obeying the rules of the road is clearly far better for cyclists than is disobeying the rules of the road, whether that be done deliberately or ignorantly.

Footnote: (Although the bicycle messenger argument, that supremely competent cyclists can disobey the rules of the road with impunity, does indicate benefit to those cyclists, it fails to account for the obvious dislike of such cycling by all other roadway and sidewalk users.)

Good grief, what a load of hooey.

It's no wonder that you've been so ineffective, given that incredibly goofy "analysis."

Where do the pro-motoring bicycle advocates who want to disassociate themselves from the VC religion fit into your strange little "analysis"?

This the description of vehicular cyclists given in the article to which you have replied: "Vehicular cyclists aim to get lawful, competent cycling recognized as the social and engineering standard, just as it is in traffic law, so that as many cyclists as choose will cycle lawfully and competently in reasonable safety, on roads properly designed for such operation."

Your comment indicates that you at least accept motoring, but you think that cyclists should not operate according to the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles. That has been the typical motorists' position for decades, and it suits their convenience. I failed to consider that combination to be represented in this group.

However, having announced your presence, you have not advanced any reason why this requires new arguments. Have you a new argument?

:roflmao:

snipped

what about jhon and his allegiance to the www.americandreamcoalition.org .... does his collusion with urban sprawl, motorist advocacy organizations fool anyone about jhon's lack of bicycling advocacy anymore?

jhon's just a tool for autocentric, bicycle unfriendly transportation networks and communities.

As I have written before this, you, Bekologist, are typical of many in that you evaluate everything according to your anti-motoring ideology. You argue that, because I do not support your anti-motoring ideology, I must be a "tool for autocentric, bicycle unfriendly transportation networks and communities". That's an error in elementary logic, the excluded middle, as I recall.

I hold several positions that are opposed to your ideology. I started by opposing the purely cycling parts of your ideology, but when those like you introduced the more widespread parts I found that I opposed them also.

You advocate bikeways, which were designed by motorists to restrict the operating rights of cyclists and impose a childish method of operation.

You advocate roadway cycling while disobeying the rules of the road, that method that motorists designed bikeways to enforce.

You advocate bikeways because they attract people who don't want to obey the rules of the road.

You advocate patterns of housing that the private car allowed people to escape.

You oppose suburbia because it requires motoring, but you use false arguments such as that people don't willingly choose to live in suburbia. In the same way you oppose the decentralized city, but without considering the costs that are inherent in the centralized city.

I repeat my position. Cyclists fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles. Cyclists need to work together to achieve reasonable accommodations in the cities that now exist. I oppose bikeways because they are based on the opposite view that cyclists are low-status and incompetent. I think it pointless to advance supposedly cycling reasons for opposing motoring because they, as advanced, are false. I also think it pointless for cyclists, as a group, to oppose suburbia and the decentralized city on more general grounds, because cyclists have insufficient political power to succeed.

Originally Posted by joejack951
"FYI, the distincation is being made being bicycle advocacy and (bi)cyclist advocacy, the former being advocacy directed at trying to get more people riding bicycles and the latter being directed at those who ride bicycles. Does that make more sense?"



but IMO these are not and should not be mutually exclusive. it's all part of advocacy/accomodation for cyclists and the machines they ride. these wierd distinctions are used by zealots to try to discredit others, in fact it's all a crock of ca-ca.

I disagree that the distinctions are made in order to discredit others. Rather, the distinctions are an inherent part of the discussion, and the reason for the existence of the discussion. I offer the bike-lane part of the discussion as the example, because there are several types of bike path.

If the discussion concerned only the purely cycling effects of bike lanes, there would be no discussion. Bike lanes contradict the rules of the road. The argument that this contradiction is necessary to provide space for cyclists is false, because wide outside lanes, that do not contradict the rules of the road, have provided that space for decades. So the discussion goes a level deeper and concerns whether cyclists should operate according to the rules of the road. Some say they should. Those who argue otherwise say that bikeways should be built because they attract people who want to cycle without obeying the rules of the road. Since obedience to the rules of the road is necessary for cyclist safety, why would anyone argue for a system that contradicts the rules of the road? The answer is that bikeways, with their false promise of safety without obedience to the rules of the road, are a more powerful attractant than is vehicular cycling. Why should anyone argue for attracting people into an activity that they will perform in a dangerous manner? That is clearly not in the best interests of those people. The answer then given is that it is necessary to attract motorists to bicycle transportation. Why that? Well, because motoring has so many disadvantages, it is necessary to get people to stop or significantly reduce motoring.

There you have it. There would be no discussion if it concerned only the purely cycling aspects of bike lanes. The discussion exists because of the ideological nature of the bikeway advocacy.

jhon, you being in bed with the american dream coalition www.americandreamcoalition.org and your intentions to ban bicyclists from high speed transportation cooridiors for the benefit of motorists proves your anti-bicycling agenda.

If the discussion concerned only the purely cycling effects of bike lanes, there would be no discussion. Bike lanes contradict the rules of the road. The argument that this contradiction is necessary to provide space for cyclists is false, because wide outside lanes, that do not contradict the rules of the road, have provided that space for decades. So the discussion goes a level deeper and concerns whether cyclists should operate according to the rules of the road. Some say they should..

yes. These are arguments that I have never seen! how is riding in a bike lane not following the rules of the road?


Those who argue otherwise say that bikeways should be built because they attract people who want to cycle without obeying the rules of the road. Since obedience to the rules of the road is necessary for cyclist safety, why would anyone argue for a system that contradicts the rules of the road? The answer is that bikeways, with their false promise of safety without obedience to the rules of the road, are a more powerful attractant than is vehicular cycling.

well, that's not true. Not the arguments I hear. Sometimes I think the only one who is making these arguments you're always referring to is YOU, John. bikeways and accomodations can be built that facilitate the fast, efficient and safe movement of both cars and bicycles. they can provide an incentive for intimidated cyclists to get off the sidewalk... they can provide a dedicated lane for cycle traffic that does not impede faster traffic. your

Why should anyone argue for attracting people into an activity that they will perform in a dangerous manner? That is clearly not in the best interests of those people. .

no. who's saying that? that's based on your faulty argument above.

The answer then given is that it is necessary to attract motorists to bicycle transportation. Why that? Well, because motoring has so many disadvantages, it is necessary to get people to stop or significantly reduce motoring..

See, again, I don't think anyone is arguing that.

There you have it. There would be no discussion if it concerned only the purely cycling aspects of bike lanes. The discussion exists because of the ideological nature of the bikeway advocacy.

your whole world view is based on stuff that you made up that bikeways imply and do and lure people to do and so on. it's very strange.

The answer then given is that it is necessary to attract motorists to bicycle transportation. Why that? Well, because motoring has so many disadvantages, it is necessary to get people to stop or significantly reduce motoring..
no. who's saying that? that's based on your faulty argument above.



Well Rando... that is not entirely true... I for one have argued that it is advantageous to attract motorists to cycling.

I am not anti-motoring... but I do in fact think that we have gone a bit too far in using this convenience.

Our collective health as a nation shows this; our addiction to oil shows this; and our auto-centric culture shows this. Further, it has been shown that more cyclists on the road tend to increase motorists awareness of cyclists in general.

Now I have gone even one step further and mentioned that if 10% of our national transportation budget (for hiways and roads for cars) was aimed instead at bicycle specific transit projects, and if this resulted in a 10% reduction in road use, then it would be a far better investment than simply building another two lanes on already crowded hiways.

No, I am not anti-motoring... but I do think we as a nation may have been a bit gluttonous in our use of the automobile.

See the link in my sig below...

^^good stuff^^

yes. These are arguments that I have never seen! how is riding in a bike lane not following the rules of the road?
I don't see how anyone can have participated on this forum for any reasonable length of time and yet never seen the arguments that show how bike lanes contradict the rules of the road.

It's incredible to believe that you really do not recall any of the myriad of discussions we've had about how bike lanes to the right of straight-or-right lanes direct through (c yclist) traffic to the right of right-turning (motorist) traffic. This is a fundamental contradiction to the rules of the road, and exists at any point where a bike lane intersects another road, alley, driveway or any place where traffic is allowed to travel into or out of, and there is no dedicated right turn lane with a bike lane to the left of it.

He wasn't calling you an incompetent, lawless, know-nothing. According to John Forester you wouldn't be, since you are one of his followers that agrees with him on everything.

Leave it to the polarizers to miss my point entirely.

As I have written before this, you, Bekologist, are typical of many in that you evaluate everything according to your anti-motoring ideology. You argue that, because I do not support your anti-motoring ideology, I must be a "tool for autocentric, bicycle unfriendly transportation networks and communities". That's an error in elementary logic, the excluded middle, as I recall.

Some of us tend to refer to it as the fallacy of the false dichotomy around here, but it's all the same thing.

False dilemma

The informal fallacy of false dilemma—also known as false choice, false dichotomy, falsified dilemma, fallacy of the excluded middle, black and white thinking, false correlative, either/or fallacy, and bifurcation—involves a situation in which two alternative statements are held to be the only possible options, when in reality there exist one or more other options which have not been considered.
--http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma It would be helpful if Bekologist would read that page, but I'm not holding my breath.

no, head, it's very apparant that jhon is allied with pro-motoring organization www.americandreamcoalition.org that would prefer bicyclists off the roads, a network of high speed arterials and bicyclists banned from high speed transportation cooridors, pushing bicyclists off to slow speed roads. he states as much in this very thread.

its pathetic to see how far he's fallen.

no, head, it's very apparant that jhon is allied with pro-motoring organization www.americandreamcoalition.org that would prefer bicyclists off the roads, a network of high speed arterials and bicyclists banned from high speed transportation cooridors, pushing bicyclists off to slow speed roads. he states as much in this very thread.

its pathetic to see how far he's fallen.

Only down to being an advocate of cyclist-inferiority cycling on frontage roads. Compared to that, being an advocate of cyclist-inferiority cycling on bikeways (the notch from which you've _never_ _risen_!) is all the way down there where the rock is molten.

Only down to being an advocate of cyclist-inferiority cycling on frontage roads. Compared to that, being an advocate of cyclist-inferiority cycling on bikeways (the notch from which you've _never_ _risen_!) is all the way down there where the rock is molten.

Calm down, Junior.

Haven't you figured out that different does not necessarily equal inferior? You are the one buying into the 'cyclist inferiority' attitude by perpetuating this argument.

Just because someone likes bike lanes or bike paths, doesn't mean they think they can't also use the road. Or is that too inclusive for your bigoted little mind?

Calm down, Junior.

Haven't you figured out that different does not necessarily equal inferior? You are the one buying into the 'cyclist inferiority' attitude by perpetuating this argument.

Just because someone likes bike lanes or bike paths, doesn't mean they think they can't also use the road. Or is that too inclusive for your bigoted little mind?

The average one of your bikeway-cycling (_and_ bikeway-designing) buddies _should_ "think that they can't also use the road", because they _can't_! This fact is made abundantly clear by their cluelessness about how to even _cross_ a road when they get to where their beloved bikeway must cross a road. Us Foresterians have _been_ "inclusive" enough to do several percent of our cycling miles on such farce-sillities just to be sociable with your faction, but our patience with which to do so wore thin after a while when we had to, at too high of a percentage of trail/road intersections, waste time dismounting and walking hundreds of feet to avoid having our accident rate go up astronomically due to pea-brained trail/road interface design. If that's not an "inferior" facility/maneuver, then I don't know what you _do_ call inferior!

Or is that too inclusive for your bigoted little mind?

The average one of your bikeway-cycling (_and_ bikeway-designing) buddies _should_ "think that they can't also use the road", because they _can't_! This fact is made abundantly clear by their cluelessness about how to even _cross_ a road when they get to where their beloved bikeway must cross a road. Us Foresterians have _been_ "inclusive" enough to do several percent of our cycling miles on such farce-sillities just to be sociable with your faction, but our patience with which to do so wore thin after a while when we had to, at too high of a percentage of trail/road intersections, waste time dismounting and walking hundreds of feet to avoid having our accident rate go up astronomically due to pea-brained trail/road interface design. If that's not an "inferior" facility/maneuver, then I don't know what you _do_ call inferior!

A simple 'yes' would've sufficed.

I have to admit, that while one can use both road and facilities, the design of facilities sometimes makes me chuckle.

;)

Oh, I'm getting critical, again. :D

to each, his own :)

no, head, it's very apparant that jhon is allied with pro-motoring organization www.americandreamcoalition.org that would prefer bicyclists off the roads, a network of high speed arterials and bicyclists banned from high speed transportation cooridors, pushing bicyclists off to slow speed roads. he states as much in this very thread.

its pathetic to see how far he's fallen.
cmon, bek

you're beginning to sound like joe mccarthy:)

Many writers to this forum, particularly those who consider themselves to be bicycle advocates, have shown a lamentable inability to think and to write logically, and an equally lamentable ignorance of cycling outside of their own little precincts. Furthermore, there is much ignorance of surface urban transportation, which is a field in which much cycling takes place.

There is steady complaint about the logical impermissibility of false dichotomies, with vehicular cycling on one side and something else on the other. However, as has been explained many times, vehicular cycling is operating in accordance with the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles. No matter what scheme of cycling one chooses to follow, it is either vehicular cycling or something else, and, so far as vehicular cycling is concerned, that other cannot be vehicular cycling. For many people, that other method is cyclist-inferiority cycling, following the principle of staying out of the way of same-direction motor traffic by some means or other, rather than operating in accordance with the rules of the road. Since vehicular cycling best combines safety, efficiency, and cooperation, it is the legal and preferred method. Operating otherwise than in the vehicular manner either frequently produces dangerous conflicts with other traffic or it forces the cyclist to delay until gaps in traffic, or similar, cause the conflicts to be removed.

I specifically exclude from this discussion of the defects of non-vehicular cycling the risk-taking violations of the rules of the road that are typical of much bicycle messenger cycling, violations taken to reduce the delays normal to proper road use. While these violations may be individually satisfactory for skilled traffic cyclists of the messenger type, they are socially unacceptable among road users and should be prosecuted.

Among the false dichotomies, there are statements of opposition to vehicular cycling, for various reasons, not one of which is a valid violation of the rules of the road. Take the person who wrote that he wasn't a vehicular cyclist because he sometimes cycled in the gutter. That's illogical, because there never has been a rule of the road prohibiting cycling, or driving, in the gutter. The same went for his other complaints. Of course, the cyclist can also choose to operate by pedestrian rules; on occasion that is more convenient, and there is nothing against that where the pedestrian laws permit such operation.

While opposition to operating according to the rules of the road has been expressed by some in this forum, so far as I know no other system of operating has been described. If you don't like the rules of the road, what then do you propose in their place? And for what reasons, and with what justification?

And there are the accusations, that have no merit whatsoever, that I advocate kicking cyclists off arterial streets. Or that I drive an SUV. Lies spread by bicycle advocates, purely because I oppose their prime program of bikeways.

The complaint that my opposition to bike lanes (and some bike paths) is dishonest because I sometimes ride in bike lanes is another illogicality. If the bike lane is in the place where proper cycling behavior would put me, then that is where I ride. If the bike lane is not designed to be in the place where proper cycling behavior would put me, then I ride properly, even if that is outside the bike lane. That does not disqualify my opposition to bike lanes, it justifies it. The fact that any practical bike lane system has to contradict the rules of the road provides all the justification that is necessary, because there has been no showing that violating the rules of the road provides a safer or more convenient environment for cyclists.

One might think it a mystery why bicycle advocates so passionately advocate bike lanes (and other bikeways) when those facilities were designed by motorists with the specific purpose of curbing bicycle traffic. It is an even greater mystery when so many of you admit that you ride in what appears to be the vehicular manner, whether or not a bike lane is present. If you know enough to ride in the vehicular manner instead of in the cyclist-inferiority childish manner indicated by the bike-lane stripe, why do you advocate that stripe? For that matter, why do you deny historical fact that the bike-lane system was designed by motorists to shove cyclists over to the side? The only reasonable conclusion to be drawn from your own actions is the explanation of the cyclist-inferiority phobia, which has generated passionate disclaimers from the bicycle advocates. But that is the only explanation for your absurdly irrational behavior that has been advanced. Since you don't explain your own illogical behavior, then others find it necessary to do so.

The cyclist-inferiority phobia is an irrational fear of same-direction motor traffic, exemplified by actions to avoid that without regard to the other dangers that are more frequent and are amplified by such actions. Avoidance of same-direction motor traffic is practically the only traffic action taken by the nation's program for bicycle transportation. The only explanation for its popularity among bicycle advocates is the cyclist-inferiority phobia. Quite clearly, some of you bicycle advocates do not suffer from the cyclist-inferiority phobia, but, all the same, you advocate the facilities that exemplify it. The reason for that is, of course, that becaue such facilities appeal to the general public who do suffer from that phobia, that makes such facilities the prime part of the anti-motoring program.

The public believes that bike lanes and bike paths, the facilities that exemplify the cyclist-inferiority phobia, can be combined into a practical system that makes safe bicycle transportation possible for those who choose not to operate in the vehicular manner. That's impossible in the modern decentralized urban area.

In short, bike lanes and bike paths are promoted dishonestly by anti-motoring bicycle advocates. That's quite sufficient justification for opposing them.

actually, NOT.

open your eyes and your mind, jon. wedging bikes into autocentric roads fails bicyclists miserably, and there ARE better ways to accomodate bikes into the transportation mix.

http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=361941

wedging bikes into autocentric roads fails bicyclists miserably,

That is why real cyclists want to be _dumped_ thereon, not "wedged" thereon as they are in the case of your beloved leper-cycling facilities.

The complaint that my opposition to bike lanes (and some bike paths) is dishonest because I sometimes ride in bike lanes is another illogicality. If the bike lane is in the place where proper cycling behavior would put me, then that is where I ride.

Presumably in accordance with the rules of the road.

The fact that any practical bike lane system has to contradict the rules of the road provides all the justification that is necessary, because there has been no showing that violating the rules of the road provides a safer or more convenient environment for cyclists.


So how do you reach the conclusion that bikelanes are inherently in contradiciton with the rules of the road, when you yourself have experienced bikelanes that are clearly placed so that you can ride in accordance with the rules in them? That's illiogical

In short, bike lanes and bike paths are promoted dishonestly by anti-motoring bicycle advocates. That's quite sufficient justification for opposing them.

So you admit your resistance to bikelanes is based on emotion and personality conflict? We appreciate your honesty.

So how do you reach the conclusion that bikelanes are inherently in contradiciton with the rules of the road, when you yourself have experienced bikelanes that are clearly placed so that you can ride in accordance with the rules in them? That's illiogical

Boy that is a darn good point. If John is riding in accordance to the rules of the road, and in doing so ends up in a bike lane, then that bike lane must be in the proper place... so how can a bike lane be a contradiction?

Of course the issue John et. al. will bring up is the contradiction at intersections. Perhaps he will tell us what he does at intersections.

So how do you reach the conclusion that bikelanes are inherently in contradiciton with the rules of the road, when you yourself have experienced bikelanes that are clearly placed so that you can ride in accordance with the rules in them? That's illiogical

The system of bike lanes contradicts the rules of the road. Individuals sections of bike lanes often do not.

Al

john suffers from motorist superiority disorder.
countries that plan for bikes as transportation have many more bicyclists, lower accident rates, and riders that span the age and ability gaps.

leaving bikes to ply the way on autocentric roads has been an abject failure as bicycling policy; bicycling in this country and the UK are pathetic compared to places that place value on bicycling.

john and his motorist superiority disorder has served to stunt and ****** bicycling in this country, and all the acolytes of vc are unwitting accomplices in retarding bicycling in this country. y'all should be ashamed of yourselves.

john and his motorist superiority disorder has served to stunt and ****** bicycling in this country, and all the acolytes of vc are unwitting accomplices in retarding bicycling in this country.

The fallacy of that statement is demonstrated by the fact that the places where I see the highest percentage of cyclists cycling like retards, are on bikeways, and that the times when double-digit-IQ cyclists' cycling speed becomes the most ********, is when they're on bikeways. :p

The random, comma scattering crowd, is here, apparently. Makes, it hard, to read.

And emoticons too!! :p

'******' meaning stunted, wheelman - :rolleyes: - not disabled.

So how do you reach the conclusion that bikelanes are inherently in contradiciton with the rules of the road, when you yourself have experienced bikelanes that are clearly placed so that you can ride in accordance with the rules in them? That's illiogical
Well, there is noisebeam's answer about the system of bike lanes being contradictory, but there is more. What Forester wrote was:

"If the bike lane is in the place where proper cycling behavior would put me, then that is where I ride. If the bike lane is not designed to be in the place where proper cycling behavior would put me, then I ride properly, even if that is outside the bike lane."

At any given time, for the current conditions, "proper cycling behavior" may put a cyclist in one particular lateral position, while it may put him several feet away (laterally) some other time under very different conditions. Under some of those conditions, the "proper cycling behavior" may put him in space that happens to be demarcated by the bike lane; at other times it puts him outside of the exact same bike lane.

That's one big inherent problem with bike lanes. They, being static demarcations of supposedly appropriate lateral positioning for cyclists, are based on the assumption that proper lateral positioning for cyclists is largely determined independent of current conditions. But, actually, the opposite is true: cyclists should be adjusting laterally all the time. It is a very dynamic process, based on current conditions (including but not limited to: weather, surface conditions, cyclist speed, cyclist's intended destination, speed, volume and location of other traffic, presence of parked cars and other potential hazards, lighting conditions, etc.).

This is not just a tenet of vehicular cycling, but is even endorsed by scofflaw-cycling rationalizers like Robert Hurst, whose book returns and returns to this theme. It is a great disservice to cyclists, especially to the relatively inexperienced ones that bike lanes are often touted to be mostly for, to create facilities that reinforce the notion that where cyclists belong on the road is largely a static proposition independent of current conditions.

That's one big inherent problem with bike lanes. They, being static demarcations of supposedly appropriate lateral positioning for cyclists, are based on the assumption that proper lateral positioning for cyclists is largely determined independent of current conditions.

For the most part, it is. For the other times, there's no wall stopping anyone from leaving it. That's your strawman.

But, actually, the opposite is true: cyclists should be adjusting laterally all the time.

Yeah, we all know you can't ride in a straight line, newbie.

It is a very dynamic process, based on current conditions (including but not limited to: weather, surface conditions, cyclist speed, cyclist's intended destination, speed, volume and location of other traffic, presence of parked cars and other potential hazards, lighting conditions, etc.).

Bikelanes don't prevent any of that. Your picking the wrong target, Serge. The problem is, if what you claim about 'most cyclists' is true, that they don't know how to use the bike lane properly (ie. knowing when it's appropriate or necessary to leave it), not that bikelanes somehow magically force them to ride stupidly. If they don't know how to use it, the problem is merely a lack of education. Why have cycling instructors like yourself been so inneffective at educating these people in proper bike lane use?

For the most part, it is.
Well, then there is our fundamental difference. You think, "for the most part", that proper lateral positioning for cyclists is largely determined independent of current conditions (including but not limited to: weather, surface conditions, cyclist speed, cyclist's intended destination, speed, volume and location of other traffic, presence of parked cars and other potential hazards, lighting conditions, etc.). No wonder you like and support bike lanes. There is no way you can appreciate what's wrong with them if you think this.


For the other times, there's no wall stopping anyone from leaving it. That's your strawman.
Talk about strawman. I've never argued that there is a wall stopping anyone from leaving the bike lane, or anything like that. Anyway, this is now beside the point, because our fundamental difference is noted above.


Bikelanes don't prevent any of that.
I never said bike lanes prevented that or anything else. Are you having a discussion with me or just playing with yourself?

I said that bike lanes reinforce the notion that where cyclists belong on the road is largely a static proposition independent of current conditions, which brings us back to our fundamental disagreement.


The problem is, if what you claim about 'most cyclists' is true, that they don't know how to use the bike lane properly (ie. knowing when it's appropriate or necessary to leave it), not that bikelanes somehow magically force them to ride stupidly. If they don't know how to use it, the problem is merely a lack of education. Why have cycling instructors like yourself been so inneffective at educating these people in proper bike lane use?
Given my assumption about dynamics, relative to every-changing conditions, being the norm with respect to proper cyclist lateral positioning, the only proper training for bike lanes is to ignore them - position yourself as if the stripe is not there. But in that case, what is the bike lane for? But again, if you don't accept the assumption then this point is moot. Which brings us back to our fundamental disagreement, which I'm sure we can't resolve here.

I should clarify that while each time one may ride in a significantly different lateral position from the next or previous time, the cyclist's position should remain relatively static, once adjusted for the current conditions, on any particular trip through a given section.

Well, then there is our fundamental difference. You think, "for the most part", that proper lateral positioning for cyclists is largely determined independent of current conditions (including but not limited to: weather, surface conditions, cyclist speed, cyclist's intended destination, speed, volume and location of other traffic, presence of parked cars and other potential hazards, lighting conditions, etc.). No wonder you like and support bike lanes. There is no way you can appreciate what's wrong with them if you think this.

I guess I'd better explain it in small words for you then.

For the most part, lane position is not governed by transient conditions. Most of the time, it's lane width - the static condition of the road. If there's enough room to share, hold a line just outside the car traffic lane (whether it's marked or not), otherwise, hold a line somewhere inside it. All those transient conditions you mention can possibly result in a need to adjust it, but not all that often, and when you do, do so gradually and predictably.

If you had a functioning memory, you 'd know that I've never said that I like or support bikelanes (ok, I do like some, when they're done well). I don't whinge about them either, though. I just think the VC cultists expend way too much energy arguing against them, when their energy could be better spent pursuing things that are actually important for cyclist's safety. The risks involved in using a bikelane are really fairly miniscule, if they exist at all relative to your weaving about behaviour. It's much ado about nothing.

I've never argued that there is a wall stopping anyone from leaving the bike lane, or anything like that. Anyway, this is now beside the point, because our fundamental difference is noted above.

But you seem to think that 'most cyclists' feel they aren't permitted to leave it.

I said that bike lanes reinforce the notion that where cyclists belong on the road is largely a static proposition independent of current conditions, which brings us back to our fundamental disagreement.

If it reinforces anything, it's the idea that you pick your line, and hold it, unless it's necessary to change lanes. Just like you do in a car, if you're riding/driving vehicularly. Or do you change lanes on a whim in your car as well?

Your absurd notion that it marginalises cycling to an inferior position makes no more sense than saying a right turn only lane marginalises right turners.

Given my assumption about dynamics, relative to every-changing conditions, being the norm with respect to proper cyclist lateral positioning, the only proper training for bike lanes is to ignore them - position yourself as if the stripe is not there. But in that case, what is the bike lane for?

For the same reason that any other lane marking exists. It's your myopia that can't accept that a bike lane functions like any other marked lane