Cyclists fare best?

[Allister]

And I'm not arguing that anyone is arguing for doing that, Allister.

LOL. You're now saying your not arguing something that is a direct quote of yours? You really are amazingly talented as self-delusion, Serge.

I'm arguing that that is what is happening, whether it's intentional or not.
I certainly see a heck of a lot more emphasis and posts (myself excluded of course) on this forum from people complaining about motorist behavior than cyclist behavior, and advocating the need for better motorist education than more cyclist education. I see the same kind of thing on my local advocacy email list, on the Portland bicycling forums, etc. In fact, even suggesting that cyclists might be responsible for, and can largely (but not totally) control, what happens to them is widely frowned upon in the cycling community culture. What's almost universally acceptable is blaming the motorist, no matter what.

LOL. These forums aren't 'cycling advocacy' by any stretch of the imagination. If you think they are, you're a bigger fool than I imagined, and that's saying something.

The emphasis in the cycling community/culture, by far, is on how bad and dangerous motorists are, and how that has to change, and very little on the need to improve cyclist knowledge, skills and behavior, and how much that could do for improving cyclist safety.

Thing is, you can't deny there are bad and dangerous drivers out there, and ignoring it won't make it go away.

To be clear, I'm not saying there is not a need for both. Yes, there is a need for both improved motorist education and cyclist education. What I'm saying is that within the cycling community there is a much greater need for emphasis on advocating for and providing cyclist education, and very little if any need for advocating for improved motorist education.

And I think there is a need for both, within the cycling community. Who else can advise motorist education providers of cyclists concerns?

[Helmet Head]

And I'm not arguing that anyone is arguing for doing that, Allister.

LOL. You're now saying your not arguing something that is a direct quote of yours? `

Of course not. Which direct quote are you talking about, and how is that an example of me arguing that anyone is arguing for focusing the bulk of cycling advocacy's limited resources, focus and attention?



And I think there is a need for both, within the cycling community. Who else can advise motorist education providers of cyclists concerns?
I do agree advising motorist education providers of cyclist concerns is a legitimate function of cycling advocacy, and I'm personally involved with cycling advocacy organizations that do that.

The forums are not cycling advocacy, of course, but they are reflections of the cycling community. I just think that there is far too much communication and attention about motorist attitudes and behavior and the need to change that, and for too little about cycling attitudes and behavior and the need to change that, within the cycling community (including withing cycling advocacy). The disparity could hardly be any greater, and is in the wrong direction.

[Helmet Head]

Now I'm really outta here.

[Allister]

I'm asking what the point of spending the bulk of our time and resources and energy on advocating for improved motorist education by the cycling community is.

But no cycling advocacy group is doing that, Serge, not even SDBC from my viewing of their website, certainly not 'the bulk' of their efforts. You're whining about a problem that doesn't exist.

[John Forester]

One has to wonder why you are so pro-motoring, everywhere? Do cars have to have access to every square inch of a city, or country? Would you prefer driving roads vice hiking trails in our natural parks?

I fully understand the economics and prosperity that the auto, and more important the truck have brought us, but why do single individuals need to move about some 300 cubic feet of metal and air just to get from point A to point B... especially in light of the energy inefficiency involved?

Would our present roadway system not be far more useful if the vehicles involved where smaller to better utilize the limited road space available? Is there really a reason to drive a 300 HP vehicle when a 30 HP vehicle can do the same thing?

Half of your statement is absurd. There is a name for such figures of speech: hyperbole. However, it seems to me that your efforts are not so much deliberate hyperbole for effect as failure to understand reason.

As for the rest, I accept that people generally make choices, among the options available, that suit themselves. You can go advocate for 30 HP cars as much as you like; if that's your choice, then do it. But I resent it when people such as you get government to limit the choices that others make for no reason but to suit your own predilections.

[John Forester]

you think urban growth control is a 'complex' of 'anti-motoring' regulations????

What a joke. your paranoia is extreme and debilitating, john. not to mention your concept of vehicularity is bankrupt, curbhugger. you ride like a child on high speed roads, john. 'vc' fails even you.

You are wrong, Bekologist: I wrote nothing at all about limiting urban growth. You can't even identify what you are discussing.

I described many other actions that interlock to form a complex, and every one of them has been publicly announced as having the purpose of reducing motoring.

[randya]

Randall O'Toole's sugar-coated anti-cyclist, pro-motorist screeds in teh LATimes have been making the rounds again, too.

Way to go ADC!

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-op-dustup9jan09,0,4507139.story?coll=la-opinion-center

:rolleyes:

[Helmet Head]

But no cycling advocacy group is doing that, Serge, not even SDBC from my viewing of their website, certainly not 'the bulk' of their efforts. You're whining about a problem that doesn't exist.
Uh, SDBC is a racing club, not an advocacy group. Anyway, I'm not talking about what cycling advocacy groups are doing. I'm talking about what cycling community members are demanding in the area of education, especially what they are demanding with respect to motorist education relative to cyclist education.

[Brian Ratliff]

Start out with cancellation of the Mt. Hood Freeway and the other one to the west.

The urban growth boundary.

Enormous sums of government money spent on the light rail system.

Lots more government money and forgone government income spent on "transit-oriented development" projects that wouldn't exist except for the governmental subsidies, and which have had a dubious economic history, to say the least.

The pronouncements by the transit agency that it has to have congestion in order to attract riders.

Reduction in capacity of downtown streets.

Then there are the intended side effect of these policies: higher housing costs, greater densification, and greater congestion.

All of these items are not only anti-motoring but have been publicly announced as having that purpose. And, being such, they make bicycle transportation more competitive with motoring. And, notice, I have made no mention, so far, of bikeways, which are not a necessary part of the anti-motoring forces.

I'm just going to chime in here for a moment with the observation that the cycling community, on it's own, had little to do with any of these decisions. The light rail line into the city center from the east and west sides is very popular. It's not like there is any big difficulty in getting into the city center. We even expanded the Sunset Highway (HW26) going into the city from the west side to quell traffic jams. It's just that parking is a biotch and nobody wants to deal with it or pay for it, so if you can swing it, you take the MAX.

Hillsboro (a primarily farming community at the time - still mostly is) didn't want the west side freeway and the development that went with it, and voters evidently wouldn't provide the funds for the Mt. Hood freeway. Tough **** for pro-motorists, but that's the community's decision; gotta live with it. These subjects were before my time, but I can categorically say that cyclists, or even your anti-motoring advocates, weren't responsible for these decisions all by themselves. These were decisions made by a majority of the community, most of whom drive and don't bike.

Even the formation of bike boulevards wouldn't have happened without the support of the neighborhoods that these boulevards run through. Turns out that the "regular" people who live in these neighborhoods weren't exactly pleased with having cars racing at 40 mph through streets that their children were playing in, just to avoid a bit of traffic.

[Helmet Head]

I'm just going to chime in here for a moment with the observation that the cycling community, on it's own, had little to do with any of these decisions.
I don't think Forester or anyone else implied otherwise.
The point is these measures make motoring less convenient, and cycling more convenient. That's all.


The light rail line into the city center from the east and west sides is very popular. It's not like there is any big difficulty in getting into the city center. We even expanded the Sunset Highway (HW26) going into the city from the west side to quell traffic jams. It's just that parking is a biotch and nobody wants to deal with it or pay for it, so if you can swing it, you take the MAX.
Well, there is the other factor. It is my understanding that the difficulty/cost of car parking play a large role in the popularity of bicycling in Amsterdam and many other N. Euro cities as well.


Hillsboro (a primarily farming community at the time - still mostly is) didn't want the west side freeway and the development that went with it, and voters evidently wouldn't provide the funds for the Mt. Hood freeway. Tough **** for pro-motorists, but that's the community's decision; gotta live with it. These subjects were before my time, but I can categorically say that cyclists, or even your anti-motoring advocates, weren't responsible for these decisions all by themselves. These were decisions made by a majority of the community, most of whom drive and don't bike.
Again, the motivations behind these initiatives is beside Forester's point, which is that the result is that they make motoring less convenient, and, thus, cycling more convenient, and the combination of these "anti-motoring" factors is what explains the popularity of cycling there, not the segregated facilities.


Even the formation of bike boulevards wouldn't have happened without the support of the neighborhoods that these boulevards run through. Turns out that the "regular" people who live in these neighborhoods weren't exactly pleased with having cars racing at 40 mph through streets that their children were playing in, just to avoid a bit of traffic.
Again, beside the point, which is the boulevards make motoring less convenient, and, thus, cycling more convenient.

[Helmet Head]

I'm talking about what cycling community members are demanding in the area of education, especially what they are demanding with respect to motorist education relative to cyclist education.
For an example of what I'm talking about, see this thread, which started while we were having this discussion:

Laws to punish errant motorists more? (http://bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=385848)

Here's the OP:

When a bicyclist is hit by a motorist who is clearly at fault, the cyclist is frequently maimed but the motorist only receives a slap on the wrist in the form of a "failure to yield" citation or similar. Law enforcement has no other option other than to cite the statute paragraph that the motorist violated.

Has any state legislature tried to correct this imbalance?
Again, I see nothing wrong with this per se, but let me state my point like this: addressing the problems of motorist behavior seems to dominate the thinking and discussion within the cycling community about problems and necessary changes in traffic behavior, to the near exclusion of thinking and discussion about problems and necessary changes in cyclist behavior. I think it should be the other way around for the reasons stated earlier.

[genec]

For an example of what I'm talking about, see this thread, which started while we were having this discussion:

Laws to punish errant motorists more? (http://bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=385848)

Here's the OP:


Again, I see nothing wrong with this per se, but let me state my point like this: addressing the problems of motorist behavior seems to dominate the thinking and discussion within the cycling community about problems and necessary changes in traffic behavior, to the near exclusion of thinking and discussion about problems and necessary changes in cyclist behavior. I think it should be the other way around for the reasons stated earlier.


But the problem is that you are talking to skilled cyclists for the most part here... folks that probably ride quite a bit like you... Folks that may have taken Road 1 and Road 2 like me, folks that have long ago learned how to dodge and avoid autos, yet still find the auto filled road environment less than forgiving. Frankly I for one do not have any problems getting around anywhere I want to go, and I suspect the same situation exists for Al, Bek, yourself, Allister and a host of others here... especially in the A&S area and the VC area. I have not been involved in any collisions for well over 20 years... while daily commuting. But the close calls that I do have (and avoid) are NOT due to actions on my part... I obviously avoid these due to actions on my part, but I also notice that what I am doing is dodging bad drivers... drivers who either through ignorance** believe I don't belong and make stupid aggressive moves, or drivers who through bad habit make poor choices.

Now I also drive... and when I drive I am very conservative... at or below speed limit, always signal, always look twice, and with a mind to drive friendly.

But it comes down to this... for a very experienced cyclist, drivers are the only other obstacle on the road. From a driver's stand point... I also see poor motorists... my wife and son and I discuss the actions of other drivers when we are together on the road... my son drives for a living.

So yes, I see that the majority of motorists are at least doing no harm... but, there still is a huge number of drivers that do not focus on, do not pay attention to and are quite wayward in their actions... that can effect any or all of us. I would guess that somewhere close to 30% of the motorists out there at any time are not fully aware of what they are doing, or are intentionally doing something they should not.

That is why I feel that motorists are more of an issue to public and cyclists safety than you apparently do.

Now while I have no problem with training cyclists... the ones that really need the most attention... the ones that are riding the wrong way, riding with out lights or are fully unaware of what they are doing wrong... they are the ones that will be hardest to reach... and you have yet to come up with a way to reach them. (LAB "tupperware" parties will never touch these folks)

At a very bare minimum, you can reach even those cyclists, with public campaigns and signs and markings on the very roads they ride. That is consistent with your training goals, with my desire to reach those that are otherwise out of your reach, AND those same messages can convey positive "road sharing" communication to motorists. And if done right, a small bit of funding from the bike community can leverage a larger bit of funding from the motoring community...

Meanwhile you'll still be taking the pulse of those select members of the cycling community and asking "well, is this what we want do... "


Edit** BTW the strongest message I get from motorists I talk to... is either they are unaware that cyclists have the rights to use the road, or they believe we do not belong. And you know I DO talk to motorists.

The sidewalk cyclists do not bother motorists... so your desire to train them to ride in a vehicular manner is NOT going to improve their relationship with motorists. (it may make them "safer" but that too is debatable)... and certainly nothing about vehicular cycling will make cycling more popular... however getting more cyclists out there will increase the general awareness of cyclists... so again, VC is NOT working to improve our lot.

[noisebeam]

The sidewalk cyclists do not bother motorists...

I hear lots of complaints from motorists about sidewalk cyclists at intersections.
Not complaints about being in the way, but instead being in potential conflict and causing confusion, stress, uncertainty.

[genec]

I hear lots of complaints from motorists about sidewalk cyclists at intersections.
Not complaints about being in the way, but instead being in potential conflict and causing confusion, stress, uncertainty.

Which just goes to show that motorists just want us out of the way... period.

[randya]

The mount hood freeway would have destroyed viable, bikeable inner city neighborhoods in favor of facilitating suburban development requiring longer commutes by motor vehicle. Portland would have become just another American city with a deteriorating downtown core, surrounded by ugly sprawling suburban blight. Nothing but good came from the decision to kill this freeway and build the light rail system instead. All Portland did was divert the federal money that was earmarked for the freeway to build the light rail system.

btw, with each passing year and each new highrise office or residential tower built downtown, Portland continues to add new parking capacity in the downtown core; this is what guarantees growing congestion in the downtown core, not any decision to kill the freeway or reduce capacity on downtown streets, the latter of which to my knowledge has never been done, it's just part of the Forsterologist's mythology.

[Helmet Head]

But the problem is that you are talking to skilled cyclists for the most part here... folks that probably ride quite a bit like you... Folks that may have taken Road 1 and Road 2 like me, folks that have long ago learned how to dodge and avoid autos, yet still find the auto filled road environment less than forgiving. Frankly I for one do not have any problems getting around anywhere I want to go, and I suspect the same situation exists for Al, Bek, yourself, Allister and a host of others here... especially in the A&S area and the VC area. I have not been involved in any collisions for well over 20 years... while daily commuting. But the close calls that I do have (and avoid) are NOT due to actions on my part... I obviously avoid these due to actions on my part, but I also notice that what I am doing is dodging bad drivers... drivers who either through ignorance** believe I don't belong and make stupid aggressive moves, or drivers who through bad habit make poor choices.

Now I also drive... and when I drive I am very conservative... at or below speed limit, always signal, always look twice, and with a mind to drive friendly.

But it comes down to this... for a very experienced cyclist, drivers are the only other obstacle on the road. From a driver's stand point... I also see poor motorists... my wife and son and I discuss the actions of other drivers when we are together on the road... my son drives for a living.

So yes, I see that the majority of motorists are at least doing no harm... but, there still is a huge number of drivers that do not focus on, do not pay attention to and are quite wayward in their actions... that can effect any or all of us. I would guess that somewhere close to 30% of the motorists out there at any time are not fully aware of what they are doing, or are intentionally doing something they should not.

That is why I feel that motorists are more of an issue to public and cyclists safety than you apparently do.
I'm not going to dispute that figure. Seems like a reasonable guess to me. So that is not why you feel that motorists are more of an issue to public and cyclists safety than I do.

I would add that probably 100% of the motorists out there at one time or another are not fully aware of what they are doing, or are intentionally doing something they should not.

The reason you feel that motorists are more of an issue to public and cyclists safety than I do is because I accept that that the 30% (or whatever it actually is) figure and especially that 100% figure is out of my control. That is, I cannot do anything to change those numbers. What is up to me, what is my responsibility, is to pay attention and ride accordingly. I accept that responsibility fully and deep down, and I have confidence in my ability to fulfill it. That doesn't mean I don't recognize that something still might go wrong some day. You, apparently, do not accept this responsibility, or, at best, you grudgingly accept it with a great amount of trepidation. That's the difference between you and me. What I'm curious about is why. Why are you so obsessed with what others are doing -- regardless of whether their actions directly affect you or not -- to the point where you even discuss the actions of other drivers when you are together with your wife and son on the road (I humbly suggest you focus on your actions and intentions and what drivers may potentially do -- both proper and improper -- that may conflict with your intentions, and plan/drive accordingly).

You like to say that traffic is predictable, but drivers are not. But really, there is not that much a driver can actually do. After all, the only way he can affect what his vehicle will do is apply the brake or accelerator, or turn the wheel left or right. Okay, one more thing. If he's stopped, he can choose between a forward or reverse gear. So at any given moment, predicting the probable and even all possible potential places a given vehicle will be in the next 10-15 seconds, much less the next 2-4 seconds, is actually quite easy. And if you can predict where a vehicle might be in the next X-Y seconds, then make sure you're not there in the next X-Y seconds. At larger values of X and Y, what you predict is where the vehicle is likely to be. As X and Y get smaller, the prediction is revised depending on whether the vehicle is following the original predicted course or not, and goes from predicting where the vehicle will likely be, to where the vehicle will certainly be. At the low extreme (X=0, Y=1), where a given vehicle will be in the next 0-1 seconds is highly predictable.

Thus, no matter how "unpredictable" the person behind the wheel happens to be, what he actually can do with respect to his vehicle is quite limited, especially within any given immediate future, and is therefore very predictable.



Now while I have no problem with training cyclists... the ones that really need the most attention... the ones that are riding the wrong way, riding with out lights or are fully unaware of what they are doing wrong... they are the ones that will be hardest to reach... and you have yet to come up with a way to reach them. (LAB "tupperware" parties will never touch these folks)
Again, there are two areas to address. The training of the knowledge, skills and practices, and the training of the attitude. I don't think we'll ever get successful with vc training until we crack the attitude nut. And sorry to pick on you, but you're a perfect example. You've taken the courses. You've read the books. You have the knowledge, skills, practices and experience. But the attitude is not there. The trepidation is. I used to think that attitude does not need to be taught directly, because it will come naturally as one gains confidence in traffic using his newly acquired knowledge, skills and practices. But this is clearly not the case, at least not always. As an instructor, I'm puzzled about how to reach a cyclist like you.

How do I get a cyclist like you to accept that motorists naturally (since they are human) are inattentive and make errors, both intentional and unintentional, that they get irritated by anything or anyone they perceive to be an unnecessary delay (including, often, bicyclists), and understand that you can accept all that and still ride in traffic safely, efficiently, comfortably and enjoyably?

[invisiblehand]

Which just goes to show that motorists just want us out of the way... period.

My feeling is that most could care less about cyclists. That is, there are few cyclists on the roads so out-of-sight and out-of-mind.

[TRaffic Jammer]

It would be interesting to see you post a refutation of what someone actually said, TJ, rather than a refutation of some bizarre exaggerated version of it.

No one has ever claimed that VC achieves "perfect harmony with motorists".

:lol: are you kidding man? I see how well it works for you to dissect and mass quote, I simply don't have the time., and you do a great job of it yourself talking in circles.

[John Forester]

I'm just going to chime in here for a moment with the observation that the cycling community, on it's own, had little to do with any of these decisions. The light rail line into the city center from the east and west sides is very popular. It's not like there is any big difficulty in getting into the city center. We even expanded the Sunset Highway (HW26) going into the city from the west side to quell traffic jams. It's just that parking is a biotch and nobody wants to deal with it or pay for it, so if you can swing it, you take the MAX.

Hillsboro (a primarily farming community at the time - still mostly is) didn't want the west side freeway and the development that went with it, and voters evidently wouldn't provide the funds for the Mt. Hood freeway. Tough **** for pro-motorists, but that's the community's decision; gotta live with it. These subjects were before my time, but I can categorically say that cyclists, or even your anti-motoring advocates, weren't responsible for these decisions all by themselves. These were decisions made by a majority of the community, most of whom drive and don't bike.

Even the formation of bike boulevards wouldn't have happened without the support of the neighborhoods that these boulevards run through. Turns out that the "regular" people who live in these neighborhoods weren't exactly pleased with having cars racing at 40 mph through streets that their children were playing in, just to avoid a bit of traffic.

I merely stated that these were manifestations of an anti-motoring policy that tended, by making motoring less convenient, to increase the competitive value of bicycling. And then I stated that none of the things that I noted had to do with bikeways, or, implied, with cycling. They have their effect, regardless of the bikeways.

[Helmet Head]

Which just goes to show that motorists just want us out of the way... period.

My feeling is that most could care less about cyclists. That is, there are few cyclists on the roads so out-of-sight and out-of-mind.
And my point is it is all natural and understandable... Of course some motorists just want us out of the way. That shouldn't surprise anyone. Certainly most of them could care less about cyclists. Why would anyone expect them to care more? So why fight it? What's the point in resisting?

Accept all that and you can still ride in traffic safely, efficiently, comfortably and enjoyably... in fact, it's probably necessary to accept all that in order to ride in traffic safely, efficiently, comfortably and enjoyably.

[Brian Ratliff]

I merely stated that these were manifestations of an anti-motoring policy that tended, by making motoring less convenient, to increase the competitive value of bicycling. And then I stated that none of the things that I noted had to do with bikeways, or, implied, with cycling. They have their effect, regardless of the bikeways.

Ah, so you are pointing out cause and effect... and not placing a value on it? If so, your use of "anti-motoring" as a label makes this less than clear. These are policies, yes, but their intent isn't to keep cars off the road. Their intent, in all cases, is to keep urban sprawl in check - a more descriptive term would be "anti-sprawl policies". The effect these policies have on motorists and car travel is secondary. By way of showing this, I was making the point that these "anti-motoring" policies were, in fact, enabled by the motoring public. Hence, at the very least, the "anti-motoring" label is a misnomer. I assumed, perhaps errantly, that you used this non-descriptive and retorically loaded (in terms of this discussion) term in order to make a retorical point.

[Helmet Head]

:lol: are you kidding man? I see how well it works for you to dissect and mass quote, I simply don't have the time., and you do a great job of it yourself talking in circles.
You apparently also don't take the time to read and fully comprehend what others are saying. I can understand that. I can also understand why that might prompt someone to post a question about what others have written that seems odd, strange, or doesn't make sense.

What I can't understand is why you would instead assume that what you have gathered about what others are saying, no matter how odd, strange, or circular, is accurate, and criticize it or ridicule it.

[genec]

I merely stated that these were manifestations of an anti-motoring policy that tended, by making motoring less convenient, to increase the competitive value of bicycling. And then I stated that none of the things that I noted had to do with bikeways, or, implied, with cycling. They have their effect, regardless of the bikeways.

But what you have not addressed is, is making motoring everywhere, more convenient, a good thing?

Does it make sense to (as I jokingly alluded to earlier) make it possible to drive to every inch of everywhere?

Should there not be places where pedestrians and others are as "comfortable" as the motorists?

While you may consider this anti motoring... I consider it pro people.

Is it possible that we have perhaps enabled the intrusion of the auto a bit too much.

[noisebeam]

Which just goes to show that motorists just want us out of the way... period.
I see it more that motorist don't want uncertainty, confusion. They also don't like delay, especially when it appears to be 'unnecessary'. The former can be nearly eliminated by creating clarity and purpose (riding in predictable way, communicating intent, being confident). The later can be minimized by allowing faster traffic to pass when it is safe and practical, but when one can not, it is equally important to continue to ride in a way that communicates certainty in what you are doing.

Al

[John Forester]

This is from the Editor:

Edit** BTW the strongest message I get from motorists I talk to... is either they are unaware that cyclists have the rights to use the road, or they believe we do not belong. And you know I DO talk to motorists.

=======

This is the traditional American view of bicycle traffic, what I have described as childish cycling and cyclist-inferiority cycling. And it is the view that is physically embodied in the bikeway system. That is the view that cyclists ought to be opposing, but which far too many support by advocating bikeways. As long as the loudest voices in the bicycle community advocate cyclist-inferiority facilities, there is little hope of changing motorists' view.

[Helmet Head]

Ah, so you are pointing out cause and effect... and not placing a value on it? If so, your use of "anti-motoring" as a label makes this less than clear. These are policies, yes, but their intent isn't to keep cars off the road. Their intent, in all cases, is to keep urban sprawl in check - a more descriptive term would be "anti-sprawl policies". The effect these policies have on motorists and car travel is secondary. By way of showing this, I was making the point that these "anti-motoring" policies were, in fact, enabled by the motoring public. Hence, at the very least, the "anti-motoring" label is a misnomer. I assumed, perhaps errantly, that you used this non-descriptive and retorically loaded (in terms of this discussion) term in order to make a retorical point.
I agree. Though it's technically accurate, I think it's semantically misleading to label a policy or program "anti-X" when the intent of the program or policy, or the motivation behind it, is not necessarily to oppose X.

To illustrate an extreme example... it's like accusing prescription eyeglass companies of being "anti-20/20", since they do not cater to people with 20/20 vision.

Semantics aside, by pointing out that motoring challenges (including the difficulties and costs of parking as well as the list of reasons he provided) are why cycling has gained popularity in Portland, Forester supported his refutation of Gene's claim, which is how this particular discussion started:


... in Portland, where there is NO difference in social and urban conditions compared to similar sized US cities.

Portland OR has the strongest, and very complex, set of anti-motoring regulations of any significant city in the USA. (The exceptions are summer resort communities such as Martha's Vineyard). Portland's cyclists do so because motoring has become difficult.

[AlmostTrick]

Why are you so obsessed with what others are doing -- regardless of whether their actions directly affect you or not -- to the point where you even discuss the actions of other drivers when you are together with your wife and son on the road (I humbly suggest you focus on your actions and intentions and what drivers may potentially do -- both proper and improper -- that may conflict with your intentions, and plan/drive accordingly).[/B]

Actually, pointing out and talking about problem drivers with people you care about is a great way to help train them how to best avoid being involved in collisions. Not only from a "what not to do and why" stand point, but also from a defensive, how best to avoid them, angle. I do this with others and often hear the light bulb click on in their head. Plus, I continue to learn more myself. This is one way safe drivers with a lot of experience can help protect others they love.

[Helmet Head]

Which just goes to show that motorists just want us out of the way... period.
I see it more that motorist don't want uncertainty, confusion. They also don't like delay, especially when it appears to be 'unnecessary'. The former can be nearly eliminated by creating clarity and purpose (riding in predictable way, communicating intent, being confident). The later can be minimized by allowing faster traffic to pass when it is safe and practical, but when one can not, it is equally important to continue to ride in a way that communicates certainty in what you are doing.

Al
Here is another example illustrating how the big difference between cyclists like Al and cyclists like Gene is attitude.

Gene exemplifies the complainer/whiner. He is pessimistic, really fatalistic, about the vehicular cyclist's condition in traffic. He focuses on the negative, and sees it as being insurmountable -- little if anything he can do about it... it is "they" that must change.

Al exemplifies the can-do attitude; the problem solver. He is optimistic, and frames the same situation in a way that makes it his problem to solve... and thus finds a solution.

Gene blames others for his condition, Al takes responsibility for his.

Sorry Gene, but as an instructor, I want to teach my students to think like Al, and not like you. But, I almost want to help you learn to think like Al. Any suggestions? Because if we can figure out how to do that, what we learn would be very helpful in the classes that I teach.

[John Forester]

Ah, so you are pointing out cause and effect... and not placing a value on it? If so, your use of "anti-motoring" as a label makes this less than clear. These are policies, yes, but their intent isn't to keep cars off the road. Their intent, in all cases, is to keep urban sprawl in check - a more descriptive term would be "anti-sprawl policies". The effect these policies have on motorists and car travel is secondary. By way of showing this, I was making the point that these "anti-motoring" policies were, in fact, enabled by the motoring public. Hence, at the very least, the "anti-motoring" label is a misnomer. I assumed, perhaps errantly, that you used this non-descriptive and retorically loaded (in terms of this discussion) term in order to make a retorical point.

It is interesting that you find yourself in the position, for purposes of this discussion, of arguing that anti-sprawl policies are completely separate from anti-motoring motivation. Your claim is completely novel to me; I have never heard it made before. On the other hand, I have frequently read statements by major actors in the field that tightly link opposition to urban sprawl with opposition to the motoring that enables it.

Unless you can advance good evidence for the separation that you claim exists, I won't even consider that claim reasonable.

[Helmet Head]

Actually, pointing out and talking about problem drivers with people you care about is a great way to help train them how to best avoid being involved in collisions. Not only from a "what not to do and why" stand point, but also from a defensive, how best to avoid them, angle. I do this with others and often hear the light bulb click on in their head. Plus, I continue to learn more myself. This is one way safe drivers with a lot of experience can help protect others they love.
Oh, I agree. I might be wrong, but I get the sense that Gene goes way beyond that. He's crossed the line from becoming an expert on motorist folly in order to avoid falling victim to it (which is what I understand you to be lauding and I concur), but to support his belief that such behavior is unacceptable and must change. If that's what he's doing, then obsessing about it to that degree can become a distraction in and of itself, not to mention that it indicates a pessimistic/fatalistic/playing-the-victim attitude, which is generally not conducive to productivity, efficiency, happiness or safety.

[TRaffic Jammer]

Less urban sprawl is an environmental/resources issue at it's core. A handy cause/effect to less sprawl is less cars traveling greater distances from the burbs'. Build up in a city core and hopefully the number of cars required to get folks to work and home will be proportionately reduced.

[genec]

This is from the Editor:

Edit** BTW the strongest message I get from motorists I talk to... is either they are unaware that cyclists have the rights to use the road, or they believe we do not belong. And you know I DO talk to motorists.

=======

This is the traditional American view of bicycle traffic, what I have described as childish cycling and cyclist-inferiority cycling. And it is the view that is physically embodied in the bikeway system. That is the view that cyclists ought to be opposing, but which far too many support by advocating bikeways. As long as the loudest voices in the bicycle community advocate cyclist-inferiority facilities, there is little hope of changing motorists' view.

So you are saying that by building bike lanes we are enabling motorists to feel that we don't belong on streets?

When I ride in the traveled way, I hear "get in the bike lane," when no bike lanes exist, I hear "get on the sidewalk." I don't think motorists give a hoot about a "bikeway system... " they just feel that cyclists do not belong on roads... yet they do find us "acceptable" in bike lanes... this rather counters your comments... of course "bikeways" is an all encompassing term that can mean anything from bike lanes to paths.

[Helmet Head]

It is interesting that you find yourself in the position, for purposes of this discussion, of arguing that anti-sprawl policies are completely separate from anti-motoring motivation. Your claim is completely novel to me; I have never heard it made before. On the other hand, I have frequently read statements by major actors in the field that tightly link opposition to urban sprawl with opposition to the motoring that enables it.

Unless you can advance good evidence for the separation that you claim exists, I won't even consider that claim reasonable.
If someone is not opposed to motoring in general, but opposed to motoring in a certain context, is he "anti-motoring"?

I don't know about others, but I'm not opposed to motoring in general, yet I do appreciate limited motoring in high density urban centers.

Anyway, this again boils down to semantics. What, specifically, do you mean by "anti-motoring"?

[John Forester]

But what you have not addressed is, is making motoring everywhere, more convenient, a good thing?

Does it make sense to (as I jokingly alluded to earlier) make it possible to drive to every inch of everywhere?

Should there not be places where pedestrians and others are as "comfortable" as the motorists?

While you may consider this anti motoring... I consider it pro people.

Is it possible that we have perhaps enabled the intrusion of the auto a bit too much.

I repeat, you fail to recognize the difference between hyperbole for effect and illogical argument. Whether pedestrians should have facilities for pedestrian transportation is not an issue; they should. Your argument about cyclist comfort is really that society should provide bikeways because the public falsely believes that bikeways make cycling safe. You advocate this view because you would rather have more bicycling than safer bicycling; that that's your view is proved by your complaints that vehicular cycling has failed. I prefer the system in which cyclists are expected to obey the rules of the road, and therefore are expected to have the rights to do so, because, as you yourself admit, obeying the rules of the road is the best way to operate in roadway traffic. Your argument that good bicycle transportation is available without using the roads is a refusal of reality in nearly all cities, certainly in all typical cities.

[Brian Ratliff]

It is interesting that you find yourself in the position, for purposes of this discussion, of arguing that anti-sprawl policies are completely separate from anti-motoring motivation. Your claim is completely novel to me; I have never heard it made before. On the other hand, I have frequently read statements by major actors in the field that tightly link opposition to urban sprawl with opposition to the motoring that enables it.

Unless you can advance good evidence for the separation that you claim exists, I won't even consider that claim reasonable.

Consider whatever claims you wish if it makes you feel better, I give you my permission. My point was merely that these supposed "anti-motoring" policies were, in fact, supported and enabled by the motoring public. If that's not good enough to separate the two motivations, I don't know what is.

[Helmet Head]

So you are saying that by building bike lanes we are enabling motorists to feel that we don't belong on streets?
I don't know about "enabling" it, but by building bike lanes we are certainly encouraging motorists to feel that bicyclists don't belong on the part of the streets used by vehicle drivers, and are reinforcing these notions.


When I ride in the traveled way, I hear "get in the bike lane," when no bike lanes exist, I hear "get on the sidewalk."

We've been over this and even had a thread/poll about it (http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=306655). Over 27% reported having heard "get in the bike lane" on roads without bike lanes, 8% hearing it ONLY on roads without bike lanes.

Like it or not, the term "bike lane" has come to mean, in so many words, "space where bicyclists are supposed to be that keeps them out of my way". Most people, including most cyclists, use the terms "bike lane" and "bike path" interchangeably, indicating that they are largely oblivious to the on the road characteristic of bike lanes, much less its significance.


I don't think motorists give a hoot about a "bikeway system... " they just feel that cyclists do not belong on roads... yet they do find us "acceptable" in bike lanes... this rather counters your comments... of course "bikeways" is an all encompassing term that can mean anything from bike lanes to paths.
When motorists say "bicyclists don't belong on the road", "get on the sidewalk", or "get in the bike lane", what they really mean is the same thing: "bicyclists should not be in my way". They couldn't care less if we're on the road or not, as long as we are out of their way. That's why they like bike lanes, and bicyclists in bike lanes, because bicyclists in bike lanes are apparently out of the way.

Of course, cyclists in bike lanes are not really necessarily out of the way, and motorists and cyclists wrongly assuming that cyclists in bike lanes are out of the way is a factor that contributes to all too many crashes, injuries and deaths.

But let's not turn this into yet another bike lane thread. Yes, I'm saying that! What I really want us to figure out is how to get you out of your fatalistic funk regarding the cyclist's predicament in traffic, but I guess you have to want to get out of it before you will ever be able to.

[randya]

This is from the Editor:

Edit** BTW the strongest message I get from motorists I talk to... is either they are unaware that cyclists have the rights to use the road, or they believe we do not belong. And you know I DO talk to motorists.
=======

This is the traditional American view of bicycle traffic, what I have described as childish cycling and cyclist-inferiority cycling. And it is the view that is physically embodied in the bikeway system. That is the view that cyclists ought to be opposing, but which far too many support by advocating bikeways. As long as the loudest voices in the bicycle community advocate cyclist-inferiority facilities, there is little hope of changing motorists' view.

there it is in black and white: MOTORISTS ARE UNAWARE THAT CYCLISTS HAVE THE RIGHTS TO USE THE ROAD OR THEY BELIEVE WE DO NOT BELONG

All your ridiculous claptrap about 'childish cycling' and 'cyclist inferiority' pales in comparison to this statement, which doubly underscores the need for motorist education.

[John Forester]

If someone is not opposed to motoring in general, but opposed to motoring in a certain context, is he "anti-motoring"?

I don't know about others, but I'm not opposed to motoring in general, yet I do appreciate limited motoring in high density urban centers.

Anyway, this again boils down to semantics. What, specifically, do you mean by "anti-motoring"?

In the context of discussions of bicycle advocacy, I apply the term anti-motoring to those arguments which are based on the desire to reduce motoring rather than to do good for cyclists. That is, where that conflict exists. In a technical semantic sense, advocating vehicular cycling with the intent that that would also reduce motoring would also be anti-motoring, but there would be no conflict between doing good for cyclists and the desire to reduce motoring. I strongly object to arguments and acts that do harm to cyclists for the purpose of reducing motoring.

[invisiblehand]

I don't know about "enabling" it, but by building bike lanes we are certainly encouraging motorists to feel that bicyclists don't belong on the part of the streets used by vehicle drivers, and are reinforcing these notions.

Highlights are mine ...

You believe it to be true. But it certainly is uncertain.

[TRaffic Jammer]

there it is in black and white: MOTORISTS ARE UNAWARE THAT CYCLISTS HAVE THE RIGHTS TO USE THE ROAD OR THEY BELIEVE WE DO NOT BELONG

All your ridiculous claptrap about 'childish cycling' and 'cyclist inferiority' pales in comparison to this statement, which doubly underscores the need for motorist education.

Game, set, match.

[genec]

I repeat, you fail to recognize the difference between hyperbole for effect and illogical argument. Whether pedestrians should have facilities for pedestrian transportation is not an issue; they should. Your argument about cyclist comfort is really that society should provide bikeways because the public falsely believes that bikeways make cycling safe. You advocate this view because you would rather have more bicycling than safer bicycling; that that's your view is proved by your complaints that vehicular cycling has failed. I prefer the system in which cyclists are expected to obey the rules of the road, and therefore are expected to have the rights to do so, because, as you yourself admit, obeying the rules of the road is the best way to operate in roadway traffic. Your argument that good bicycle transportation is available without using the roads is a refusal of reality in nearly all cities, certainly in all typical cities.

John the key to what you desire is that ALL users of the road have to "obey the rules of the road;" until that happens, even the most law abiding cyclists are at the mercy of those others that refuse to "obey the rules of the road."

Oh sure, I can "work around" and make amends for their failings through extra effort on my part... but that simply allows those that abuse the system to take advantage of my efforts.

[John Forester]

So you are saying that by building bike lanes we are enabling motorists to feel that we don't belong on streets?

When I ride in the traveled way, I hear "get in the bike lane," when no bike lanes exist, I hear "get on the sidewalk." I don't think motorists give a hoot about a "bikeway system... " they just feel that cyclists do not belong on roads... yet they do find us "acceptable" in bike lanes... this rather counters your comments... of course "bikeways" is an all encompassing term that can mean anything from bike lanes to paths.

No, one more of your failures to understand. Building bike lanes does not enable motorists to feel that we don't belong on streets. Building bike lanes is the physical embodiment of the pre-existing feeling that we don't belong on streets, and that we should be kept in our place, where we won't delay motorists.

You write that: "I don't think motorists give a hoot about a "bikeway system... " they just feel that cyclists do not belong on roads... " Whatever you may think, it is incorrect as proved by the historic record, and is illogical as well. It is illogical because the bikeway system is the physical embodiment of the motorists' view that cyclists don't belong on roads. It is historically erroneous because it was the motoring organizations who forced the imposition of bikeways upon cyclists, against the opposition of cyclists and after the motorists' safety arguments for them had been proved wrong.

[noisebeam]

So you are saying that by building bike lanes we are enabling motorists to feel that we don't belong on streets?

When I ride in the traveled way, I hear "get in the bike lane," when no bike lanes exist, I hear "get on the sidewalk." I don't think motorists give a hoot about a "bikeway system... " they just feel that cyclists do not belong on roads... yet they do find us "acceptable" in bike lanes... this rather counters your comments... of course "bikeways" is an all encompassing term that can mean anything from bike lanes to paths.

In local papers the most common anti-cyclist complaints from readers comments are (quotes are real):
-cyclist ride on the white line often invading the travel lane
-cyclist ride outside the bike lane in the car lane (or in the travel lane)
-why are cyclist not using the bike lanes built for them?
"they will get in the middle of a car lane and hold people up and make everyone go around them"
"they ride right on the bike lane line, like they are daring you to invade their space "
"Where I live, there are lots of bike lanes, and lots of stupid people on bikes. They don't ride in the lane, but follow the white line that designates the lane! "
"Then there are those that ride double [note: legal in AZ], so that one of the bikers is in the traffic lane. "
"I agree that most of them think they own the whole, not just the 2 foot wide swath. "

[genec]

there it is in black and white: MOTORISTS ARE UNAWARE THAT CYCLISTS HAVE THE RIGHTS TO USE THE ROAD OR THEY BELIEVE WE DO NOT BELONG

All your ridiculous claptrap about 'childish cycling' and 'cyclist inferiority' pales in comparison to this statement, which doubly underscores the need for motorist education.

Uh folks... John was quoting me.

[Helmet Head]

Which just goes to show that motorists just want us out of the way... period.
I see it more that motorist don't want uncertainty, confusion. They also don't like delay, especially when it appears to be 'unnecessary'. The former can be nearly eliminated by creating clarity and purpose (riding in predictable way, communicating intent, being confident). The later can be minimized by allowing faster traffic to pass when it is safe and practical, but when one can not, it is equally important to continue to ride in a way that communicates certainty in what you are doing.

Al
Here is another example illustrating how the big difference between cyclists like Al and cyclists like Gene is attitude.

Gene exemplifies the complainer/whiner. He is pessimistic, really fatalistic, about the vehicular cyclist's condition in traffic. He focuses on the negative, and sees it as being insurmountable -- little if anything he can do about it... it is "they" that must change.

Al exemplifies the can-do attitude; the problem solver. He is optimistic, and frames the same situation in a way that makes it his problem to solve... and thus finds a solution.

Gene blames others for his condition, Al takes responsibility for his.

Sorry Gene, but as an instructor, I want to teach my students to think like Al, and not like you. But, I almost want to help you learn to think like Al. Any suggestions? Because if we can figure out how to do that, what we learn would be very helpful in the classes that I teach.

What I really want us to figure out is how to get you out of your fatalistic funk regarding the cyclist's predicament in traffic, but I guess you have to want to get out of it before you will ever be able to.
Here is an example of what I'm talking about, posted today in another thread:



The bottom line is that I can and do go anywhere I want on a bike (in fact I tend to think in terms of bike accesses to get to places in town, rather than freeway accesses)... but I do find the actions of poor and misguided drivers irritating... as it really takes so little effort to do things right.

I take the little extra effort to drive friendly, and bike smart... and I find it quite annoying when others selfishly abuse my rights, and fail to show me the same courtesy.

It takes a bit more effort to do things right... and if we all extended ourselves in this manner, the general environment would be far nicer out there for everybody.

Think globally, act locally. Bike smart, drive friendly. It's your choice.
Note the focus on the problem of what OTHERS are doing wrong, and how OTHERS have to change.

Note the power Gene gives to motorists to irritate and annoy him. Gene, this is how you empower motorists, as compared to cyclists like Al who don't give motorists that power.

[genec]

In local papers the most common anti-cyclist complaints from readers comments are (quotes are real):
-cyclist ride on the white line often invading the travel lane
-cyclist ride outside the bike lane in the car lane (or in the travel lane)
-why are cyclist not using the bike lanes built for them?
"they will get in the middle of a car lane and hold people up and make everyone go around them"
"they ride right on the bike lane line, like they are daring you to invade their space "
"Where I live, there are lots of bike lanes, and lots of stupid people on bikes. They don't ride in the lane, but follow the white line that designates the lane! "
"Then there are those that ride double [note: legal in AZ], so that one of the bikers is in the traffic lane. "
"I agree that most of them think they own the whole, not just the 2 foot wide swath. "

And if a bike lane is not available... what then is their response?

Bike lanes... (and I agree with HH, this is not a BL thread) if nothing more, indicate that cyclists should be in the street. I will not touch on BL any more in this thread.

[Helmet Head]

there it is in black and white: MOTORISTS ARE UNAWARE THAT CYCLISTS HAVE THE RIGHTS TO USE THE ROAD OR THEY BELIEVE WE DO NOT BELONG

All your ridiculous claptrap about 'childish cycling' and 'cyclist inferiority' pales in comparison to this statement, which doubly underscores the need for motorist education.
Never mind that you're attributing to Forester what Gene said... so what? We all know this is true at least to some extent. Maybe 5% of MOTORISTS ARE UNAWARE THAT CYCLISTS HAVE THE RIGHTS TO USE THE ROAD OR THEY BELIEVE WE DO NOT BELONG, maybe it's 95%, or even 99%. Whatever the percentage, that doesn't preclude us from having those rights, and riding accordingly. In fact, the more we ride as if we have the right to be there, while at the same time riding in accordance with the rules, our duties, and respecting the rights of others to be there, the more we are treated accordingly, regardless of what they believe.

Now, again, I'm not opposed to more motorist education. But I am opposed to the contention that there is a "need" for motorist education in order for cyclists to be able to ride safely, legally, efficiently, and comfortably in traffic. I oppose that contention because I know it is not true, and this is confirmed by vehicular cyclists all over the country.

[genec]

Here is an example of what I'm talking about, posted today in another thread:

Note the focus on the problem of what OTHERS are doing wrong, and how OTHERS have to change.

Note the power Gene gives to motorists to irritate and annoy him. Gene, this is how you empower motorists, as compared to cyclists like Al who don't give motorists that power.

You are right, I should be a rude and annoying driver and cyclist. I will therefore change my ways. :rolleyes:

[John Forester]

snips to limit discussion to this question:
I don't know about others, but I'm not opposed to motoring in general, yet I do appreciate limited motoring in high density urban centers.


This is far more than a cycling issue. Rather, it concerns the conditions under which it is possible to have a high-density urban center with limited motoring, in a world in which motoring is generally available. Such a center can exist only if its attractions are extremely strong; without such extremely strong attractions people just won't go there, which means that, without people, it cannot be a high-density urban center. Of course, Los Angeles, as an urban area, is high density, but, notice, there is not really a high-density urban center to LA. Those that exist have been from before the automotive era, but have, still, attracted so much motoring as to become very congested.

Suppose that motoring in the urban area would be limited to some small fraction of what it had been. Say by some rationing system, by price or by otherwise. Would sufficient mass transit spring up to serve the center's needs? Would park-and-ride facilities to service that mass transit spring up sufficient to serve the center's needs? Would sufficient apartment buildings spring up to house all those who no longer would come into the center from outside? Or, in the face of these difficulties, would the urban center decline because economic activity moved elsewhere? I repeat, the attraction of doing business in such a center has to be extremely strong to enable it to exist, and the size of its economic activity depends on the strength of that attraction.

[Helmet Head]

Bike lanes... (and I agree with HH, this is not a BL thread) if nothing more, indicate that cyclists should be in the street. I will not touch on BL any more in this thread.
Well, it's not really fair to reassert in post #96 (http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=6124766&postcount=196) what was addressed, and arguably totally refuted, ten posts back in #186 (http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=6124585&postcount=186):


.. by building bike lanes we are certainly encouraging motorists to feel that bicyclists don't belong on the part of the streets used by vehicle drivers, and are reinforcing these notions.
...
Like it or not, the term "bike lane" has come to mean, in so many words, "space where bicyclists are supposed to be that keeps them out of my way". Most people, including most cyclists, use the terms "bike lane" and "bike path" interchangeably, indicating that they are largely oblivious to the on the road characteristic of bike lanes, much less its significance.

When motorists say "bicyclists don't belong on the road", "get on the sidewalk", or "get in the bike lane", what they really mean is the same thing: "bicyclists should not be in my way". They couldn't care less if we're on the road or not, as long as we are out of their way. That's why they like bike lanes, and bicyclists in bike lanes, because bicyclists in bike lanes are apparently out of the way.


Indeed, I hear more and more often the sentiment from bicyclists that they have no where to ride (in the street) when there is no bike lane.