Rutgers paper on promoting cycling...

[genec]

It's already been established in this thread that the bikeway advocates therein are the ones who want to tax and spend.

Best to adjust your glasses Wheelman, the suggestions made by me were in lieu of yet more freeway lanes... thus the same funding that would otherwise go to promoting the same old problem would be redirected to a more healthy solution.

[I-Like-To-Bike]

There are certainly a lot of opinions on what to do with that other part of the book that’s for sure. :rolleyes:

I think most people in BF have a higher opinion of ILTB … just a troll. :p

But smart enuff not to take that fool seriously! What's your excuse? ;)

[Allister]

That's your problem right there. Feeling inferior _or_ superior to motorists is a political strategy that will fail every time, guaranteeing _inferiority_. Why do you think it's called "cyclist-inferiority"? .

Well, you can't argue with logic like that. :rolleyes:

Clue: 'cycling is the superior form of transport' does not equal 'I feel superior'. 'Cyclist inferiority' is your paranoid delusion, not mine.

I was making a _negative_ comment! News Flash: Being a Foresterian does not prohibit one from making one about particular roadway-project engineers/designers.

Logic really isn't your strong point is it?

[invisiblehand]

It's already been established in this thread that the bikeway advocates therein are the ones who want to tax and spend.

?????????????

[buzzman]

It's already been established in this thread that the bikeway advocates therein are the ones who want to tax and spend.

Oh really?? Weren't you the one suggesting that every school kid in America have a copy of Effective Cycling at a cost of $20/book? And, as I've pointed out, even if it were only done for one grade it would be a cost of $80 million dollars every year ad infinitum. And if you're going to take cycle education seriously they'll actually not only need to read the book they'll have to ride a bike,too. And who provides the bikes for them to practice on and who oversees that practice and who pays for the liability insurance and what subjects do they take time out of to study this book and practice this riding and you know darned well every one of these kids is going to have to have a helmet when they ride their bike. This is not exactly Cost Effective Cycling.

So who pays for this Cycling Education that John Forester and his acolytes talk about and more importantly who profits from it?? Especially if there is only one true way to ride a bike and to teach how to ride a bike safely.

The Foresterlites will become the new American Taliban and instead of headscarves and Korans they'll require every kid in every school to have a helmet and a copy of Effective Cycling.

If my tax money is going to go to cycling projects I'd like to see it go for something that will last and have real and lasting affect on the lives of as many people as possible. Not some poorly conceived and ineffective "educational plan" where kids learn nothing but that they have inferiority complexes and lack courage if they won't take a lane on a 6 lane high speed arterial with trafffic whizzing by them at 60 mph.

[The Human Car]

So who pays for this Cycling Education that John Forester and his acolytes talk about and more importantly who profits from it?? Especially if there is only one true way to ride a bike and to teach how to ride a bike safely.

The Foresterlites will become the new American Taliban and instead of headscarves and Korans they'll require every kid in every school to have a helmet and a copy of Effective Cycling.

If my tax money is going to go to cycling projects I'd like to see it go for something that will last and have real and lasting affect on the lives of as many people as possible. Not some poorly conceived and ineffective "educational plan" where kids learn nothing but that they have inferiority complexes and lack courage if they won't take a lane on a 6 lane high speed arterial with trafffic whizzing by them at 60 mph.

First off your tax dollars are already going to teaching kids safe cycling. Unfortunately most of it is a bunch of junk that has made no impact on kids’ safety.

Rather the Forester’s book I would use this for kids: http://www.activelivingresources.org/assets/bikesafety.pdf
(How to obtain: http://www.activelivingresources.org/links4.php)

We need better education out there other then you need to wait for a bike lane or side path before you can ride your bike safely. Kids need to be taught how to ride safely on 25mph roads at least, end of story.

You can make fun of the Foresterites’ ultra egos all you want but good quality training on how to ride in the road safely should be required of not just kids but all motor vehicle drivers as well. And to be effective the education does not have to be served up à la Forester.

[buzzman]

First off your tax dollars are already going to teaching kids safe cycling. Unfortunately most of it is a bunch of junk that has made no impact on kids’ safety.

Rather the Forester’s book I would use this for kids: http://www.activelivingresources.org/assets/bikesafety.pdf
(How to obtain: http://www.activelivingresources.org/links4.php)

We need better education out there...You can make fun of the Foresterites’ ultra egos all you want but good quality training on how to ride in the road safely should be required of not just kids but all motor vehicle drivers as well. And to be effective the education does not have to be served up à la Forester.

You don't need to convince me that quality cyclist education of young people is worth the time and trouble I agree. But a well designed curriculum is essential and there are more cost effective ways of doing it than handing them a poorly written $20 book.


From a previous post of mine:

Mind you not that I'm against education nor educating young people about cycling but to think you can just throw "Effective Cycling" into the laps of 4 million school children a year and expect them to learn anything is ludicrous. Quality education costs money, just like quality designed bike paths.

...then you need to wait for a bike lane or side path before you can ride your bike safely. Kids need to be taught how to ride safely on 25mph roads at least, end of story...

Actually I think it's worth it to do both. Bike lanes, bike paths and bike facilities have a more immediate pay-off. Education, while useful, takes time. I think they'd best be done as part of a comprehensive and well-thought out program.

[buzzman]

the brochure you linked, which seems to be a far simpler and successful format than Effective Cycling (thanks for the link), makes the same point I was making.

This brochure points out common problems kids have while bicycling and suggests some solutions. But just reading it isn’t enough, nor is having your child read it. You and your child should go over the topics and do the exercises suggested.

...if you're going to take cycle education seriously they'll actually not only need to read the book they'll have to ride a bike,too.


Human Car-
I don't know if it's bad protocol to quote oneself in these forums but I do so to make the point that I don't think we're necessarily in disagreement here. I'm taking issue with Wheelman's assertions that spending money on bike facilities is always going to be a waste of taxpayer money and that the proponents of such facilities are incapable of doing anything but tax and spend. In reality well designed facilities offer strong economic pay back and do some societal good. And good cycling education for kids and parents has the same potential as well.

[The Human Car]

Actually I think it's worth it to do both. Bike lanes, bike paths and bike facilities have a more immediate pay-off. Education, while useful, takes time. I think they'd best be done as part of a comprehensive and well-thought out program.

+ a whole lot though I will note that there are other treatments for cyclists that should be in that list as well.

My post was not meant to be a disagreement but I feel advocacy is better served by offering solutions and not complaints. If you are after a better safe cycling literature for kids then I have something that I think is better. The trick now is how to bend the current system into something better.

[buzzman]

I feel advocacy is better served by offering solutions and not complaints.

I agree. My previous posts in this thread may read like "complaints" but my intention is to reflect back some of the argumentative style employed by so many of the Foresterlites.

I post in BF, especially in A & S, for entertainment purposes only. Any real advocacy I may do in here is merely coincidental.;)

Since the agenda ridden Forseterlites basically drive every thread into a diatribe on lane position and the evils of bike facilities I've long since given up on any real dialogue ever gaining momentum.:(

What ILTB, in his inimitable style, says about The Wheelman could just as well be said about any of our posts. We always need to be:

...smart enuff not to take that fool seriously!:p

[The Human Car]

I post in BF, especially in A & S, for entertainment purposes only. Any real advocacy I may do in here is merely coincidental.;)

Since the agenda ridden Forseterlites basically drive every thread into a diatribe on lane position and the evils of bike facilities I've long since given up on any real dialogue ever gaining momentum.:(


That really should go up as the topic description... it is so true, sad but true.

[John Forester]

That really should go up as the topic description... it is so true, sad but true.

I have had most interesting experiences during my excursion into the land of bicycle advocates, experiences from which I have learned much. Not, of course, about cycling, or even about bicycle transportation, but about the attitudes, beliefs, and knowledge of the more vocal bicycle advocates. You are those to whom I address this message.

It is a great shame, and intensely ironic, that the cyclists' advocacy of cycling, which is a thoroughly beneficial and enjoyable activity, has been supplanted by advocacy by bicycle advocates of the bikeway program designed by motorists to shove aside bicycle traffic for the motorists' own convenience.

The motoring establishment, under the name of "bike-safety", has insisted for seventy years that cyclists'prime duty is to keep the roads clear for motor traffic, that they should operate close to the curb in a childish manner without even trying to exercise judgement. The motoring establishment foisted this discrimination upon the American public (both all children and adults ignorant of proper cycling) by creating an entirely exaggerated fear of same-direction motor traffic while ignoring all the far-more frequent types of car-bike collision. Allied with the fear were feelings of inferiority, of being illegitimate trespassers on the cars' roadway. Fear of particular kinds of people is frequently associated with hatred of those people. Driving in traffic is a personal act, but more than that, cars became anthropomorphized, as in the common phrase, "The cars didn't see me." So, in many people who believed the motorists'propaganda, there developed fear and hatred of motorists and motor traffic, as evinced by so many of the most vocal discussants in this forum.

These emotions show in many ways, two of which are exemplified by the bikeway and urban pattern controversies.

It is necessary to state the following facts. There has never been any evidence that the childish manner of cycling is safer than obeying the rules of the road. There has never been any evidence that bikeways make cycling significantly safer, whether or not the cyclist rides in the childish manner. All bikeway systems inevitably include parts that violate the rules of the road for some movements. Car-bike collision statistics show that disobeying the rules of the road is a significant cause of collisions. Human factors and traffic engineering studies show that the rules of the road are well thought out as the system for humans to control wheeled, steerable vehicles. In short, operating according to the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles is well supported, while there never has been any support for childish cycling on bikeways.

Control of bicycle traffic by means of discrimination satisfied the motoring establishment until the late 1960s, when there was a resurgence of adult cyclists, many of whom did not obey the discriminatory instruction to ride in the childish manner. This caused the motoring establishment, starting in 1971, to promote, legalize, design, and fund the bikeway system to physically institutionalize their preferred method of childish cycling. The only opposition came from adult cyclists who had learned that riding as drivers of vehicles, as the law requires, is far better than riding in the childish manner.

There has been a recognized progression in urban patterns from walking city, to streetcar city, to automotive city. In America, the automotive city started about 1920, with some purely automotive suburbs, and it became the dominant new construction after World War 2, starting about 1947. Except for a few older cities with extensive rail systems, American cities grew into widespread automotive urban areas with many dispersed suburban centers replacing the old streetcar core. These changes were made possible by readily-available motoring, and these changes also made possible great changes in economic, professional, and social patterns. As far as transportation is concerned, these changes had two significant other effects. They made it impossible for mass transit to effectively service such wide areas with so many centers. The increase in typical trip distances, and the increase in trips for multiple purposes (made possible by the car), decreased the proportion of trips that were best served by bicycle. It is important to note that these changes were not forced on the population by the motoring interests, but that they occurred because the availability of motoring enabled a large proportion of the population to choose to live as they thought best for themselves.

For those who opposed motoring, only walking, cycling, and mass transit presented available alternatives, of which cycling was the most immediately promising. Groups appeared with the aim of furthering bicycle transportation as an alternative to motoring, calling themselves bicycle advocates. Their choice of actions to further bicycle transportation presents an anomaly that requires explanation. They did not choose to champion the best method of using bicycles for transportation, the methods used by the cyclists who operated according to the rules of the road and stood up for their rights as drivers of vehicles. Instead, they chose to strenuously advocate, as the prime part of their program, the system of childish cycling on bikeways that had been invented by motorists for the convenience of motorists. The most reasonable explanation of this anomalous choice is that the bicycle advocates believed the motorists' propaganda that had been taught to American children for so many years and had enabled the motoring organizations to gain public approval for their discrimination against cyclists, first with words only, then with bikeways. The bicycle advocates believed that the method of childish cycling on bikeways made cycling much safer and would thereby most easily attract many motorists into bicycle transportation. This belief that same-direction motor traffic is the most significant danger to cyclists and that bikeways provide much protection against motor traffic to those who operate in the childish manner is the cyclist-inferiority phobia. The only other explanation for the choice of the bicycle advocates is that they knew better but had chosen what they considered to be the best bait for those ignorant of proper cycling. With respect to this cynical excuse, I say only that no bicycle advocate has been known to use it. As the bikeway controversy has developed over the years, the justifications of their conduct advanced by the bicycle advocates have grown increasing strained and illogical. Despite the facts against the bikeway system, bicycle advocates continue to believe that it must be the most important part of their anti-motoring program, and therefore they twist facts and logic to produce justifications for it. As an obvious example of this twisting of facts, bicycle advocates simply refuse to believe the facts on record that bikeways were invented by motorists for the convenience of motorists.

In the example of the changing urban pattern, the bicycle advocates react slightly differently. Since their purpose is to oppose the motoring that produced that change, they can hardly deny that the change has occurred. One of their excuses is to argue that people don't want to live in single-family homes with their own yards, that those who buy them are the victims of a great conspiracy of land developers, highway builders, motor manufacturers, oil companies, and the like, who have forced people to serve their interests by buying homes in suburbia. Another of their excuses, allied with the first, is that people find motoring unpleasant but have been forced into it by the above conspiracy. Still a third excuse, dealing directly with cycling, is to argue that the change, about which they complain, has no effect on bicycle transportation, that bicycle transportation in the childish manner can be just as easily and usefully done in an automotive city as in a walking city such as Amsterdam. Still a fourth excuse is that they foresee the return of automotive cities to at least the streetcar city, possibly to the walking city.

Their initial choice of advocating childish cycling on bikeways sufficiently demonstrates that bicycle advocates act according to the cyclist-inferiority phobia. Their twisted and illogical arguments, denying well accepted facts, with which they justify that choice, provide extended confirmation of the motivation for their acts and beliefs. Any program that relies upon denying recognized relevant facts is likely to fail, and is nothing more than daydreaming impossible dreams. Designing a strategy for cyclists who live in modern cities, as do most of us, requires that the strategy be based on understanding the realities and working to achieve the most reasonable measures for accommodating cyclists who operate lawfully and competently as drivers of vehicles in the cities in which we live.

[buzzman]

I have had most interesting experiences during my excursion into the land of bicycle advocates, experiences from which I have learned much. Not, of course, about cycling, or even about bicycle transportation, but about the attitudes, beliefs, and knowledge of the more vocal bicycle advocates. You are those to whom I address this message.

It is a great shame, and intensely ironic, that the cyclists' advocacy of cycling, which is a thoroughly beneficial and enjoyable activity, has been supplanted by advocacy by bicycle advocates of the bikeway program designed by motorists to shove aside bicycle traffic for the motorists' own convenience.

The motoring establishment, under the name of "bike-safety", has insisted for seventy years that cyclists'prime duty is to keep the roads clear for motor traffic, that they should operate close to the curb in a childish manner without even trying to exercise judgement. The motoring establishment foisted this discrimination upon the American public (both all children and adults ignorant of proper cycling) by creating an entirely exaggerated fear of same-direction motor traffic while ignoring all the far-more frequent types of car-bike collision. Allied with the fear were feelings of inferiority, of being illegitimate trespassers on the cars' roadway. Fear of particular kinds of people is frequently associated with hatred of those people. Driving in traffic is a personal act, but more than that, cars became anthropomorphized, as in the common phrase, "The cars didn't see me." So, in many people who believed the motorists'propaganda, there developed fear and hatred of motorists and motor traffic, as evinced by so many of the most vocal discussants in this forum.

These emotions show in many ways, two of which are exemplified by the bikeway and urban pattern controversies.

It is necessary to state the following facts. There has never been any evidence that the childish manner of cycling is safer than obeying the rules of the road. There has never been any evidence that bikeways make cycling significantly safer, whether or not the cyclist rides in the childish manner. All bikeway systems inevitably include parts that violate the rules of the road for some movements. Car-bike collision statistics show that disobeying the rules of the road is a significant cause of collisions. Human factors and traffic engineering studies show that the rules of the road are well thought out as the system for humans to control wheeled, steerable vehicles. In short, operating according to the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles is well supported, while there never has been any support for childish cycling on bikeways.

Control of bicycle traffic by means of discrimination satisfied the motoring establishment until the late 1960s, when there was a resurgence of adult cyclists, many of whom did not obey the discriminatory instruction to ride in the childish manner. This caused the motoring establishment, starting in 1971, to promote, legalize, design, and fund the bikeway system to physically institutionalize their preferred method of childish cycling. The only opposition came from adult cyclists who had learned that riding as drivers of vehicles, as the law requires, is far better than riding in the childish manner.

There has been a recognized progression in urban patterns from walking city, to streetcar city, to automotive city. In America, the automotive city started about 1920, with some purely automotive suburbs, and it became the dominant new construction after World War 2, starting about 1947. Except for a few older cities with extensive rail systems, American cities grew into widespread automotive urban areas with many dispersed suburban centers replacing the old streetcar core. These changes were made possible by readily-available motoring, and these changes also made possible great changes in economic, professional, and social patterns. As far as transportation is concerned, these changes had two significant other effects. They made it impossible for mass transit to effectively service such wide areas with so many centers. The increase in typical trip distances, and the increase in trips for multiple purposes (made possible by the car), decreased the proportion of trips that were best served by bicycle. It is important to note that these changes were not forced on the population by the motoring interests, but that they occurred because the availability of motoring enabled a large proportion of the population to choose to live as they thought best for themselves.

For those who opposed motoring, only walking, cycling, and mass transit presented available alternatives, of which cycling was the most immediately promising. Groups appeared with the aim of furthering bicycle transportation as an alternative to motoring, calling themselves bicycle advocates. Their choice of actions to further bicycle transportation presents an anomaly that requires explanation. They did not choose to champion the best method of using bicycles for transportation, the methods used by the cyclists who operated according to the rules of the road and stood up for their rights as drivers of vehicles. Instead, they chose to strenuously advocate, as the prime part of their program, the system of childish cycling on bikeways that had been invented by motorists for the convenience of motorists. The most reasonable explanation of this anomalous choice is that the bicycle advocates believed the motorists' propaganda that had been taught to American children for so many years and had enabled the motoring organizations to gain public approval for their discrimination against cyclists, first with words only, then with bikeways. The bicycle advocates believed that the method of childish cycling on bikeways made cycling much safer and would thereby most easily attract many motorists into bicycle transportation. This belief that same-direction motor traffic is the most significant danger to cyclists and that bikeways provide much protection against motor traffic to those who operate in the childish manner is the cyclist-inferiority phobia. The only other explanation for the choice of the bicycle advocates is that they knew better but had chosen what they considered to be the best bait for those ignorant of proper cycling. With respect to this cynical excuse, I say only that no bicycle advocate has been known to use it. As the bikeway controversy has developed over the years, the justifications of their conduct advanced by the bicycle advocates have grown increasing strained and illogical. Despite the facts against the bikeway system, bicycle advocates continue to believe that it must be the most important part of their anti-motoring program, and therefore they twist facts and logic to produce justifications for it. As an obvious example of this twisting of facts, bicycle advocates simply refuse to believe the facts on record that bikeways were invented by motorists for the convenience of motorists.

In the example of the changing urban pattern, the bicycle advocates react slightly differently. Since their purpose is to oppose the motoring that produced that change, they can hardly deny that the change has occurred. One of their excuses is to argue that people don't want to live in single-family homes with their own yards, that those who buy them are the victims of a great conspiracy of land developers, highway builders, motor manufacturers, oil companies, and the like, who have forced people to serve their interests by buying homes in suburbia. Another of their excuses, allied with the first, is that people find motoring unpleasant but have been forced into it by the above conspiracy. Still a third excuse, dealing directly with cycling, is to argue that the change, about which they complain, has no effect on bicycle transportation, that bicycle transportation in the childish manner can be just as easily and usefully done in an automotive city as in a walking city such as Amsterdam. Still a fourth excuse is that they foresee the return of automotive cities to at least the streetcar city, possibly to the walking city.

Their initial choice of advocating childish cycling on bikeways sufficiently demonstrates that bicycle advocates act according to the cyclist-inferiority phobia. Their twisted and illogical arguments, denying well accepted facts, with which they justify that choice, provide extended confirmation of the motivation for their acts and beliefs. Any program that relies upon denying recognized relevant facts is likely to fail, and is nothing more than daydreaming impossible dreams. Designing a strategy for cyclists who live in modern cities, as do most of us, requires that the strategy be based on understanding the realities and working to achieve the most reasonable measures for accommodating cyclists who operate lawfully and competently as drivers of vehicles in the cities in which we live.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Since the agenda ridden Forseterlites basically drive every thread into a diatribe on lane position and the evils of bike facilities I've long since given up on any real dialogue ever gaining momentum.


Thank you for making my point!

I have been involved in bike advocacy since 1970. While there are a few accuracies in John Forester's observations most of his theories as to the cause of what he observes and the picture he paints of bike advocates that have not embraced his theories is laughably inaccurate.

What is a great shame, and intensely ironic, is how divisive many of the Foresterlite advocates became over the years and stalemated cycling advocacy by tying it up in endless bickering about lane position and overblown anxieties about the dangers of bike paths. It has ended up confusing well-intentioned legislators and paralyzed funding . For those legislators who opposed funding for biking programs it has provided them the necessary ammunition to veto virtually any proposal.

Finally more innovative, forward thinking, open minded advocates who see bicycles as part of an integrated restructuring of our urban spaces are moving things forward. Certainly some proposals will work better than others but at least some steps are taking place. The dominance of the anti-facilities crowd of bike advocacy that came into vogue in the mid-70's and held grip until the late 90's is looking more and more like the narrow minded, fear driven, self aggrandizing crowd that they always were. They chased a lot of us away from advocacy as we just figured the best way to advocate was just to get out there and ride our bikes. Many of them didn't ride all that much anyway. They spent most of their time talking. Now, they obviously spend much of their time on-line.:rolleyes:

[Allister]

What amuses me are his longwinded rants about how motorists are forcing cyclists onto paths to get them out of the way, and that VC is a valiant act against their insidious plotting, but if anyone suggests people ride instead of drive, they are branded as 'anti-motoring' as if that's a bad thing. :rolleyes:

[The Human Car]

What amuses me are his longwinded rants about how motorists are forcing cyclists onto paths to get them out of the way, and that VC is a valiant act against their insidious plotting, but if anyone suggests people ride instead of drive, they are branded as 'anti-motoring' as if that's a bad thing. :rolleyes:

You seem to be having trouble braking down Forester’s arguments, let me simplify it for you. If you think that cycling is inferior to motoring then you have cyclist-inferiority phobia. If you think cycling is superior to motoring then you are advocating cycling which means that you have cyclist-inferiority phobia. What is so hard about that, that you can’t wrap your brain around?

:rolleyes::p [In desperate need for more emoticons to show utter lack of any semblance of reasonableness or logic.] :D

[urban_assault]

There has been a recognized progression in urban patterns from walking city, to streetcar city, to automotive city.

Is it impossible to believe that this progression could continue? Could the next pattern be automotive and cycling city? Does progress stop with the automobile?

[Allister]

You seem to be having trouble braking down Forester’s arguments, let me simplify it for you. If you think that cycling is inferior to motoring then you have cyclist-inferiority phobia. If you think cycling is superior to motoring then you are advocating cycling which means that you have cyclist-inferiority phobia. What is so hard about that, that you can’t wrap your brain around?


It's all becoming clearer. Thanks.

[John Forester]

Is it impossible to believe that this progression could continue? Could the next pattern be automotive and cycling city? Does progress stop with the automobile?

You don't understand. Walking exists in the walking city, the streetcar city, and the automotive city. Cycling exists also exists in the walking city (consider Amsterdam), the streetcar city (consider New York's Manhattan, or London, UK, or San Francisco) and the automotive city (consider Los Angeles). It is just that the proportion of trips for which cycling is the best method drops with the progression, and drops particularly so with the automotive city, because of the ability of the car to serve so many purposes for such great distances. It is substantially impossible to recreate the former ability of bicycle transportation to serve a large proportion of trips once the automotive city and its economic and social patterns have developed. People live differently in automotive cities.

However, this does not mean that there are no trips for which a person would choose cycling. It is important to work out how best to accommodate cyclists in the automotive city. One view advocates bike lanes and bike paths with the argument that such bikeways allow safe and convenient bicycle transportation in automotive cities by those who do not obey the rules of the road but operate in some childish manner. Both aspects of that argument have been proved false, were proved false decades ago. Whether it is in a streetcar city or in an automotive city, all roadway users must operate by the same rules, the rules of the road. The presence of bike lanes does not eliminate the need for operating according to the rules of the road, but their presence disrupts that operation.

It is not difficult for cyclists to understand this principle (and traffic engineers know it also), but it is difficult for people who have been raised with the contrary belief that cyclists should not, for their own safety, operate according to the rules of the road. True advocacy for cyclists consists in advocating the rules of the road as the standard policy for roadway users and designing the road system to reasonably accommodate cyclists who operate by that standard.

Some people complain that I am opposing cycling, or the growth in cycling, or something similar, but that's the result of either or both of their intellectual choices and their emotional problems. In one way, they fear same-direction motor traffic so much that they believe the false bikeway arguments. In another way, they oppose motoring so much that they plan to attract the uninformed public into a scheme to return an automotive city to a streetcar city. That is not going to work as long as motoring is readily available. That motoring creates benefits is apparently difficult for the anti-motorist to believe, but it is the clear explanation for the growth of motoring and the society and urban pattern that it allows.

I oppose bikeway advocacy because bikeways and their supporting arguments contradict the only known safe and convenient way to operate in a modern city and are therefore harmful to cyclists. I oppose the exaggerated fear of same-direction motor traffic, the cyclist-inferiority phobia, because it has long been the justification for both bikeways and other unsafe methods of cycling. I oppose anti-motoring to the extent that it uses both the cyclist-inferiority phobia and bikeway advocacy in the attempt to produce a result that would be both inimical to cyclists and is almost certainly impossible to achieve.

[John Forester]

You seem to be having trouble braking down Forester’s arguments, let me simplify it for you. If you think that cycling is inferior to motoring then you have cyclist-inferiority phobia. If you think cycling is superior to motoring then you are advocating cycling which means that you have cyclist-inferiority phobia. What is so hard about that, that you can’t wrap your brain around?

:rolleyes::p [In desperate need for more emoticons to show utter lack of any semblance of reasonableness or logic.] :D

I have never argued either that cycling is inferior to motoring or that cycling is superior to motoring. Strange, isn't it, how so many people allow their presuppositions to produce such absurd thoughts?

[John Forester]

What amuses me are his longwinded rants about how motorists are forcing cyclists onto paths to get them out of the way, and that VC is a valiant act against their insidious plotting, but if anyone suggests people ride instead of drive, they are branded as 'anti-motoring' as if that's a bad thing. :rolleyes:

Not at all. My objections are stated in a post just made. I object to the use of anti-cyclist facilities and superstitions to promote the cause of cycling as motivated by the anti-motoring agenda. Cycling is a beneficial activity that ought to be promoted in honesty rather than through lies and fear.

[genec]

Not at all. My objections are stated in a post just made. I object to the use of anti-cyclist facilities and superstitions to promote the cause of cycling as motivated by the anti-motoring agenda. Cycling is a beneficial activity that ought to be promoted in honesty rather than through lies and fear.

And yet all your "promotion" hinges on a select group of "trained cyclists" riding at high speeds...

Not so Honest yourself, eh!

[Helmet Head]

And yet all your "promotion" hinges on a select group of "trained cyclists" riding at high speeds...

Not so Honest yourself, eh!
John Forester's promotion address bicycling on roadways. Untrained cyclists -- cyclists who do not know how to ride in accordance with the rules of the road -- have no business being on the road.

And his promotion does address the "untrained cyclists" (with respect to riding on roads) the only way it can be addressed: by getting them "trained".

[genec]

John Forester's promotion address bicycling on roadways. Untrained cyclists -- cyclists who do not know how to ride in accordance with the rules of the road -- have no business being on the road.

And his promotion does address the "untrained cyclists" (with respect to riding on roads) the only way it can be addressed: by getting them "trained".

I notice you left the hight speed bit alone... which John does address in his ADC paper by saying that cyclists want to achieve high speeds as part of their goals (paraphrased).

I also note the Pucher paper addressed education of cyclists... and indicated that the countries cited do educate cyclists and motorists far more than we do with either road users in this country...

So who exactly is not educating cyclists... and what do we then have as a result? The low rider share in the US vice the high rider share in countries where cyclists ARE educated.

Sorry I stick to my guns with regard to Forester's opinions... that he only wants to deal with cyclists trained in his special manner and only if they are willing to try to ride at their top speed all the time...

[Helmet Head]

I notice you left the hight speed bit alone...
Fine, I'll deal with it now.


...

Sorry I stick to my guns with regard to Forester's opinions... that he only wants to deal with cyclists trained in his special manner and only if they are willing to try to ride at their top speed all the time...
Citation please, otherwise I'm going to ignore that as utter nonsense.

[Allister]

Not at all. My objections are stated in a post just made. I object to the use of anti-cyclist facilities and superstitions to promote the cause of cycling as motivated by the anti-motoring agenda. Cycling is a beneficial activity that ought to be promoted in honesty rather than through lies and fear.

I agree, but I consider your vendetta against bike facilities to be at least as dishonest. I prefer a more balanced view - enshrining the right for cyclists to use the road, and teach them to do it safely and legally, but recognise that bike specific facilities can also be of benefit. Overstating the dangers of bikepaths/lanes is just as dishonest and fearmongering as overstating the dangers of road cycling.

Also, getting people on bikes is always going to mean encouraging them to ride as an alternative to driving a car, and actively discouraging driving can be a valid tool in that. I have always supported the idea of appropriate transport. The fact is that a significant proportion of journeys currently taken by car could easily be replaced by bicycling or walking. There are far too many cars on the road, and getting the ones that don't need to be there off the road would be a great start to making our cities more livable. If that is an 'anti-motoring agenda', so be it. I don't see that as a bad thing. That you do is kind of telling.

[Helmet Head]

Forester has no vendetta against bike facilities per se.
His vendetta, such as it is, is against the promotion of them based on unsubstantiated-at-best, but often false, claims.

John Forester is one of, if not the, strongest advocates of bike paths and their proper safe design in California. He has spent tens of thousands of dollars of his own money for that cause.

[TheWheelman]

Also, getting people on bikes is always going to mean encouraging them to ride as an alternative to driving a car, and actively discouraging driving can be a valid tool in that. I have always supported the idea of appropriate transport. The fact is that a significant proportion of journeys currently taken by car could easily be replaced by bicycling or walking. There are far too many cars on the road, and getting the ones that don't need to be there off the road would be a great start to making our cities more livable. If that is an 'anti-motoring agenda', so be it. I don't see that as a bad thing. That you do is kind of telling.

The only thing "valid" about your feeling of a need to "actively" (a.k.a. artificially) discourage motoring as a tool for encouraging cycling, is that it proves that you're not really that confident that cycling is superior to motoring, and that rather, you actually suspect that it's inferior to motoring. Sufficiently inferior, indeed (so you obviously suspect) to be impractical to encourage without negative methodology.

[urban_assault]

You don't understand. Walking exists in the walking city, the streetcar city, and the automotive city. Cycling exists also exists in the walking city (consider Amsterdam), the streetcar city (consider New York's Manhattan, or London, UK, or San Francisco) and the automotive city (consider Los Angeles). It is just that the proportion of trips for which cycling is the best method drops with the progression, and drops particularly so with the automotive city, because of the ability of the car to serve so many purposes for such great distances. It is substantially impossible to recreate the former ability of bicycle transportation to serve a large proportion of trips once the automotive city and its economic and social patterns have developed. People live differently in automotive cities.....

I oppose anti-motoring to the extent that it uses both the cyclist-inferiority phobia and bikeway advocacy in the attempt to produce a result that would be both inimical to cyclists and is almost certainly impossible to achieve.

I do understand what you are saying.

Edit: Never mind, forget I asked.

[buzzman]

... One view advocates bike lanes and bike paths with the argument that such bikeways allow safe and convenient bicycle transportation in automotive cities by those who do not obey the rules of the road but operate in some childish manner. Both aspects of that argument have been proved false, were proved false decades ago...

talk about framing an argument in such a way that you can't help but win it.

Who is advocating that bikeways allow safe and convenient transportation for those who do not obey rules of the road and operate in a childish manner?

Only the smallest percentage of bikeway advocates would make such a ridiculous argument.

Those of us who advocate for bikeways see them as occasional alternatives to roads, streets and highways that by design, current traffic volume, intersections, congestion, business district activity and other pertinent factors make a bikeway a welcome respite from the autocentric road engineering that currently exists in many urban environments.



... In another way, they oppose motoring so much that they plan to attract the uninformed public into a scheme to return an automotive city to a streetcar city. That is not going to work as long as motoring is readily available. That motoring creates benefits is apparently difficult for the anti-motorist to believe, but it is the clear explanation for the growth of motoring and the society and urban pattern that it allows.

Look, I'll be candid here. You're creating arguments that simply don't exist. It's not "motoring" that many contemporary urban renewal advocates oppose but the effects that autocentric urban planning has had on our lives and living spaces. In the history of the automobile it initially replaced horse and buggies and street cars but eventually it has evolved to a kind of dominance over our living space that cannot compare to the impact of those prior means of transport. One simply has to compare photos of 1900 with the present day. Look at the what dominates the environment. 3-4000 lb automobiles capable of high speeds moving in a more narrow space than once existed to accomodate slower vehicles of far less mass. We've reached a tipping point of tolerance for the automobile in many urban areas where it's benefits no longer outweigh the negatives.

Compare these photos of 5th Avenue in NYC from 1900 to the present day. Has the automobile changed the city for the better?

http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s176/kencheeseman/1044d.jpg

http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s176/kencheeseman/motor-traffic-fifth-avenue.jpg

http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s176/kencheeseman/Fifth_Avenue.jpg

I oppose bikeway advocacy because bikeways and their supporting arguments contradict the only known safe and convenient way to operate in a modern city and are therefore harmful to cyclists. I oppose the exaggerated fear of same-direction motor traffic, the cyclist-inferiority phobia, because it has long been the justification for both bikeways and other unsafe methods of cycling. I oppose anti-motoring to the extent that it uses both the cyclist-inferiority phobia and bikeway advocacy in the attempt to produce a result that would be both inimical to cyclists and is almost certainly impossible to achieve.

The whole cyclist-inferiority and the phobia thing is so worthless, so unprovable and so off-putting an argument that it diminishes your ability to be a trustworthy or believable advocate. You will continue to receive the kind of resistance like you see in BF to your theories and techniques when you insist on resting it all on such a weak foundation.

[Allister]

The only thing "valid" about your feeling of a need to "actively" (a.k.a. artificially) discourage motoring as a tool for encouraging cycling, is that it proves that you're not really that confident that cycling is superior to motoring, and that rather, you actually suspect that it's inferior to motoring. Sufficiently inferior, indeed (so you obviously suspect) to be impractical to encourage without negative methodology.

And white is black, right? :rolleyes:

But hey, you continue to tell me what I think, despite me repeatedly telling you it's the exact opposite if it makes you feel special.

[TheWheelman]

And white is black, right? :rolleyes:

As clearly so as in an image on Panatomic-X, and what I see in that image is that cyclist-inferiority advocates such as yourself work right alongside the militant motorists in promoting the Nyspspeak hypothesis, which states, in part, "Narrow is wide, and wide is narrow."

[The Human Car]

I have never argued either that cycling is inferior to motoring or that cycling is superior to motoring. Strange, isn't it, how so many people allow their presuppositions to produce such absurd thoughts?

Learn to read John that is exactly my point! No matter what someone says, you say they wrong. You are just an argumentative old grump. And you think that is cycling advocacy at its best, what a joke.

We’ll I got go downtown and I’ll take my bike because it is the fastest and superior way to get there because we cannot build our way out of the congestion that the automobile has created.

[genec]

Fine, I'll deal with it now.



Citation please, otherwise I'm going to ignore that as utter nonsense.

Sure... first of all he denies that systems work in the cities cited in the Rutgers paper due to "childish cycling;" his definition based on the speed of the cyclists in those cities. He also denies that paths work as he cannot ride them at his top speed; his criticism of the paths in Davis California. And last, there is this this quote from his wonderful association with the American Dream Coalition (http://americandreamcoalition.org/forester.pdf):

Voluntary transportational cyclists choose which trips to make by bicycle according to their needs and desires. Their prime motivation is the enjoyment of cycling. This enjoyment in cycling causes them to want to travel by bicycle when that is possible and does not have undesirable characteristics.
Under most circumstances, the ability to travel as fast as one desires is a large element in the enjoyment. Being forced to ride slowly, or with many delays, destroys the enjoyment.

And if you go back on this particular thread, you will see a discussion between JF and myself regarding delaying motorists and how cyclists cannot be delayed in the same manner (if delayed by Peds).

Now no doubt that will not be enough for you... you will likely find some small semantic issue upon which you will attempt to work some logical debate. All the time denying the basic fact that no city, relying on Vehicular Cycling alone, has ever achieved anywhere near the ridership of cities that rely on the foundations outlined in the Rugters paper.

So while the Fosterites fight for "rights" and the need for speed, the end result is a that only an elite small group benefits from their nonsense, and the end result is a lot of people driving and very very few actually cycling.

[genec]

The only thing "valid" about your feeling of a need to "actively" (a.k.a. artificially) discourage motoring as a tool for encouraging cycling, is that it proves that you're not really that confident that cycling is superior to motoring, and that rather, you actually suspect that it's inferior to motoring. Sufficiently inferior, indeed (so you obviously suspect) to be impractical to encourage without negative methodology.

By your tilted logic he is also actively against walking... as it too would give way to cycling as an alternative form of transit.

[genec]

Learn to read John that is exactly my point! No matter what someone says, you say they wrong. You are just an argumentative old grump. And you think that is cycling advocacy at its best, what a joke.

We’ll I got go downtown and I’ll take my bike because it is the fastest and superior way to get there because we cannot build our way out of the congestion that the automobile has created.

How true... as recently illustrated by the Big Dig in Boston and the 5/805 merge in San Diego. :D

[Helmet Head]

Sure... first of all he denies that systems work in the cities cited in the Rutgers paper due to "childish cycling;" his definition based on the speed of the cyclists in those cities. He also denies that paths work as he cannot ride them at his top speed; his criticism of the paths in Davis California. And last, there is this this quote from his wonderful association with the American Dream Coalition (http://americandreamcoalition.org/forester.pdf):

Voluntary transportational cyclists choose which trips to make by bicycle according to their needs and desires. Their prime motivation is the enjoyment of cycling. This enjoyment in cycling causes them to want to travel by bicycle when that is possible and does not have undesirable characteristics.
Under most circumstances, the ability to travel as fast as one desires is a large element in the enjoyment. Being forced to ride slowly, or with many delays, destroys the enjoyment.

And if you go back on this particular thread, you will see a discussion between JF and myself regarding delaying motorists and how cyclists cannot be delayed in the same manner (if delayed by Peds).

Now no doubt that will not be enough for you... you will likely find some small semantic issue upon which you will attempt to work some logical debate. All the time denying the basic fact that no city, relying on Vehicular Cycling alone, has ever achieved anywhere near the ridership of cities that rely on the foundations outlined in the Rugters paper.

So while the Fosterites fight for "rights" and the need for speed, the end result is a that only an elite small group benefits from their nonsense, and the end result is a lot of people driving and very very few actually cycling.
None of this even begins to support your claim that Forester "only wants to deal with cyclists ... willing to try to ride at their top speed all the time...", which is what I challenged as being nonsense. Your inability to cite anything that supports this claim strengthens my claim that it is nonsense.

Now if you want to reword that claim into something that is not nonsense, perhaps we can have an interesting discussion about it. Or, more likely, I'll just agree.

[joejack951]

Sure... first of all he denies that systems work in the cities cited in the Rutgers paper due to "childish cycling;" his definition based on the speed of the cyclists in those cities. He also denies that paths work as he cannot ride them at his top speed; his criticism of the paths in Davis California. And last, there is this this quote from his wonderful association with the American Dream Coalition (http://americandreamcoalition.org/forester.pdf):

Voluntary transportational cyclists choose which trips to make by bicycle according to their needs and desires. Their prime motivation is the enjoyment of cycling. This enjoyment in cycling causes them to want to travel by bicycle when that is possible and does not have undesirable characteristics.
Under most circumstances, the ability to travel as fast as one desires is a large element in the enjoyment. Being forced to ride slowly, or with many delays, destroys the enjoyment.

And if you go back on this particular thread, you will see a discussion between JF and myself regarding delaying motorists and how cyclists cannot be delayed in the same manner (if delayed by Peds).

Now no doubt that will not be enough for you... you will likely find some small semantic issue upon which you will attempt to work some logical debate. All the time denying the basic fact that no city, relying on Vehicular Cycling alone, has ever achieved anywhere near the ridership of cities that rely on the foundations outlined in the Rugters paper.

So while the Fosterites fight for "rights" and the need for speed, the end result is a that only an elite small group benefits from their nonsense, and the end result is a lot of people driving and very very few actually cycling.

Gene, you are missing the point of the bolded purple statement. Forester's point is that transportational cyclists don't want to have to deal with hassles that unnecessarily slow them down from whatever speed they enjoy moving at at that time and place. I might only want to go 10mph on the road but on some sidewalk with all sort of sign posts and garbage cans blocking the way, that might not be possible. Thus the road is more enjoyable even though I'm going far from my top speed.

[genec]

Gene, you are missing the point of the bolded purple statement. Forester's point is that transportational cyclists don't want to have to deal with hassles that unnecessarily slow them down from whatever speed they enjoy moving at at that time and place. I might only want to go 10mph on the road but on some sidewalk with all sort of sign posts and garbage cans blocking the way, that might not be possible. Thus the road is more enjoyable even though I'm going far from my top speed.

And yet that is exactly the situation that we cyclists present to motorists... that they "don't want to have to deal with hassles that unnecessarily slow them down from whatever speed they enjoy moving at at that time and place... " Yet Forester et. al. are not willing for cyclists to deal with the same "inconveniences."

Just take a glance at this thread (http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=367690)regarding delays for examples of cyclists' attitudes.

Sorry, what is good for the motorist is just as good for the cyclist... therefore any bicycle rider, no matter how slow or fast is still a cyclist, and if the foundations implemented in the Rutgers paper results in a 10X increase in ridership, albeit in a "childish manner" (Forester's definition) because they are riding at 10MPH and not at "whatever speed they enjoy moving at," then frankly I feel that cycling advocacy will have succeeded, vice the dismal display of cycling that now exists in the US and UK.

[noisebeam]

Delays and slowing caused to cyclists when pushed to sidewalks, paths, etc. are delays needed primarily for the cyclist safety. These are things like blind intersections with no controls, pedestrians, dogs, trash cans, poor surface transitions (curbs), poles, doors, etc. Things like this require the cyclist to slow to 5-8mph for their own safety for often long stretches of travel way. On open wide long visibility pathways with low usage, 20mph is usually OK.

Delays caused to motorist when sharing the road are due to following traffic and common law to not hit and kill/injure other users and suffer the moral/legal/financial consequences. These delays are momentary and with good roadway design (multiple lanes, wide lanes where there is traffic volume) are near zero.

Al

[genec]

Delays and slowing caused to cyclists when pushed to sidewalks, paths, etc. are delays needed primarily for the cyclist safety. These are things like blind intersections with no controls, pedestrians, dogs, trash cans, poor surface transitions (curbs), poles, doors, etc. Things like this require the cyclist to slow to 5-8mph for their own safety for often long stretches of travel way. On open wide long visibility pathways with low usage, 20mph is usually OK.

Delays caused to motorist when sharing the road are due to following traffic and common law to not hit and kill/injure other users and suffer the moral/legal/financial consequences. These delays are momentary and with good roadway design (multiple lanes, wide lanes where there is traffic volume) are near zero.

Al

Delays to cyclists, on well designed infrastructure, are also due to "following traffic and common law." You are tending to think in terms of the poorly designed and implemented infrastructure we generally get here in the US, where the attitude of government (fostered by the likes of Fosterites)toward cyclists on paths is a "childlike activity." (note that paths in the US generally are NOT maintained by transportation departments, but park departments)

Think outside of the box, along the lines described by the Pucher paper and cycling becomes quite a viable transportation mode enjoyed and used by about a quarter of the population, vice the marginalized situation that it is here, and in the UK.

Sure Noisebeam, you, Helmet Head, Joejack and even myself can use our current road system as it is implemented here... but we are part of that marginalized few that overcomes the obvious shortcomings of an autocentric system for our own benefit... in that, we are the rouge "outcasts."

Again it comes down to ridership... what can be done to increase ridership 10X? The Rutgers paper shows how this can be done... and no other method has shown such success.

[noisebeam]

Delays to cyclists, on well designed infrastructure, are also due to "following traffic and common law." You are tending to think in terms of the poorly designed and implemented infrastructure we generally get here in the US
Of course. That is why I mentioned the 20mph on well designed bikeways.
Al

[TheWheelman]

By your tilted logic he is also actively against walking... as it too would give way to cycling as an alternative form of transit.

That is correct; more-butts-on-bikes advocates are indeed among walking's major opponents. They crowd pedestrians off the pedestrians' facilities and into the dog dirt, every day, by promoting the sales of more lacking-of-headlights, plumbing-pipe-junk, Chinese-lead-paint bicycles to incompetent newbie cyclists who know of no place to ride other than on the pedestrians' facilities.

[noisebeam]

...can use our current road system as it is implemented here... but we are part of that marginalized few that overcomes the obvious shortcomings of an autocentric system for our own benefit... in that, we are the rouge "outcasts."
I see lots of folks using the roadways here and they are far from the marginalized, outcast description you give.

I also need to comment (not in response to Gene) about speeds.
On level ground 10mph is moderately slow for most cyclists - 5mph can almost be difficult to ride at as balance become a larger consideration. I rarely see even the most casual going this 5-10mph slow. (Families with small kids on small bikes do go 5-10mph.) My wife (who is fit but cycles at best 100mi a year on a $200 hybrid) travels at 14-18mph, peak at 22mph when we go for the occasional 5-20mi ride. When I encounter kids riding on street to from the park on BMX style bikes in the neighborhood they are always going over 10mph, with 15mph being common.
18-20mph is a comfortable, not a racing speed, for the moderately fit who are going at a comfortable not pushing hard pace.

Al

[joejack951]

I see lots of folks using the roadways here and they are far from the marginalized, outcast description you give.

I also need to comment (not in response to Gene) about speeds.
On level ground 10mph is moderately slow for most cyclists - 5mph can almost be difficult to ride at as balance become a larger consideration. I rarely see even the most casual going this 5-10mph slow. (Families with small kids on small bikes do go 5-10mph.) My wife (who is fit but cycles at best 100mi a year on a $200 hybrid) travels at 14-18mph, peak at 22mph when we go for the occasional 5-20mi ride. When I encounter kids riding on street to from the park on BMX style bikes in the neighborhood they are always going over 10mph, with 15mph being common.
18-20mph is a comfortable, not a racing speed, for the moderately fit who are going at a comfortable not pushing hard pace.

Al

Do note that your speeds are on flat ground. My (now) wife and I have spent long periods climbing at ~6 mph. We'll average about 12 mph for a hilly ride. On flat ground, we'll spend most of our time around 15mph, occasionally closer to 20.

[noisebeam]

Do note that your speeds are on flat ground. My (now) wife and I have spent long periods climbing at ~6 mph. We'll average about 12 mph for a hilly ride. On flat ground, we'll spend most of our time around 15mph, occasionally closer to 20.
Absolutely. I noted flat ground as adding in grades just complicates matters - for every 5mph uphill, there is a 25-40mph downhill.

The slowest I've gone recently for extended period was only a 6% grade, but into 25-30mph headwind with 40mph gusts and sleet - I barely made it up. I had a flat tire 3/4 the way and laid my bike on the ground. A hard gust of wind slid the bike about half a foot along the ground and my half full water bottle and helmet (which I had taken off to fix the tire as my glasses were fogging) were blown far away into roadside bushes.

Al

[Helmet Head]

Delays to cyclists, on well designed infrastructure, are also due to "following traffic and common law." You are tending to think in terms of the poorly designed and implemented infrastructure we generally get here in the US, where the attitude of government (fostered by the likes of Fosterites)toward cyclists on paths is a "childlike activity." (note that paths in the US generally are NOT maintained by transportation departments, but park departments)

Think outside of the box, along the lines described by the Pucher paper and cycling becomes quite a viable transportation mode enjoyed and used by about a quarter of the population, vice the marginalized situation that it is here, and in the UK.

Sure Noisebeam, you, Helmet Head, Joejack and even myself can use our current road system as it is implemented here... but we are part of that marginalized few that overcomes the obvious shortcomings of an autocentric system for our own benefit... in that, we are the rouge "outcasts."
Al has already addressed this one way, and I agree with him. But I have something to add.

Let's start with the legal and very general definition of traffic, which can be comprised of pedestrians and livestock as well as motor vehicles and bicyclists.

Now, to be consistent, I think the principle underlying all this is: The behavior of slower traffic can be restricted in order to convenience faster traffic as long as a safe and reasonable alternative is provided for the slower traffic. Note the following examples from our society, for better or for worse, that are consistent with this principle:


Bicyclists generally not allowed on freeways when a safe and reasonable alternative is available; when safe and reasonable alternatives are not available, extra effort is made to make the freeway legal, safe and reasonable for bicycle use.
In order to convenience bicyclsits, pedestrians are not allowed in bike lanes when a safe and reasonable pedestrian facility is available. Pedestrians are allowed in bike lanes, even if this inconveniences bicyclists using the bike lane, if there is no safe and reasonable alternative available for the peds.
In order to convenence faster traffic, bicyclists are not allowed on the roadway when a safe and reasonable bike lane is available; bicyclists are allowed in the roadway, even if it inconveniences faster traffic, when a safe and reasonable bike lane is not available.
To convenience faster traffic, drivers of slow vehicles are not allowed in the faster lanes when a slow lane is available. When a slow lane is not available, or it's unreasonable to use it (e.g., preparing for a left turn), drivers of slow vehicles are allowed in the faster lanes, even when that inconveniences faster traffic.
On 2-lane roads where "move aside" space is not available, drivers of slow vehicles are still required to pull over, but only when holding up 5 or more vehicles.


In other words, there is always a trade off between inconveniencing the slower traffic and the faster traffic. With that in mind, let's go back to your claim:

And yet that is exactly the situation that we cyclists present to motorists... that they "don't want to have to deal with hassles that unnecessarily slow them down from whatever speed they enjoy moving at at that time and place... " Yet Forester et. al. are not willing for cyclists to deal with the same "inconveniences."

Are they really the "same 'inconveniences'"?

Motorists want us off the road because we slow them down, regardless of whether we have a safe and reasonable alternative.

And we don't want to kick the peds off the MUPs - we just don't want to be required to use them.

I don't see how this is "not willing for cyclists to deal with the same 'inconveniences'." Can you expand on that, please. What exactly are these "same inconveniences" and how are they manifested?


Again it comes down to ridership... what can be done to increase ridership 10X? The Rutgers paper shows how this can be done... and no other method has shown such success.
Please describe in your own words what you understand the Rutgers paper says can be done, specifically, in SD, to increase ridership 10X.

P.S., I know the paper does not address SD specifically. That's not what I mean. What I mean is what are the specific things that it recommends need to be done, that you believe would increase ridership by 10x in SD.

[joejack951]

Absolutely. I noted flat ground as adding in grades just complicates matters - for every 5mph uphill, there is a 25-40mph downhill.

Apparently, I was being a very poor reader when I replied to your post. I completely missed where you said "level ground".

The slowest I've gone recently for extended period was only a 6% grade, but into 25-30mph headwind with 40mph gusts and sleet - I barely made it up. I had a flat tire 3/4 the way and laid my bike on the ground. A hard gust of wind slid the bike about half a foot along the ground and my half full water bottle and helmet (which I had taken off to fix the tire as my glasses were fogging) were blown far away into roadside bushes.

Al

Where was that ride? Sounds like fun :)

[genec]

I see lots of folks using the roadways here and they are far from the marginalized, outcast description you give.

I also need to comment (not in response to Gene) about speeds.
On level ground 10mph is moderately slow for most cyclists - 5mph can almost be difficult to ride at as balance become a larger consideration. I rarely see even the most casual going this 5-10mph slow. (Families with small kids on small bikes do go 5-10mph.) My wife (who is fit but cycles at best 100mi a year on a $200 hybrid) travels at 14-18mph, peak at 22mph when we go for the occasional 5-20mi ride. When I encounter kids riding on street to from the park on BMX style bikes in the neighborhood they are always going over 10mph, with 15mph being common.
18-20mph is a comfortable, not a racing speed, for the moderately fit who are going at a comfortable not pushing hard pace.

Al

Al, by "marginalized outcasts" I mean that transportation cyclists represent less than 2% of most US cities transportation requirements... and the "outcast" issue comes from the fact that we are NOT really welcome on the very network that we endevour to use. When our number rises above 10% or reaches the 20-30% of transportation ridership that some other countries have, then we will have achieved something. But as yet... we are "negligible" in the eyes of even the transportation secretary of the US.

[genec]

P.S., I know the paper does not address SD specifically. That's not what I mean. What I mean is what are the specific things that it recommends need to be done, that you believe would increase ridership by 10x in SD.

Go you one better... Portland already has some examples of what can be done...

Now you tell me how Vehicular Cycling will ever increase ridership to 5%. Bear in mind that VC was supposed to be the "perfect system" as practiced in the UK... and presently the UK has lower ridership than even the US.

[Helmet Head]

Go you one better... Portland already has some examples of what can be done...

Now you tell me how Vehicular Cycling will ever increase ridership to 5%. Bear in mind that VC was supposed to be the "perfect system" as practiced in the UK... and presently the UK has lower ridership than even the US.
Portland did not come close to increasing ridership by 10x, and discerning causation from correlation is difficult.

I don't think VC or any other "program" will increase ridership to 5% in San Diego.