Cyclists fare best?

[genec]

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.

You know the most ironic thing about this is that you want me to work on my own personal beliefs and attitudes, yet you accept the wrong beliefs and attitudes of the majority users of the road.

And personally I doubt 95% of motorists do know the rights of cyclists.

[Helmet Head]

Highlights are mine ...

You believe it to be true. But it certainly is uncertain.
:rolleyes: Given that there is practically nothing we can be truly certain about, in most contexts "certain" should be taken to be mean "as certain as we can reasonably be in the given context".

[John Forester]

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.

Well, no, randya, you have it exactly backwards. The statement that you claim so vociferously to be true says exactly what I have been arguing for months, that the public view of bicycle traffic is one of childish cycling and cyclist inferiority. That, of course, is also what so many of you are supporting with your advocacy for the bikeway system that embodies exactly that view of bicycle traffic. I can't help it if your own mistaken beliefs turn this into your emotional quagmire.

[Helmet Head]

You know the most ironic thing about this is that you want me to work on my own personal beliefs and attitudes, yet you accept the wrong beliefs and attitudes of the majority users of the road.

And personally I doubt 95% of motorists do know the rights of cyclists.
Gene, I wish you to be happier and more comfortable in traffic. But I also want you to work on your own personal beliefs and attitudes so that I can benefit from what you learn going through that process (assuming you share with me), so I can use that to help others struggling with similar attitude obstacles.

I couldn't care less about the wrong beliefs and attitudes of the majority users of the road who are total strangers to me. It's just not in the pile of cr@p I care about, and I don't see any reason to put it in there.

[invisiblehand]

:rolleyes: Given that there is practically nothing we can be truly certain about, in most contexts "certain" should be taken to be mean "as certain as we can reasonably be in the given context".

Well, I was being polite. Maybe I should write that it is your wild guess that bike lanes produce such an effect in any meaningful way.

[John Forester]

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.

Don't stretch things beyond reason, not even for emotional effect, genec. The traffic system works well enough with the level of competence and obedience that exists. Sure, it could be better, that's not an issue with respect specifically to cycling. What is important is that cycling in the vehicular manner is the best way to get around town by bicycle, and there is no particular reason to spend one's time complaining about the few errors in some misguided effort to advocate views and programs contrary to vehicular cycling.

[Helmet Head]

Well, I was being polite. Maybe I should write that it is your wild guess that bike lanes produce such an effect in any meaningful way.
Well, I take issue with that. The claim in question is: "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."

The undeniable fact that people yell "get in the bike lane" at bicyclists on roads without bike lanes, much less on roads with bike lanes, alone supports this claim as being far more than a wild guess.

The reluctance of bicyclists to leave bike lanes, even when it's the safe, reasonable, legal and practical thing to do (particularly at intersection approaches), also supports it.

[ghettocruiser]

The undeniable fact that people yell "get in the bike lane" at bicyclists on roads without bike lanes, much less on roads with bike lanes, alone supports this claim as being far more than a wild guess.


Ya know, I've never had that yelled at me. I've had "get on the sidewalk" a few times, and "get off the road" a whole bunch of times, including by pedestrians on the sidewalk.

However, I have heard drivers yell "get off the road" at other drivers at least as often as I have heard it yelled at me.

I think strange behavior by drivers and pedestrians supports no claim.

[genec]

Don't stretch things beyond reason, not even for emotional effect, genec. The traffic system works well enough with the level of competence and obedience that exists. Sure, it could be better, that's not an issue with respect specifically to cycling. What is important is that cycling in the vehicular manner is the best way to get around town by bicycle, and there is no particular reason to spend one's time complaining about the few errors in some misguided effort to advocate views and programs contrary to vehicular cycling.

John when motorists break the laws and act in a dangerous manner that threatens me... then I feel the traffic system is not functioning well enough.

That is the key to my rants here about motorists. I can and do act in a manner well according to those laws you mention, and have been threatened by motorists because of it.

I do not find that acceptable. Would you?

[Helmet Head]

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.
I don't consider Los Angeles to be an example of a high density area. NYC, Chicago, London, Paris, San Francisco... yes. But the Southern California urban sprawl of L.A.? Nope.


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.
I don't think motoring would have to have been limited by government as much as motoring should not have been supported by government as much as it was, coupled with government not limiting population density with Draconian zoning laws. I think supply and demand would have managed quite well without all this "help" from government zoning and over-building of motoring infrastructure (thus subsidizing motoring and giving it an unnatural advantage over other transportation alternatives).

Many people who live in cities in which government did not subsidize motoring infrastructure, like Paris, London, NYC and San Francisco, don't even own cars. Sure, that's because much of that infrastructure was built before cars, but there no telling how L.A. and other post-motoring areas would have evolved without the zoning and motoring subsidies.

[Helmet Head]

John when motorists break the laws and act in a dangerous manner that threatens me... then I feel the traffic system is not functioning well enough.

That is the key to my rants here about motorists. I can and do act in a manner well according to those laws you mention, and have been threatened by motorists because of it.

I do not find that acceptable. Would you?
The key to your rants here about motorists is that you choose not to accept that motorists are human beings, glorified animals with arguably too much intelligence for their own good, and that there is no way you're ever going to change that.

Of course they are going to occasionally and even regularly break the laws and act in a dangerous manner, just as surely as hyenas will occasionally and even regularly eat their own. Why would you choose to find the inevitable to be unacceptable? You may as well choose to find gravity to be unacceptable.

Now, don't get me wrong. If someone actually assaults you, that's different, and certainly unacceptable. But the innocent and predictable though irresponsible incidents of inattention, the harmless expressions of impatience and frustration, why choose to give them the power to irritate and annoy you with that stuff?

[randya]

Well, no, randya, you have it exactly backwards. The statement that you claim so vociferously to be true says exactly what I have been arguing for months, that the public view of bicycle traffic is one of childish cycling and cyclist inferiority. That, of course, is also what so many of you are supporting with your advocacy for the bikeway system that embodies exactly that view of bicycle traffic. I can't help it if your own mistaken beliefs turn this into your emotional quagmire.

the emotional quagmire is yours alone. 'the public' by and large means motorists, so you've once again confirmed the need for public ~ e.g. motorist ~ education.

[TRaffic Jammer]

The key to your rants here about motorists is that you choose not to accept that motorists are human beings, glorified animals with arguably too much intelligence for their own good, and that there is no way you're ever going to change that.

Of course they are going to occasionally and even regularly break the laws and act in a dangerous manner, just as surely as hyenas will occasionally and even regularly eat their own. Why would you choose to find the inevitable to be unacceptable? You may as well choose to find gravity to be unacceptable.

Now, don't get me wrong. If someone actually assaults you, that's different, and certainly unacceptable. But the innocent and predictable though irresponsible incidents of inattention, the harmless expressions of impatience and frustration, why choose to give them the power to irritate and annoy you with that stuff?

Have you forgotten that they are driving tons of metal? Irritate and annoy? What about maim and kill due to inattention. You keep adding fuel as to why motorist education is so desperately needed.

[Helmet Head]

Now, don't get me wrong. If someone actually assaults you, that's different, and certainly unacceptable. But the innocent and predictable though irresponsible incidents of inattention, the harmless expressions of impatience and frustration, why choose to give them the power to irritate and annoy you with that stuff?

Have you forgotten that they are driving tons of metal? Irritate and annoy? What about maim and kill due to inattention. You keep adding fuel as to why motorist education is so desperately needed.
Yes, irritate and annoy. Gene allows their inevitable inattention and errors to irritate and annoy him.

I reject the notion that we are sitting ducks out there able to be squashed at any moment by an inattentive, scofflaw and/or ill-educated motorist. I, for one, ride in accordance with best practices that are designed specifically to keep me safe (to a reasonable degree) from those kinds of inevitable encounters which are par for the course.

The guy who intentionally wants to kill me? Yeah, I'm vulnerable there. But that's homicide, to which we're vulnerable everywhere, and not what we're discussing here.

[Helmet Head]

the emotional quagmire is yours alone. 'the public' by and large means motorists, so you've once again confirmed the need for public ~ e.g. motorist ~ education.
Again you use the word "need".

And if that "need" is not met, then what?

[randya]

Again you use the word "need".

And if that "need" is not met, then what?

less cyclists on the road due to safety concerns, and more unnecessarily dead and injured cyclists at the hands of misinformed and incompetent motorists.

[invisiblehand]

The undeniable fact that people yell "get in the bike lane" at bicyclists on roads without bike lanes, much less on roads with bike lanes, alone supports this claim as being far more than a wild guess.

Your experience is that motorist problems are almost nil. How could bike lanes produce a meaningful increase in negative experiences?

First of all, we don't need to go over the cognitive biases when we collect "data" by our personal observations.

Yelling get in the bike lane when there is no bike lane sounds silly ... doesn't it? How do you differentiate between a comment of opportunity and one that represents a change in attitude? Moreover, you have a censoring problem here. You don't know how many people think that bicycles do not belong on the road but accept a bicycle's presence when there is a bike lane.

Similarly, with the cyclist who is reluctant to leave the bike lane, how do you differentiate between the curb-hugging road/sidewalk cyclist who would rarely use lateral positioning from the "VC stud" who would otherwise be sliding left and right with aplomb? In other words, it would be difficult to differentiate between a change in attitudes due to a bike lane and a simple change in who is riding on the road.

EDIT: In reference to "nil" ... I think that is my interpretation of what you wrote as opposed to something you explicitly stated.

[TRaffic Jammer]

Then we have more yutzs driving around with a headfull of incorrect and potentially hazardous notions. Whereas if they are educated when they are getting their licenses and reinforced in the exams, and touched upon by say traffic schools, law enforcement, and PSA's, the attitude of entitlement behind the wheel and the "it's my right to drive" ideas may start to fade. In order to ease the weirdness on the road, I think adjusting the one's doing the damage seems logical. As above this could lead to more people being willing to get on the bike, and less dead ones on the side of the road. This isn't just a cyclists' issues either, pedestrians are routinely being mowed down by texting, cd changes, failure to acknowledge crosswalks, etc etc etc and the list goes on..

[Helmet Head]

less cyclists on the road due to safety concerns, and more unnecessarily dead and injured cyclists at the hands of misinformed and incompetent motorists.
Do you really think more motorist education would make a significant difference in motorist attitudes and behavior towards cyclists?

It's tempting to compare the treatment we get here to Europe. But the culture is totally different there. If the driver is not a bicyclist, he probably used to be, and probably knows and cares for people who are. They have an inherent link to bicyclists in that culture that we just don't have here, and that's why they have and show more respect for bicyclists. All the education in the world can't create that in our culture.

[genec]

unacceptable? You may as well choose to find gravity to be unacceptable.

Now, don't get me wrong. If someone actually assaults you, that's different, and certainly unacceptable. But the innocent and predictable though irresponsible incidents of inattention, the harmless expressions of impatience and frustration, why choose to give them the power to irritate and annoy you with that stuff?

You are right... I will from now on ignore them and act in the same rude manner they act.

I will no longer care about my fellow man on bike or car. Excuse me for trying.

[Helmet Head]

Your experience is that motorist problems are almost nil. How could bike lanes produce a meaningful increase in negative experiences?
My reference to motorists yelling "get in the bike lane" refers mostly to what others report, though it does happen to be supported by my own experience (a few years ago a guy on a sidewalk yelled "get in the bike lane" to a bunch of us riding down a road with no bike lane).


First of all, we don't need to go over the cognitive biases when we collect "data" by our personal observations.

Again, that's not what I'm using. This is precisely why I created the poll I referenced earlier. Now, maybe all these people responding to the poll lied. So, yeah, I'm assuming they were truthful. Are you challenging that assumption?

[invisiblehand]

I should add that there is a lot of wiggle room between wild guess and certainty. "Wild guess" is too strong in the uncertain direction. But I have doubts that bike lanes produce meaningful negative changes in driver attitudes.

[randya]

Do you really think more motorist education would make a significant difference in motorist attitudes and behavior towards cyclists?

Absolutely

[genec]

Yes, irritate and annoy. Gene allows their inevitable inattention and errors to irritate and annoy him.

I reject the notion that we are sitting ducks out there able to be squashed at any moment by an inattentive, scofflaw and/or ill-educated motorist. I, for one, ride in accordance with best practices that are designed specifically to keep me safe (to a reasonable degree) from those kinds of inevitable encounters which are par for the course.

The guy who intentionally wants to kill me? Yeah, I'm vulnerable there. But that's homicide, to which we're vulnerable everywhere, and not what we're discussing here.

So you for one... expend the extra effort to make up for the careless and rude, unlawful behavior of others, that in kind, selfishly take advantage of your situation.

Sounds to me like you are the one "allowing others."

So that is what you want me to do?

And regarding the "homicidal" guy... uh try toning it down a bit and then re-examine your beliefs... try that the driver is not intentionally homicidal, but acting in a manner that has the potential to kill you, and if they do, you just become the statistical "I didn't see him." You are just as vulnerable there. (much like the thief that stole your bike... you were vulnerable... as you indeed are not perfect, and therefore cannot "prevent" everything.)

[TRaffic Jammer]

Do you really think more motorist education would make a significant difference in motorist attitudes and behavior towards cyclists?

It's tempting to compare the treatment we get here to Europe. But the culture is totally different there. If the driver is not a bicyclist, he probably used to be, and probably knows and cares for people who are. They have an inherent link to bicyclists in that culture that we just don't have here, and that's why they have and show more respect for bicyclists. All the education in the world can't create that in our culture.

to the question... Hell yes.
To the comparison.... you'll never know, if you never try. Education can be a wonderful thing.

Remember... "opps I didn't see you" can kill, and not just one person. This isn't even taking bad attitudes or drunks into the equation, just inattentive.

[invisiblehand]

My reference to motorists yelling "get in the bike lane" refers mostly to what others report, though it does happen to be supported by my own experience (a few years ago a guy on a sidewalk yelled "get in the bike lane" to a bunch of us riding down a road with no bike lane).


Again, that's not what I'm using. This is precisely why I created the poll I referenced earlier. Now, maybe all these people responding to the poll lied. So, yeah, I'm assuming they were truthful. Are you challenging that assumption?

Cognitive biases are not lies ... and your reporting other people's stories does not exclude the problem of cognitive bias.

Again, if you look at the evidence and believe that drivers pose few problems to the point that they are insignificant -- again my interpretation -- then how could this effect be meaningful? (in other words, something large enough to worry about)

How are you identifying the true effect of your and others' observations to be so certain?

Anyway, my point is that a lot of this -- not only your posts mind you -- is highly speculative. This does not mean worthless. But something in need of softer/fuzzier language.

[Helmet Head]

So you for one... expend the extra effort to make up for the careless and rude, unlawful behavior of others, that in kind, selfishly take advantage of your situation.
Sounds to me like you are the one "allowing others."

So that is what you want me to do?
Of course I do. It's also why I lock the doors at night. Accounting for the imperfections of my fellow human beings is an integral aspect of living a responsible human life.



And regarding the "homicidal" guy... uh try toning it down a bit and then re-examine your beliefs... try that the driver is not intentionally homicidal, but acting in a manner that has the potential to kill you, and if they do, you just become the statistical "I didn't see him." You are just as vulnerable there. (much like the thief that stole your bike... you were vulnerable... as you indeed are not perfect, and therefore cannot "prevent" everything.)
The thief caused harm with intent.
The vast majority of unintentionally harmful behavior, particularly in traffic, is predictable and avoidable, and it's my job, and nobody else's, to avoid being harmed by it.

[dyadinchlane]

I appreciate all the posts here. I'm most concerned about dooring - this is what we might educate car drivers the most about. The potentially catastrophic effect (and massively one-sided, even if a door hinge or window is broken) and simple cause of such a simple motion of kicking one's car/truck door open at the wrong moment is observable and has practically no standing in insurance claims or traffic statistics (as far as I can tell so far). I'm still in the process of building a blog about it, as you can see in my signature... Let me know if you're interested as well - I'd appreciate your thoughts.

Mine could be summarized this way (and I'd like to take this back to the original post): We can't be treated as "vehicles" if we can't or won't be seen at a critical moment when the car actually widens its footprint (with a deadly blade of glass to boot) by a few feet into traffic. That is, the car/truck door becomes a projectile potentially deadly to cyclists, and is opened at a time when the car/truck driver is arguably least attentive.

There are way too many ways that cyclists can get injured, but this potential calamity can be avoided so simply. And yes, I'm an advocate of three-foot rules and riding out in traffic, too, but as you can see in my most recent experience of a "near-dooring experience," I'm a bit taken aback about how I myself and other cyclists respond to the experience of it and the risks associated with it.

[TRaffic Jammer]

The vast majority of unintentionally harmful behavior, particularly in traffic, is predictable and avoidable, and it's my job, and nobody else's, to avoid being harmed by it.

Suuuuure it is. You keep telling yourself that. Now what if the drivers were more aware, via education as to some of the typical behaviors that get people killed? OMG less people being killed by drivers.

[noisebeam]

I appreciate all the posts here. I'm most concerned about dooring - this is what we might educate car drivers the most about. The potentially catastrophic effect (and massively one-sided, even if a door hinge or window is broken) and simple cause of such a simple motion of kicking one's car/truck door open at the wrong moment is observable and has practically no standing in insurance claims or traffic statistics (as far as I can tell so far). I'm still in the process of building a blog about it, as you can see in my signature... Let me know if you're interested as well - I'd appreciate your thoughts.

Don't ride in the DZ and you won't get doored. It is that simple. You even note in your incident that there was no same direction traffic when the door opened in front of you so there was zero reason to ride in such a dangerous place.
If you want traction in educating motorist, educate them about something that will affect them. A dooring is no such thing. The teachable in this case are the cyclists.
Educate drivers about safe driving in general. That at least can make them safer so they have reason to listen.
(As an aside the stereotypes in your blog make you loose some credibility)
Al

[Helmet Head]

Suuuuure it is. You keep telling yourself that. Now what if the drivers were more aware, via education as to some of the typical behaviors that get people killed? OMG less people being killed by drivers.
I don't dispute that. I'm just saying it's not necessary for that to happen in order for it to be possible to ride a bike in traffic safely, efficiently, comfortably and enjoyably.

So, again, I don't oppose improved motorist education.
I oppose the claim that improved motorist education is needed in order to make it possible to ride a bike in traffic safely, efficiently, comfortably and enjoyably.

[iltb-2]

My reference to motorists yelling "get in the bike lane" refers mostly to what others report, though it does happen to be supported by my own experience (a few years ago a guy on a sidewalk yelled "get in the bike lane" to a bunch of us riding down a road with no bike lane)?

Which confirms a pet theory of mine that pelotons/bunches of cyclists dressed up in their specialized "outfits" on the public roads causes motorists to have weird and dangerous HH Brand "NOTIONS" about the proper place of cyclists both on the road and on the sexual status scale. eh?

[Helmet Head]

Cognitive biases are not lies ... and your reporting other people's stories does not exclude the problem of cognitive bias.

Again, if you look at the evidence and believe that drivers pose few problems to the point that they are insignificant -- again my interpretation -- then how could this effect be meaningful? (in other words, something large enough to worry about)

How are you identifying the true effect of your and others' observations to be so certain?

Anyway, my point is that a lot of this -- not only your posts mind you -- is highly speculative. This does not mean worthless. But something in need of softer/fuzzier language.
This is silly.

To the extent (if any) that driver ignorance about cyclist rights is an issue, bike lanes (if they have any effect) exacerbate that issue by reinforcing the notion that bicyclists belong out of the way of same direction motor traffic.

This isn't a controversial claim. The law in many states even says so (cyclists are supposed to ride in bike lanes) explicitly.

[Helmet Head]

Which confirms a pet theory of mine that pelotons/bunches of cyclists dressed up in their specialized "outfits" on the public roads causes motorists to have weird and dangerous HH Brand "NOTIONS" about the proper place of cyclists both on the road and on the sexual status scale. eh?

Indeed. A group of humans is innately annoying to people who are not members of that group.

[John Forester]

I wrote: Well, no, randya, you have it exactly backwards. The statement that you claim so vociferously to be true says exactly what I have been arguing for months, that the public view of bicycle traffic is one of childish cycling and cyclist inferiority. That, of course, is also what so many of you are supporting with your advocacy for the bikeway system that embodies exactly that view of bicycle traffic. I can't help it if your own mistaken beliefs turn this into your emotional quagmire.

To which randya replied:
the emotional quagmire is yours alone. 'the public' by and large means motorists, so you've once again confirmed the need for public ~ e.g. motorist ~ education.

I agree that our situation would be much nicer if society changed to accept each of us cyclists as a mature person capable of obeying the rules of the road and looking after himself or herself. However, such an attitude change is not necessary, since society has allowed us, so far, to operate as drivers of vehicles, although our status to do so has constantly been under challenge.

You assert that obtaining that change in public attitude is necessary. You want to persuade the motoring public that cyclists are mature people capable of obeying the rules of the road and looking after themselves. OK, but you are simultaneously complaining that you have to have the protection of bikeways because you are not capable of obeying the rules of the road and looking out for yourself, which facilities motorists designed to protect themselves, so they said, from people who are incapable of obeying the rules of the road and of looking after themselves.

You are trying to persuade motorists of what, for them, is an inconvenient truth, while simultaneously destroying the validity of your own argument by justifying theirs.

That's where the emotional quagmire resides.

[genec]

I wrote: Well, no, randya, you have it exactly backwards. The statement that you claim so vociferously to be true says exactly what I have been arguing for months, that the public view of bicycle traffic is one of childish cycling and cyclist inferiority. That, of course, is also what so many of you are supporting with your advocacy for the bikeway system that embodies exactly that view of bicycle traffic. I can't help it if your own mistaken beliefs turn this into your emotional quagmire.

To which randya replied:


I agree that our situation would be much nicer if society changed to accept each of us cyclists as a mature person capable of obeying the rules of the road and looking after himself or herself. However, such an attitude change is not necessary, since society has allowed us, so far, to operate as drivers of vehicles, although our status to do so has constantly been under challenge.

You assert that obtaining that change in public attitude is necessary. You want to persuade the motoring public that cyclists are mature people capable of obeying the rules of the road and looking after themselves. OK, but you are simultaneously complaining that you have to have the protection of bikeways because you are not capable of obeying the rules of the road and looking out for yourself, which facilities motorists designed to protect themselves, so they said, from people who are incapable of obeying the rules of the road and of looking after themselves.

You are trying to persuade motorists of what, for them, is an inconvenient truth, while simultaneously destroying the validity of your own argument by justifying theirs.

That's where the emotional quagmire resides.

John, for my part, I argue that bikeways (specifically paths, not BL) should exist when surface streets are designed that are not cyclist friendly...

Oh sure I would love to see a "childish" system (which I found quite friendly to cyclists) such as that in Oulo, but I doubt it would ever happen here.

But as long as roads are pushed to speeds well over that which cyclists can maintain, (50 and 65MPH, plus) then it seems that there should be provisions for cyclists in our "immature driver" society.

[Helmet Head]

John, for my part, I argue that bikeways (specifically paths, not BL) should exist when surface streets are designed that are not cyclist friendly...

Oh sure I would love to see a "childish" system (which I found quite friendly to cyclists) such as that in Oulo, but I doubt it would ever happen here.

But as long as roads are pushed to speeds well over that which cyclists can maintain, (50 and 65MPH, plus) then it seems that there should be provisions for cyclists in our "immature driver" society.
Whether a given street is "bicycle friendly" is a subjective assessment.
The rules of the road, and the roads (except for freeways), were designed to be shared by vehicles being driven at disparate speeds. This idea that all of traffic should be moving at some uniform speed is pure bunk, and is at the heart of claims that roads that are perfectly friendly to bicyclists are somehow not bike friendly because the max speed is (say) 50 mph and much of traffic is often moving 50-60. Welcome to my commute, which is very bike friendly.

Don't buy the bunk about uniform speeds.

[John Forester]

John, for my part, I argue that bikeways (specifically paths, not BL) should exist when surface streets are designed that are not cyclist friendly...

Oh sure I would love to see a "childish" system (which I found quite friendly to cyclists) such as that in Oulo, but I doubt it would ever happen here.

But as long as roads are pushed to speeds well over that which cyclists can maintain, (50 and 65MPH, plus) then it seems that there should be provisions for cyclists in our "immature driver" society.

Well, at least you are making suggestions in a more reasonable way. You are justified in thinking that a bike path system similar to that in Oulu will not occur here. I rather doubt that it occurs in many places, since the majority of the bike paths, and all of those that provided shortcuts, run between isolated blocks of apartment buildings separated by forest. That can only be created when building an entirely new city in a wilderness of cheap land, and with other specific social characteristics also.

As for paths in urban areas that have high-speed streets, I think that you need to consider more carefully. To get from A to B (or to P, for that matter), you still have to cross all the traffic that travels across the line between them. The problem is not the high-speed same-direction traffic, which just goes by you, but that which crosses or turns, or across which you intend to cross or to turn. That's one advantage of freeways, that they put the traffic that crosses your path up high (or down low) where you don't have to interact with it. So far as high-speed urban traffic goes, it runs either on freeways (65 plus) or on major arterials (55) that have very few intersections. If they have more than a few intersections, the signaling system breaks the traffic up into platoons, mostly slower at that, between which the cyclist can maneuver quite nicely. The problem locations, as you have, I think, previously described them, are where there are so few intersections and such open spaces that the roads have been designed as freeways without being freeways. I agree that these should not exist, and that, where they do exist, steps ought to be taken to allow slow traffic to operate properly. However, those steps would only rarely, I think, be paths, because of the costs and difficulties of making grade separated paths. I think the more likely solution would be appropriate signaling.

[genec]

Whether a given street is "bicycle friendly" is a subjective assessment.
The rules of the road, and the roads (except for freeways), were designed to be shared by vehicles being driven at disparate speeds. This idea that all of traffic should be moving at some uniform speed is pure bunk, and is at the heart of claims that roads that are perfectly friendly to bicyclists are somehow not bike friendly because the max speed is (say) 50 mph and much of traffic is often moving 50-60. Welcome to my commute, which is very bike friendly.

Don't buy the bunk about uniform speeds.

You are right... it is not just speed, but road width, and traffic density coupled with free turns that makes a road non cyclist friendly... a 60MPH country highway can be quite bike friendly.

A 50MPH multilaned urban arterial with free merges, lots of driveways and heavy traffic and narrow lanes is NOT bike friendly... even if the traffic in the right most lanes is only moving at 40MPH.

[Allister]

Uh, SDBC is a racing club, not an advocacy group.

My mistake. I meant SDCBC.

Anyway, I'm not talking about [blah-de-blah-de-blah]. I'm talking about [blah-de-blah-de-blah]

Face it, you have no idea what you're talking about, when every post contains at least one sentence like that.

[genec]

Well, at least you are making suggestions in a more reasonable way. You are justified in thinking that a bike path system similar to that in Oulu will not occur here. I rather doubt that it occurs in many places, since the majority of the bike paths, and all of those that provided shortcuts, run between isolated blocks of apartment buildings separated by forest. That can only be created when building an entirely new city in a wilderness of cheap land, and with other specific social characteristics also.

As for paths in urban areas that have high-speed streets, I think that you need to consider more carefully. To get from A to B (or to P, for that matter), you still have to cross all the traffic that travels across the line between them. The problem is not the high-speed same-direction traffic, which just goes by you, but that which crosses or turns, or across which you intend to cross or to turn. That's one advantage of freeways, that they put the traffic that crosses your path up high (or down low) where you don't have to interact with it. So far as high-speed urban traffic goes, it runs either on freeways (65 plus) or on major arterials (55) that have very few intersections. If they have more than a few intersections, the signaling system breaks the traffic up into platoons, mostly slower at that, between which the cyclist can maneuver quite nicely. The problem locations, as you have, I think, previously described them, are where there are so few intersections and such open spaces that the roads have been designed as freeways without being freeways. I agree that these should not exist, and that, where they do exist, steps ought to be taken to allow slow traffic to operate properly. However, those steps would only rarely, I think, be paths, because of the costs and difficulties of making grade separated paths. I think the more likely solution would be appropriate signaling.

It is nice to see that we do have something of an agreement on this... if not so much for the solution, but at least that these situations are less than friendly toward cyclists. Thanks

[Helmet Head]

Face it, you have no idea what you're talking about, when every post contains at least one sentence like that.
Let me know when you develop an interest in understanding the ideas I'm trying to convey, if you ever do.

[Allister]

The key to your rants here about motorists is that you choose not to accept that motorists are human beings, glorified animals with arguably too much intelligence for their own good, and that there is no way you're ever going to change that.

Speak for yourself.

Of course they are going to occasionally and even regularly break the laws and act in a dangerous manner, just as surely as hyenas will occasionally and even regularly eat their own. Why would you choose to find the inevitable to be unacceptable? You may as well choose to find gravity to be unacceptable.

That kind of fatalist attitude is waaay more unhelpful to a safer road envirenment than any 'anti-motorist' sentiment could ever be.

I, unlike you, expect drivers to act the like responsible adult humans, that have the capability to see beyond their own selfish desires, and at the very least, obey the friggen road rules. It is an immutable condition of their right to drive a car on public roads, and if they think that it's ok to treat that agreement with contempt, then they should remove themselves, or be removed from the road. Same goes for anyone.

It's one thing to recognise the current conditions, even note that they are less than ideal, and to work around them as best you can, which is all VC ever was. It's quite another to consider them unchangeable or 'inevitable', and to preach what was only ever a work-around as the only way cyclists can possibly be safe on the roads. To then extrapolate that this work-around will also encourage non-cyclists to take up cycling is a leap of logic on a scale rarely seen even from you.

Driver's attitudes are getting worse, and will continue to do so without conscious effort to reverse the process. Doing nothing, and working around it, is clearly not doing that. Why shouldn't cyclists be at the forefront of campaigning for better motorist education and enforcement? No-one else seems to care enough to do anything.

[Allister]

Let me know when you develop an interest in understanding the ideas I'm trying to convey, if you ever do.

Don't hold your breath. I don't care enough to wade through the morass of illogic and inconsistency that you spew out on a daily basis. Let me know when you want to start making some sense.

[randya]

I agree that our situation would be much nicer if society changed to accept each of us cyclists as a mature person capable of obeying the rules of the road and looking after himself or herself. However, such an attitude change is not necessary, since society has allowed us, so far, to operate as drivers of vehicles, although our status to do so has constantly been under challenge.

You assert that obtaining that change in public attitude is necessary. You want to persuade the motoring public that cyclists are mature people capable of obeying the rules of the road and looking after themselves. OK, but you are simultaneously complaining that you have to have the protection of bikeways because you are not capable of obeying the rules of the road and looking out for yourself, which facilities motorists designed to protect themselves, so they said, from people who are incapable of obeying the rules of the road and of looking after themselves.

You are trying to persuade motorists of what, for them, is an inconvenient truth, while simultaneously destroying the validity of your own argument by justifying theirs.

That's where the emotional quagmire resides.

:rolleyes:

[Helmet Head]

Don't hold your breath. I don't care enough to wade through the morass of illogic and inconsistency that you spew out on a daily basis. Let me know when you want to start making some sense.
Well, that explains everything.

Even a geometry text book will seem like morass of illogic and inconsistency that does not make sense if you don't care enough to wade through it.

[Helmet Head]

You are right... it is not just speed, but road width, and traffic density coupled with free turns that makes a road non cyclist friendly... a 60MPH country highway can be quite bike friendly.

A 50MPH multilaned urban arterial with free merges, lots of driveways and heavy traffic and narrow lanes is NOT bike friendly... even if the traffic in the right most lanes is only moving at 40MPH.
If you're comfortable with negotiation and merging, which is easy to learn and get comfortable with, there is nothing bike unfriendly about it. Most people just can't seem to get around the belief that they shouldn't be out there if they can't keep up with everyone else. So of course, given the premise that traffic speeds should not be disparate, it's going to seem bike unfriendly. But this again is a reflection of what is going on in someone's perception of the situation inside his head, rather than what's actually going on in traffic. That's why one cyclist will assert a given situation is certainly bike unfriendly, while another will just be fine with the exact same situation, finding it perfectly bike friendly.

[randya]

How can anyone argue against more motorist education, regardless of what bike infrastructure is or isn't provided? Even if you're gonna ride 'militant VC', the motorists still need to have a clue in the first place.

[Helmet Head]

How can anyone argue against more motorist education, regardless of what bike infrastructure is or isn't provided? Even if you're gonna ride 'militant VC', the motorists still need to have a clue in the first place.
That's a silly question since no one has argued against more motorist education.

See if you can follow this:

The argument I've made is against the alleged need for more motorist education in order to allow for safe, efficient, comfortable and enjoyable cycling in traffic. There is no such need, since safe, efficient, comfortable and enjoyable cycling in traffic is already possible today. Can being in traffic be made even safer with more motorist education? Perhaps. But that's beside the point, which is making it more safe is not required to make it reasonably safe, because it already is reasonably safe.

One of the biggest obstacles to making cycling more popular, perhaps the biggest obstacle, is the widespread myth that cycling in traffic is inherently dangerous - that it simply cannot be safe to ride in traffic. So a big part of cycling advocacy should be aimed at correcting that myth, not reinforcing it. Insisting that more motorist education is required before cycling in traffic can be safe, and that segregated cycling facilities are required in order to make cyclists safe, are arguments that reinforce this myth, rather than correct it. Such arguments are anti-cycling advocacy.

But that's not arguing against more motorist education. That's arguing against the lobbying for more motorist education (or segregated cycling facilities), especially by bicycling advocates, on the explicit or implicit grounds that improvements in motorist behavior and attitudes (or segregated cycling facilities) are required to make cycling reasonably safe.

[Bekologist]

the "requirement" above is soley your artifice, head.


However, back on topic,

Looking at bicycling around the world, bicyclists as a class of citizens and users of public transportation cooridors "fare best" when they DON'T buy into the engineering prejudices perpetuated by hypocritical, confused 'vehicular fools' led by an admitted curbugger.