invisiblehand
02-12-08, 11:42 AM
not at all, you're just wanting to obfuscate the issue with manipulated statistics, and whoever has the most time to waste on google is the winner.
:rolleyes:
:lol:
:rolleyes:
:lol:
View Full Version : Cyclists fare best?
randya
02-12-08, 12:00 PM
laugh all you want, I'm not playing that game.
in what other legal activity in the US, except perhaps smoking tobacco, are 43,000 annual deaths an acceptable standard?
and I know for a fact that the Portland Police will not complete a police accident report in the case of a motorist-cyclist crash, unless the cyclist is either dead or has to be transported to a Level 1 Trauma center.
in what other legal activity in the US, except perhaps smoking tobacco, are 43,000 annual deaths an acceptable standard?
and I know for a fact that the Portland Police will not complete a police accident report in the case of a motorist-cyclist crash, unless the cyclist is either dead or has to be transported to a Level 1 Trauma center.
invisiblehand
02-12-08, 12:20 PM
laugh all you want, I'm not playing that game.
:roflmao:
My apologies for thinking you were interested in discussing a topic and exchanging ideas. But in all seriousness, I made general statements which you claimed were unfounded. I presented an outline why those statements have an empirical base. I even asked you questions regarding aspects that I felt were subjective. After presenting a few misleading arguments, your reaction was to sulk, kick the sand, and walk away.
Anyway, if you are ready to discuss this and other topics in the future in a civilized fashion, let me know. Until then I will keep laughing and stay out of the sandbox with you.
:lol:
:roflmao:
My apologies for thinking you were interested in discussing a topic and exchanging ideas. But in all seriousness, I made general statements which you claimed were unfounded. I presented an outline why those statements have an empirical base. I even asked you questions regarding aspects that I felt were subjective. After presenting a few misleading arguments, your reaction was to sulk, kick the sand, and walk away.
Anyway, if you are ready to discuss this and other topics in the future in a civilized fashion, let me know. Until then I will keep laughing and stay out of the sandbox with you.
:lol:
Helmet Head
02-12-08, 01:49 PM
laugh all you want, I'm not playing that game.
in what other legal activity in the US, except perhaps smoking tobacco, are 43,000 annual deaths an acceptable standard?
and I know for a fact that the Portland Police will not complete a police accident report in the case of a motorist-cyclist crash, unless the cyclist is either dead or has to be transported to a Level 1 Trauma center.
No matter what all the legal activities are in a given society, one of them is going to cause the most deaths. That fact alone is meaningless. What you have to look at is how much that activity is engaged in, and how that death rate compares to the benefits achieved by engaging in that activity.
To simply declare that some arbitrary number is unacceptable is baseless.
in what other legal activity in the US, except perhaps smoking tobacco, are 43,000 annual deaths an acceptable standard?
and I know for a fact that the Portland Police will not complete a police accident report in the case of a motorist-cyclist crash, unless the cyclist is either dead or has to be transported to a Level 1 Trauma center.
No matter what all the legal activities are in a given society, one of them is going to cause the most deaths. That fact alone is meaningless. What you have to look at is how much that activity is engaged in, and how that death rate compares to the benefits achieved by engaging in that activity.
To simply declare that some arbitrary number is unacceptable is baseless.
TRaffic Jammer
02-12-08, 02:02 PM
To simply declare that some arbitrary number is unacceptable is baseless.
Anything that on average kills off a small city every year would normally be a perfect target for a U.S. styled "war" on it. Only in that it generates billions in tax revenues to the fed is it allowed to continue. This is the only reason smoking is still legal. Same for motoring, as long as they make gobs of money from it, 50,000 a year are acceptable loses. I'll wager if there was 50,000 deaths a year from something that sucked money as opposed to generate revenue, you'd see some action PDQ.
Anything that on average kills off a small city every year would normally be a perfect target for a U.S. styled "war" on it. Only in that it generates billions in tax revenues to the fed is it allowed to continue. This is the only reason smoking is still legal. Same for motoring, as long as they make gobs of money from it, 50,000 a year are acceptable loses. I'll wager if there was 50,000 deaths a year from something that sucked money as opposed to generate revenue, you'd see some action PDQ.
genec
02-12-08, 02:18 PM
Anything that on average kills off a small city every year would normally be a perfect target for a U.S. styled "war" on it. Only in that it generates billions in tax revenues to the fed is it allowed to continue. This is the only reason smoking is still legal. Same for motoring, as long as they make gobs of money from it, 50,000 a year are acceptable loses. I'll wager if there was 50,000 deaths a year from something that sucked money as opposed to generate revenue, you'd see some action PDQ.
:beer::beer::beer:
:beer::beer::beer:
John Forester
02-12-08, 04:31 PM
Anything that on average kills off a small city every year would normally be a perfect target for a U.S. styled "war" on it. Only in that it generates billions in tax revenues to the fed is it allowed to continue. This is the only reason smoking is still legal. Same for motoring, as long as they make gobs of money from it, 50,000 a year are acceptable loses. I'll wager if there was 50,000 deaths a year from something that sucked money as opposed to generate revenue, you'd see some action PDQ.
Most of this recent discussion shows no understanding of the issues, and, furthermore, is pervaded by anti-motoring ideology. Motoring does not continue because the government makes money from it. Transportation is absolutely necessary; however most of this discussion concerns only urban personal transportation in modern first-world cities, in which bicycle transportation can take part. Motoring is used in urban transportation by those who find that it best suits their needs. Clearly, many of you disagree with the conclusion made by most people. However, none of you anti-motorists try to understand why people make the choices regarding urban transportation that they do. When I suggest that there are reasonable reasons for those choices, I get accused of advocating motoring.
Instead, the bicycle advocating anti-motorists operate according to two articles of faith. The first is that there is a great unsatisfied demand for transportation by bicycle. However, this unsatisfied demand does not show itself in any observable way, such as by large quantities of people actually using bicycle transportation; it's existence is merely a matter of faith. The second article of faith is that this postulated unsatisfied demand for bicycle transportation has been invisible because of the general fear of same-direction motor traffic, which fear is removed by bikeways. Therefore, so goes the conclusion reached by the faithful, bikeway programs produce transportationally significant modal shares of bicycle transportation.
The second foolishness in these recent discussions concerns who is responsible for changing the behavior of motorists. The most vociferous in this group maintain that the behavior of motorists is extremely bad, both between themselves and to cyclists, and that it is the responsibility of bicycle advocates to point this out to motorists. More than that, they maintain that any cyclist who does not do this is not carrying the burden that he should be. These persons do not maintain that there is an equal responsibility for improving the behavior of cyclists. Indeed, the two of us who most openly advocate improving the traffic behavior of cyclists are derided because we do not expend equal effort on motorists.
Every measurement made of the behavior of general American cycling populations shows that, had he population been tested by the standard American driving test examiner, they would have flunked, and flunked badly. Very few of such cyclists would have passed. It is quite certain that American cyclist behavior is much worse than that of the accompanying motorists, and this is, after all, a forum for cyclists. To pretend that cyclist behavior is not so deficient, does not need improvement, and that it is inappropriate to discuss those facts in this forum is a clear demonstration of the ideological nature of the group and its discussions.
Most of this recent discussion shows no understanding of the issues, and, furthermore, is pervaded by anti-motoring ideology. Motoring does not continue because the government makes money from it. Transportation is absolutely necessary; however most of this discussion concerns only urban personal transportation in modern first-world cities, in which bicycle transportation can take part. Motoring is used in urban transportation by those who find that it best suits their needs. Clearly, many of you disagree with the conclusion made by most people. However, none of you anti-motorists try to understand why people make the choices regarding urban transportation that they do. When I suggest that there are reasonable reasons for those choices, I get accused of advocating motoring.
Instead, the bicycle advocating anti-motorists operate according to two articles of faith. The first is that there is a great unsatisfied demand for transportation by bicycle. However, this unsatisfied demand does not show itself in any observable way, such as by large quantities of people actually using bicycle transportation; it's existence is merely a matter of faith. The second article of faith is that this postulated unsatisfied demand for bicycle transportation has been invisible because of the general fear of same-direction motor traffic, which fear is removed by bikeways. Therefore, so goes the conclusion reached by the faithful, bikeway programs produce transportationally significant modal shares of bicycle transportation.
The second foolishness in these recent discussions concerns who is responsible for changing the behavior of motorists. The most vociferous in this group maintain that the behavior of motorists is extremely bad, both between themselves and to cyclists, and that it is the responsibility of bicycle advocates to point this out to motorists. More than that, they maintain that any cyclist who does not do this is not carrying the burden that he should be. These persons do not maintain that there is an equal responsibility for improving the behavior of cyclists. Indeed, the two of us who most openly advocate improving the traffic behavior of cyclists are derided because we do not expend equal effort on motorists.
Every measurement made of the behavior of general American cycling populations shows that, had he population been tested by the standard American driving test examiner, they would have flunked, and flunked badly. Very few of such cyclists would have passed. It is quite certain that American cyclist behavior is much worse than that of the accompanying motorists, and this is, after all, a forum for cyclists. To pretend that cyclist behavior is not so deficient, does not need improvement, and that it is inappropriate to discuss those facts in this forum is a clear demonstration of the ideological nature of the group and its discussions.
Script
02-12-08, 05:08 PM
Every measurement made of the behavior of general American cycling populations shows that, had he population been tested by the standard American driving test examiner, they would have flunked, and flunked badly. Very few of such cyclists would have passed. It is quite certain that American cyclist behavior is much worse than that of the accompanying motorists, and this is, after all, a forum for cyclists. To pretend that cyclist behavior is not so deficient, does not need improvement, and that it is inappropriate to discuss those facts in this forum is a clear demonstration of the ideological nature of the group and its discussions.
At the risk of being called an idealogue, I must disagree with your assertion. If we were dealing with equal sample sizes, I believe we'd find that drivers and cyclists are equally bad.
The challenge, in my opinion, is the matter of volume and velocity as well as the tradition that bicycles are for kids.
I have no hope that we can educate drivers to respect the rights of cyclists. I have about the same thought about educating cyclists.
The size and operation of cars almost forces better compliance to traffic where a cyclist can be more flexible (inconsistent) without causing damage to anything other than themself.
Sure, cars run lights and stop signs in much higher numbers than bicycles. The car drivers seem to see red when the little slow moving vehicle runs a signal, reinforcing the notion that cycling shouldn't be allowed except for children in playgrounds.
I think the answer is more enforcement than education. We need equal opportunity law enforcement that doesn't condone different behaviors.
Then there's me, stopping at stop signs even if the way is clear, waiting for lights to go green before proceeding even when the way is clear... I spend a lot of time catching up on the few group rides I do.
But I've yet to be harrassed by motorists or gotten myself into a risky situation on a roadway just to prove who has rights to what on the roads.:rolleyes:
At the risk of being called an idealogue, I must disagree with your assertion. If we were dealing with equal sample sizes, I believe we'd find that drivers and cyclists are equally bad.
The challenge, in my opinion, is the matter of volume and velocity as well as the tradition that bicycles are for kids.
I have no hope that we can educate drivers to respect the rights of cyclists. I have about the same thought about educating cyclists.
The size and operation of cars almost forces better compliance to traffic where a cyclist can be more flexible (inconsistent) without causing damage to anything other than themself.
Sure, cars run lights and stop signs in much higher numbers than bicycles. The car drivers seem to see red when the little slow moving vehicle runs a signal, reinforcing the notion that cycling shouldn't be allowed except for children in playgrounds.
I think the answer is more enforcement than education. We need equal opportunity law enforcement that doesn't condone different behaviors.
Then there's me, stopping at stop signs even if the way is clear, waiting for lights to go green before proceeding even when the way is clear... I spend a lot of time catching up on the few group rides I do.
But I've yet to be harrassed by motorists or gotten myself into a risky situation on a roadway just to prove who has rights to what on the roads.:rolleyes:
Allister
02-12-08, 05:28 PM
Most of this recent discussion shows no understanding of the issues, and, furthermore, is pervaded by anti-motoring ideology.
Is it some kind of rule you've set for yourself that you have to start every post whining about 'anti-motoring ideology'?
Motoring is used in urban transportation by those who find that it best suits their needs. Clearly, many of you disagree with the conclusion made by most people. However, none of you anti-motorists try to understand why people make the choices regarding urban transportation that they do. When I suggest that there are reasonable reasons for those choices, I get accused of advocating motoring.
When people regularly use a car to make trips of less than 5km, or even 1km, you'll have to excuse me laughing my arse off at the 'reasonableness' of their transport choices. Who's the one making a leap of faith here?
Is it some kind of rule you've set for yourself that you have to start every post whining about 'anti-motoring ideology'?
Motoring is used in urban transportation by those who find that it best suits their needs. Clearly, many of you disagree with the conclusion made by most people. However, none of you anti-motorists try to understand why people make the choices regarding urban transportation that they do. When I suggest that there are reasonable reasons for those choices, I get accused of advocating motoring.
When people regularly use a car to make trips of less than 5km, or even 1km, you'll have to excuse me laughing my arse off at the 'reasonableness' of their transport choices. Who's the one making a leap of faith here?
genec
02-12-08, 06:20 PM
Is it some kind of rule you've set for yourself that you have to start every post whining about 'anti-motoring ideology'?
When people regularly use a car to make trips of less than 5km, or even 1km, you'll have to excuse me laughing my arse off at the 'reasonableness' of their transport choices. Who's the one making a leap of faith here?
Apparently John is Pro-Motoring and just happens to have written a book about "how to cope with motorists" that few cyclists have actually read.
John actually gives speeches to pro-motoring groups... such as the American Dream Coalition.
Anything that is pro-cycling, to John, is anti-motoring. It is that simple. ;)
When people regularly use a car to make trips of less than 5km, or even 1km, you'll have to excuse me laughing my arse off at the 'reasonableness' of their transport choices. Who's the one making a leap of faith here?
Apparently John is Pro-Motoring and just happens to have written a book about "how to cope with motorists" that few cyclists have actually read.
John actually gives speeches to pro-motoring groups... such as the American Dream Coalition.
Anything that is pro-cycling, to John, is anti-motoring. It is that simple. ;)
Allister
02-12-08, 06:38 PM
He also seems to have difficulty separating 'anti-motoring ideologies' from 'reducing unecessary or wasteful car journeys'.
joejack951
02-12-08, 07:49 PM
He also seems to have difficulty separating 'anti-motoring ideologies' from 'reducing unecessary or wasteful car journeys'.
Why do you care so much about "reducing unecessary (in your opinion) or wasteful car journeys (made by people other than you of course)?" Why should anyone (but you) consider these reasons significant?
Why do you care so much about "reducing unecessary (in your opinion) or wasteful car journeys (made by people other than you of course)?" Why should anyone (but you) consider these reasons significant?
joejack951
02-12-08, 07:52 PM
Anything that on average kills off a small city every year would normally be a perfect target for a U.S. styled "war" on it. Only in that it generates billions in tax revenues to the fed is it allowed to continue. This is the only reason smoking is still legal. Same for motoring, as long as they make gobs of money from it, 50,000 a year are acceptable loses. I'll wager if there was 50,000 deaths a year from something that sucked money as opposed to generate revenue, you'd see some action PDQ.
Do you honestly believe the utility of motoring is on the same level as that of smoking? If so, you are smoking something.
Do you honestly believe the utility of motoring is on the same level as that of smoking? If so, you are smoking something.
Bekologist
02-12-08, 08:10 PM
joe- hilarious!
You HAVEN'T heard about reducing private auto trips as a tool to reduce global greenhouse gas emmisions? It's a VERY POPULAR and worldwide reaction to the quandry 21st century man has found ourselves in. Reducing motoring IS on the minds of entire countries, joe. why are you not aware of these issues?
Are you just a curbhugging gashuffer like john in love with autocentric dystopia?
You HAVEN'T heard about reducing private auto trips as a tool to reduce global greenhouse gas emmisions? It's a VERY POPULAR and worldwide reaction to the quandry 21st century man has found ourselves in. Reducing motoring IS on the minds of entire countries, joe. why are you not aware of these issues?
Are you just a curbhugging gashuffer like john in love with autocentric dystopia?
John Forester
02-12-08, 08:31 PM
Apparently John is Pro-Motoring and just happens to have written a book about "how to cope with motorists" that few cyclists have actually read.
John actually gives speeches to pro-motoring groups... such as the American Dream Coalition.
Anything that is pro-cycling, to John, is anti-motoring. It is that simple. ;)
Not at all. Again, bikeways are based on cyclist-inferiority. When people who oppose motoring advocate bikeways in order to reduce motoring, I accurately label their motivation as anti-motoring that does harm to cyclists. On the other hand, when people advocate protection of cyclists' status as drivers of vehicles, even when their motivation is the reduction of motoring, then I don't remark on their motivation. However, there seem to be very few persons of the latter type, while the great majority of the anti-motorists who take an interest in bicycle transportation advocate bikeways and cyclist inferiority. Those are the facts, and I can't help them. There appears to be a strong connection between being anti-motoring and advocating bikeways and cyclist inferiority. They take similar emotions, of course. I oppose lowering the status of cyclists to that of incompetent children; I see no reason why we cyclists should put up with such mistreatment.
John actually gives speeches to pro-motoring groups... such as the American Dream Coalition.
Anything that is pro-cycling, to John, is anti-motoring. It is that simple. ;)
Not at all. Again, bikeways are based on cyclist-inferiority. When people who oppose motoring advocate bikeways in order to reduce motoring, I accurately label their motivation as anti-motoring that does harm to cyclists. On the other hand, when people advocate protection of cyclists' status as drivers of vehicles, even when their motivation is the reduction of motoring, then I don't remark on their motivation. However, there seem to be very few persons of the latter type, while the great majority of the anti-motorists who take an interest in bicycle transportation advocate bikeways and cyclist inferiority. Those are the facts, and I can't help them. There appears to be a strong connection between being anti-motoring and advocating bikeways and cyclist inferiority. They take similar emotions, of course. I oppose lowering the status of cyclists to that of incompetent children; I see no reason why we cyclists should put up with such mistreatment.
Helmet Head
02-12-08, 08:37 PM
Not at all. Again, bikeways are based on cyclist-inferiority. When people who oppose motoring advocate bikeways in order to reduce motoring, I accurately label their motivation as anti-motoring that does harm to cyclists. On the other hand, when people advocate protection of cyclists' status as drivers of vehicles, even when their motivation is the reduction of motoring, then I don't remark on their motivation. However, there seem to be very few persons of the latter type, while the great majority of the anti-motorists who take an interest in bicycle transportation advocate bikeways and cyclist inferiority. Those are the facts, and I can't help them. There appears to be a strong connection between being anti-motoring and advocating bikeways and cyclist inferiority. They take similar emotions, of course. I oppose lowering the status of cyclists to that of incompetent children; I see no reason why we cyclists should put up with such mistreatment.
Yes, but... If indeed the proposed "bike freeway" system for London, for example, adds segregated routes for significant distances that allows cyclists to ride from A to B (for significant numbers of As and Bs) without having to deal with intersections, that definitely a pro-bicycling initiative, and not necessarily anti-motoring.
I can only imagine that congested traffic in London, with traffic signals every block are a pain to deal with, and having a dedicated bike-only freeway for most of your route would be preferable. I don't have a problem with advocating for that kind of bikeway system. My problem is believing that anything between no facilities and these "ultimate facilities" (if you will) are necessarily better than nothing, or a step in the right direction (i.e., a bike lane, no matter how lousy, is better than no bike lane, which seems to be the prevalent opinion in the cycling opinion).
Yes, but... If indeed the proposed "bike freeway" system for London, for example, adds segregated routes for significant distances that allows cyclists to ride from A to B (for significant numbers of As and Bs) without having to deal with intersections, that definitely a pro-bicycling initiative, and not necessarily anti-motoring.
I can only imagine that congested traffic in London, with traffic signals every block are a pain to deal with, and having a dedicated bike-only freeway for most of your route would be preferable. I don't have a problem with advocating for that kind of bikeway system. My problem is believing that anything between no facilities and these "ultimate facilities" (if you will) are necessarily better than nothing, or a step in the right direction (i.e., a bike lane, no matter how lousy, is better than no bike lane, which seems to be the prevalent opinion in the cycling opinion).
Bekologist
02-12-08, 08:37 PM
your anti-engineering prejudice is glaring, john. designing public space with bicyclists in mind is MOST DEFINETLY NOT "Anti-bicycling" john-o. Again, bikeways are based on cyclist-inferiority.... a lie of the vc.
any 'bicyclist' or 'bicycling transportation engineer' that thinks urban speed limits are TOO LOW is clearly playing on the other side, buddy.
Can you explain your propensity to unvehicularily hug the curb in narrow lanes of high speed roads, john? why do you subscribe to staying the f out of the motorists' way on roads with high speeds, john? NOT faring best by acting 'like a vehicle', you endorse riding like a curbhugging child.
any 'bicyclist' or 'bicycling transportation engineer' that thinks urban speed limits are TOO LOW is clearly playing on the other side, buddy.
Can you explain your propensity to unvehicularily hug the curb in narrow lanes of high speed roads, john? why do you subscribe to staying the f out of the motorists' way on roads with high speeds, john? NOT faring best by acting 'like a vehicle', you endorse riding like a curbhugging child.
randya
02-12-08, 09:16 PM
Not at all. Again, bikeways are based on cyclist-inferiority. When people who oppose motoring advocate bikeways in order to reduce motoring, I accurately label their motivation as anti-motoring that does harm to cyclists. On the other hand, when people advocate protection of cyclists' status as drivers of vehicles, even when their motivation is the reduction of motoring, then I don't remark on their motivation. However, there seem to be very few persons of the latter type, while the great majority of the anti-motorists who take an interest in bicycle transportation advocate bikeways and cyclist inferiority. Those are the facts, and I can't help them. There appears to be a strong connection between being anti-motoring and advocating bikeways and cyclist inferiority. They take similar emotions, of course. I oppose lowering the status of cyclists to that of incompetent children; I see no reason why we cyclists should put up with such mistreatment.
in the few short years you've got left on this planet, John, I think you should do some serious soul-searching and recant all this silly nonsense you've been spouting and come up with something a bit more constructive.
in the few short years you've got left on this planet, John, I think you should do some serious soul-searching and recant all this silly nonsense you've been spouting and come up with something a bit more constructive.
Allister
02-12-08, 09:43 PM
Not at all. Again, bikeways are based on cyclist-inferiority. When people who oppose motoring advocate bikeways in order to reduce motoring, I accurately label their motivation as anti-motoring that does harm to cyclists. On the other hand, when people advocate protection of cyclists' status as drivers of vehicles, even when their motivation is the reduction of motoring, then I don't remark on their motivation. However, there seem to be very few persons of the latter type, while the great majority of the anti-motorists who take an interest in bicycle transportation advocate bikeways and cyclist inferiority. Those are the facts, and I can't help them. There appears to be a strong connection between being anti-motoring and advocating bikeways and cyclist inferiority. They take similar emotions, of course. I oppose lowering the status of cyclists to that of incompetent children; I see no reason why we cyclists should put up with such mistreatment.
Do you come across as this much of a looney when you attend all these planning meetings you keep telling us about?
Do you come across as this much of a looney when you attend all these planning meetings you keep telling us about?
genec
02-13-08, 08:09 AM
Why do you care so much about "reducing unecessary (in your opinion) or wasteful car journeys (made by people other than you of course)?" Why should anyone (but you) consider these reasons significant?
It has been well acknowledged that by having more cyclists on the road we will have more acceptance of cyclists by people in general.
More people making short trips by bike rather than "wasteful car journeys" such as the couple blocks to mail a letter... means cleaner air, quieter environment, and trimmer population. Why is it that you cannot see the advantages of the population taking to foot, or bike to make such short trips?
"Why should anyone consider these issues significant..." well how about a reduction in the use of oil, the increase in general health of the population, and cleaner air.... are these not reasons enough to encourage walking and cycling over "wasteful car journeys?"
Our society in general has been so overcome by autocentric thinking that even the shortest trips are typically done in car; alternate means are not usually even considered. The spiral of this sort of thinking has made anything but driving seem "uncomfortable" to the general public.
This is not an issue of anti motoring, but one simply of pro people.
It has been well acknowledged that by having more cyclists on the road we will have more acceptance of cyclists by people in general.
More people making short trips by bike rather than "wasteful car journeys" such as the couple blocks to mail a letter... means cleaner air, quieter environment, and trimmer population. Why is it that you cannot see the advantages of the population taking to foot, or bike to make such short trips?
"Why should anyone consider these issues significant..." well how about a reduction in the use of oil, the increase in general health of the population, and cleaner air.... are these not reasons enough to encourage walking and cycling over "wasteful car journeys?"
Our society in general has been so overcome by autocentric thinking that even the shortest trips are typically done in car; alternate means are not usually even considered. The spiral of this sort of thinking has made anything but driving seem "uncomfortable" to the general public.
This is not an issue of anti motoring, but one simply of pro people.
John Forester
02-13-08, 09:18 AM
At the risk of being called an idealogue, I must disagree with your assertion. If we were dealing with equal sample sizes, I believe we'd find that drivers and cyclists are equally bad.
The challenge, in my opinion, is the matter of volume and velocity as well as the tradition that bicycles are for kids.
I have no hope that we can educate drivers to respect the rights of cyclists. I have about the same thought about educating cyclists.
The size and operation of cars almost forces better compliance to traffic where a cyclist can be more flexible (inconsistent) without causing damage to anything other than themself.
Sure, cars run lights and stop signs in much higher numbers than bicycles. The car drivers seem to see red when the little slow moving vehicle runs a signal, reinforcing the notion that cycling shouldn't be allowed except for children in playgrounds.
I think the answer is more enforcement than education. We need equal opportunity law enforcement that doesn't condone different behaviors.
Then there's me, stopping at stop signs even if the way is clear, waiting for lights to go green before proceeding even when the way is clear... I spend a lot of time catching up on the few group rides I do.
But I've yet to be harrassed by motorists or gotten myself into a risky situation on a roadway just to prove who has rights to what on the roads.:rolleyes:
The type of measurement that is being discussed is not invalidated by unequal sample sizes. Determination of proportion does not require equal sample sizes, only sufficient sample items to determine the proportion with sufficient accuracy. That was done many years ago.
I agree with you that the problem with cyclist behavior is the hangover from "the tradition that bicycles are for kids." That is, after all, the cyclist-inferiority attitude that I have discussed so frequently, and that was the cause of the bikeway program. What should puzzle people is why it is that bicycle advocates are so adamant about perpetuating this tradition that is clearly against the interests of cyclists. The only answer that I have found is that they, also, believe the cyclist-inferiority attitude.
The challenge, in my opinion, is the matter of volume and velocity as well as the tradition that bicycles are for kids.
I have no hope that we can educate drivers to respect the rights of cyclists. I have about the same thought about educating cyclists.
The size and operation of cars almost forces better compliance to traffic where a cyclist can be more flexible (inconsistent) without causing damage to anything other than themself.
Sure, cars run lights and stop signs in much higher numbers than bicycles. The car drivers seem to see red when the little slow moving vehicle runs a signal, reinforcing the notion that cycling shouldn't be allowed except for children in playgrounds.
I think the answer is more enforcement than education. We need equal opportunity law enforcement that doesn't condone different behaviors.
Then there's me, stopping at stop signs even if the way is clear, waiting for lights to go green before proceeding even when the way is clear... I spend a lot of time catching up on the few group rides I do.
But I've yet to be harrassed by motorists or gotten myself into a risky situation on a roadway just to prove who has rights to what on the roads.:rolleyes:
The type of measurement that is being discussed is not invalidated by unequal sample sizes. Determination of proportion does not require equal sample sizes, only sufficient sample items to determine the proportion with sufficient accuracy. That was done many years ago.
I agree with you that the problem with cyclist behavior is the hangover from "the tradition that bicycles are for kids." That is, after all, the cyclist-inferiority attitude that I have discussed so frequently, and that was the cause of the bikeway program. What should puzzle people is why it is that bicycle advocates are so adamant about perpetuating this tradition that is clearly against the interests of cyclists. The only answer that I have found is that they, also, believe the cyclist-inferiority attitude.
John Forester
02-13-08, 09:52 AM
It has been well acknowledged that by having more cyclists on the road we will have more acceptance of cyclists by people in general.
More people making short trips by bike rather than "wasteful car journeys" such as the couple blocks to mail a letter... means cleaner air, quieter environment, and trimmer population. Why is it that you cannot see the advantages of the population taking to foot, or bike to make such short trips?
"Why should anyone consider these issues significant..." well how about a reduction in the use of oil, the increase in general health of the population, and cleaner air.... are these not reasons enough to encourage walking and cycling over "wasteful car journeys?"
Our society in general has been so overcome by autocentric thinking that even the shortest trips are typically done in car; alternate means are not usually even considered. The spiral of this sort of thinking has made anything but driving seem "uncomfortable" to the general public.
This is not an issue of anti motoring, but one simply of pro people.
The reasons that you give are anti-motoring reasons, exactly as you describe them. That does not mean that they are inherently undesirable. However, in the realm of bicycle transportation, these are the reasons given for producing the bikeways that were designed by motorists to keep cyclists "off our roads", as the motorists thought. If these reasons were used to support doing good for cyclists instead of reducing motoring, there would be no controversy. However, because these are the reasons given for doing harm to cyclists by physically implementing the system that makes them lower than motorists and perpetuates the system of dangerous childish cycling, that is the cause for controversy. What is needed is to get better acceptance for the rights and duties of cyclists as drivers of vehicles, rather than as trespassers who should be shoved aside.
More people making short trips by bike rather than "wasteful car journeys" such as the couple blocks to mail a letter... means cleaner air, quieter environment, and trimmer population. Why is it that you cannot see the advantages of the population taking to foot, or bike to make such short trips?
"Why should anyone consider these issues significant..." well how about a reduction in the use of oil, the increase in general health of the population, and cleaner air.... are these not reasons enough to encourage walking and cycling over "wasteful car journeys?"
Our society in general has been so overcome by autocentric thinking that even the shortest trips are typically done in car; alternate means are not usually even considered. The spiral of this sort of thinking has made anything but driving seem "uncomfortable" to the general public.
This is not an issue of anti motoring, but one simply of pro people.
The reasons that you give are anti-motoring reasons, exactly as you describe them. That does not mean that they are inherently undesirable. However, in the realm of bicycle transportation, these are the reasons given for producing the bikeways that were designed by motorists to keep cyclists "off our roads", as the motorists thought. If these reasons were used to support doing good for cyclists instead of reducing motoring, there would be no controversy. However, because these are the reasons given for doing harm to cyclists by physically implementing the system that makes them lower than motorists and perpetuates the system of dangerous childish cycling, that is the cause for controversy. What is needed is to get better acceptance for the rights and duties of cyclists as drivers of vehicles, rather than as trespassers who should be shoved aside.
genec
02-13-08, 11:14 AM
The reasons that you give are anti-motoring reasons, exactly as you describe them. That does not mean that they are inherently undesirable. However, in the realm of bicycle transportation, these are the reasons given for producing the bikeways that were designed by motorists to keep cyclists "off our roads", as the motorists thought. If these reasons were used to support doing good for cyclists instead of reducing motoring, there would be no controversy. However, because these are the reasons given for doing harm to cyclists by physically implementing the system that makes them lower than motorists and perpetuates the system of dangerous childish cycling, that is the cause for controversy. What is needed is to get better acceptance for the rights and duties of cyclists as drivers of vehicles, rather than as trespassers who should be shoved aside.
John no where did I mention Bikeways in my commentary that you just responded to... I did not have bikeways in mind at all. Where I live there are no bikeways between me and the nearest store.
I simply suggested that one need not take a motorcar down to mail a letter. You read that as "anti-motoring." I feel that shows your bias.
I stated what I stated in an effort to promote exercise and clean air for people. That you see it as "anti motoring" says a lot in my book.... to the point that I might suggest that you have "motoring superiority syndrome." You see any suggestion, to use the legs we were born with, as "anti-motoring." What are you defending... do you own shares of GM or Exxon???
John no where did I mention Bikeways in my commentary that you just responded to... I did not have bikeways in mind at all. Where I live there are no bikeways between me and the nearest store.
I simply suggested that one need not take a motorcar down to mail a letter. You read that as "anti-motoring." I feel that shows your bias.
I stated what I stated in an effort to promote exercise and clean air for people. That you see it as "anti motoring" says a lot in my book.... to the point that I might suggest that you have "motoring superiority syndrome." You see any suggestion, to use the legs we were born with, as "anti-motoring." What are you defending... do you own shares of GM or Exxon???
TRaffic Jammer
02-13-08, 12:05 PM
Do you honestly believe the utility of motoring is on the same level as that of smoking? If so, you are smoking something.
No, not at all. I was drawing the parallel as to what acceptable loses would be in light of the bags of cash the fed makes. I've not gone into the utility of motoring in any fashion. They've gone to great lengths to make cars safer, but spend virtually nothing on making better drivers. Thus the cars are more expensive, R&D dollars help keep the price high. Anytime a country could lose 50,000 people a year with no actual action on the subject, you can bet your last dollar it's because the gov't is banking coin. I actually love driving, grew up racing in fact. I am however very concerned about the bad/ignorant drivers out there that allegedly makes cycling inherently dangerous. ;)
No, not at all. I was drawing the parallel as to what acceptable loses would be in light of the bags of cash the fed makes. I've not gone into the utility of motoring in any fashion. They've gone to great lengths to make cars safer, but spend virtually nothing on making better drivers. Thus the cars are more expensive, R&D dollars help keep the price high. Anytime a country could lose 50,000 people a year with no actual action on the subject, you can bet your last dollar it's because the gov't is banking coin. I actually love driving, grew up racing in fact. I am however very concerned about the bad/ignorant drivers out there that allegedly makes cycling inherently dangerous. ;)
John Forester
02-13-08, 12:06 PM
John no where did I mention Bikeways in my commentary that you just responded to... I did not have bikeways in mind at all. Where I live there are no bikeways between me and the nearest store.
I simply suggested that one need not take a motorcar down to mail a letter. You read that as "anti-motoring." I feel that shows your bias.
I stated what I stated in an effort to promote exercise and clean air for people. That you see it as "anti motoring" says a lot in my book.... to the point that I might suggest that you have "motoring superiority syndrome." You see any suggestion, to use the legs we were born with, as "anti-motoring." What are you defending... do you own shares of GM or Exxon???
You don't even know the meaning of your own words. You did not simply advocate exercise and clean air; you tied your advocacy for these items, which might be accomplished in many different ways, to being accomplished by avoiding motoring.
You state that your post which I answered said nothing about bikeways. That is correct. However, because you have presented the bike path argument time and again it is reasonable to conclude that this is your motivation with respect to the current posting.
Furthermore, I did not criticize your post for mentioning bikeways. I made the general argument that the reasons that you give, which are anti-motoring reasons, are commonly made by bikeway-promoting anti-motorists. These are obeying the wishes of motorists by advocating precisely the system devised by motorists to make motoring more convenient by shoving cyclists aside, which is bad for cyclists. A most peculiar situation, that.
And you have the audacity to suggest that I have a motorist superiority bias, after all the evidence that I criticize motorists, to their faces and to their organizations, for not considering cyclists as equally individually equal to motorists. And to suggest that I am motivated by possession of shares in motoring and oil companies! I do own a small part of a mutual fund company, but I have never bothered myself with whether or not it owns such shares, and in any case such would be small because of diversification. In all of my career I have never been motivated by financial gain; rather, I have sacrificed financial considerations to those of ethical conduct and intellectual integrity.
It is reasonable to state, again, two consistent positions. First, while several of you have stated by opinions to be lunacy, none of you have been able to provide factual contradictions of them. Second, none of you have been able to provide historical facts or scientific evidence that support your views, but support them with illogical arguments and superstitions. The only evidence that you do advance is that your views are popular, particularly with motorists who like the idea of shoving bicycle traffic aside.
I simply suggested that one need not take a motorcar down to mail a letter. You read that as "anti-motoring." I feel that shows your bias.
I stated what I stated in an effort to promote exercise and clean air for people. That you see it as "anti motoring" says a lot in my book.... to the point that I might suggest that you have "motoring superiority syndrome." You see any suggestion, to use the legs we were born with, as "anti-motoring." What are you defending... do you own shares of GM or Exxon???
You don't even know the meaning of your own words. You did not simply advocate exercise and clean air; you tied your advocacy for these items, which might be accomplished in many different ways, to being accomplished by avoiding motoring.
You state that your post which I answered said nothing about bikeways. That is correct. However, because you have presented the bike path argument time and again it is reasonable to conclude that this is your motivation with respect to the current posting.
Furthermore, I did not criticize your post for mentioning bikeways. I made the general argument that the reasons that you give, which are anti-motoring reasons, are commonly made by bikeway-promoting anti-motorists. These are obeying the wishes of motorists by advocating precisely the system devised by motorists to make motoring more convenient by shoving cyclists aside, which is bad for cyclists. A most peculiar situation, that.
And you have the audacity to suggest that I have a motorist superiority bias, after all the evidence that I criticize motorists, to their faces and to their organizations, for not considering cyclists as equally individually equal to motorists. And to suggest that I am motivated by possession of shares in motoring and oil companies! I do own a small part of a mutual fund company, but I have never bothered myself with whether or not it owns such shares, and in any case such would be small because of diversification. In all of my career I have never been motivated by financial gain; rather, I have sacrificed financial considerations to those of ethical conduct and intellectual integrity.
It is reasonable to state, again, two consistent positions. First, while several of you have stated by opinions to be lunacy, none of you have been able to provide factual contradictions of them. Second, none of you have been able to provide historical facts or scientific evidence that support your views, but support them with illogical arguments and superstitions. The only evidence that you do advance is that your views are popular, particularly with motorists who like the idea of shoving bicycle traffic aside.
genec
02-13-08, 03:33 PM
So John, if I happened to be in your neighborhood, (which I am very familiar with... I used to live on the other side of Lemon Grove aka Imperial Ave) and we decided to go to lunch over to Cotijas Mexican Food
up on Broadway, and I suggested "Hey, it's a nice day... let's walk." Would you also consider that "anti-motoring?"
It's only a couple blocks, and Church and Olive streets are pretty quiet... and the bakery is almost on the way back...
To me, that is pro walking... The benefits are obvious... clean air, a bit of sunshine... a nice walk to perhaps burn off a bit of good food.
But is it Anti Motoring to consider those benefits? Is telling the children to go out and play Anti TV?
Is being on a diet Anti Food?
Yes indeed I have the audacity to suggest that you have a motorist superiority bias, as anytime I suggest that perhaps there are viable alternatives to the auto, you respond with your "anti motorist" claims.
Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar... maybe you need to go out and take a walk, John.
up on Broadway, and I suggested "Hey, it's a nice day... let's walk." Would you also consider that "anti-motoring?"
It's only a couple blocks, and Church and Olive streets are pretty quiet... and the bakery is almost on the way back...
To me, that is pro walking... The benefits are obvious... clean air, a bit of sunshine... a nice walk to perhaps burn off a bit of good food.
But is it Anti Motoring to consider those benefits? Is telling the children to go out and play Anti TV?
Is being on a diet Anti Food?
Yes indeed I have the audacity to suggest that you have a motorist superiority bias, as anytime I suggest that perhaps there are viable alternatives to the auto, you respond with your "anti motorist" claims.
Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar... maybe you need to go out and take a walk, John.
Bekologist
02-13-08, 04:40 PM
It is reasonable to state, again, two consistent positions. First, while several of you have stated by opinions to be lunacy, none of you have been able to provide factual contradictions of them.
Actually, john, NOT reasonable. the facts are in, your ignorance or denial of the facts is curious for a so-called, self ascribed 'transportation engineer'... Bicyclists fare BEST when they are treated as human powered vehicles and accomodated as such by communities. Your professed Ignorance is the only way you get off trying to deny both greater cycling participation and safer bicycling conditions in countries that value bikes as transporttion and accomodate thru a series of bicycling-specific accomodations.
Cyclists don't 'fare best' as vehicles, john, cyclists 'fare best' when accomodated in communities as human powered vehicles with unique operating characteristics. Your statemen about 'faring best' has been abundantly proven false, AROUND THE GLOBE.
Second, none of you have been able to provide historical facts or scientific evidence that support your views, but support them with illogical arguments and superstitions. The only evidence that you do advance is that your views are popular, particularly with motorists who like the idea of shoving bicycle traffic aside.
The historical and contemporary data is abundant, john. Cyclists "FARE BEST" in communities that value bikes in transportation infrastructure and recognize the unique operating characteristics of HPV.
The rutgers cycling ctudy the most recent one I've read. Your 'evidence' is based on prejudice and is woefully out of date. The only 'lunacy' is yours, john.
Actually, john, NOT reasonable. the facts are in, your ignorance or denial of the facts is curious for a so-called, self ascribed 'transportation engineer'... Bicyclists fare BEST when they are treated as human powered vehicles and accomodated as such by communities. Your professed Ignorance is the only way you get off trying to deny both greater cycling participation and safer bicycling conditions in countries that value bikes as transporttion and accomodate thru a series of bicycling-specific accomodations.
Cyclists don't 'fare best' as vehicles, john, cyclists 'fare best' when accomodated in communities as human powered vehicles with unique operating characteristics. Your statemen about 'faring best' has been abundantly proven false, AROUND THE GLOBE.
Second, none of you have been able to provide historical facts or scientific evidence that support your views, but support them with illogical arguments and superstitions. The only evidence that you do advance is that your views are popular, particularly with motorists who like the idea of shoving bicycle traffic aside.
The historical and contemporary data is abundant, john. Cyclists "FARE BEST" in communities that value bikes in transportation infrastructure and recognize the unique operating characteristics of HPV.
The rutgers cycling ctudy the most recent one I've read. Your 'evidence' is based on prejudice and is woefully out of date. The only 'lunacy' is yours, john.
Bekologist
02-13-08, 04:42 PM
by the way, john, do you mind illuminating the forum as to when you go from claiming a lane too narrow to be safley shared to curbhugging and not taking the lane, and how a vehicular cyclist 'fares best' riding unvehicularily like you do when you hug the curb of high speed narrow lanes.
And is it 'best' if bicyclists 'not take the lane' of all narrow laned roads, or just the higher speed ones?
And is it 'best' if bicyclists 'not take the lane' of all narrow laned roads, or just the higher speed ones?
John Forester
02-13-08, 05:50 PM
Actually, john, NOT reasonable. the facts are in, your ignorance or denial of the facts is curious for a so-called, self ascribed 'transportation engineer'... Bicyclists fare BEST when they are treated as human powered vehicles and accomodated as such by communities. Your professed Ignorance is the only way you get off trying to deny both greater cycling participation and safer bicycling conditions in countries that value bikes as transporttion and accomodate thru a series of bicycling-specific accomodations.
Cyclists don't 'fare best' as vehicles, john, cyclists 'fare best' when accomodated in communities as human powered vehicles with unique operating characteristics. Your statemen about 'faring best' has been abundantly proven false, AROUND THE GLOBE.
The historical and contemporary data is abundant, john. Cyclists "FARE BEST" in communities that value bikes in transportation infrastructure and recognize the unique operating characteristics of HPV.
The rutgers cycling ctudy the most recent one I've read. Your 'evidence' is based on prejudice and is woefully out of date. The only 'lunacy' is yours, john.
The three substantive claims made for bikeway systems are that they significantly reduce the car-bike collision rate, that they reduce the level of skill that is required for safe cycling, and, as a side benefit, so to speak, they make cycling more convenient. None of Pucher's several similar studies (similar to the one you mention) contains any evidence in support of any of these claims. Indeed. Pucher has made so many erroneous statements about cycling in traffic that it is reasonable to conclude that he has neither the knowledge nor the skill to make such an analysis. Moreover, nobody has ever produced an explanation that fits the known facts as to how such results would be produced. On the opposite side, the facts and reasoning that demonstrate that bikeways are most unlikely to produce such results have been known for decades. And nobody has managed to produce a reasonable contradiction of either the facts or the reasoning, despite the plethora of people such as you, Bekologist, who have some faithful belief that the facts and reasoning are not accurate. You keep asserting as fact, Bekologist, claims for which no evidence exists, and, furthermore, you argue that installing bikeways in American cities would produce results similar to those that you think have occurred in old European cities.
Cyclists don't 'fare best' as vehicles, john, cyclists 'fare best' when accomodated in communities as human powered vehicles with unique operating characteristics. Your statemen about 'faring best' has been abundantly proven false, AROUND THE GLOBE.
The historical and contemporary data is abundant, john. Cyclists "FARE BEST" in communities that value bikes in transportation infrastructure and recognize the unique operating characteristics of HPV.
The rutgers cycling ctudy the most recent one I've read. Your 'evidence' is based on prejudice and is woefully out of date. The only 'lunacy' is yours, john.
The three substantive claims made for bikeway systems are that they significantly reduce the car-bike collision rate, that they reduce the level of skill that is required for safe cycling, and, as a side benefit, so to speak, they make cycling more convenient. None of Pucher's several similar studies (similar to the one you mention) contains any evidence in support of any of these claims. Indeed. Pucher has made so many erroneous statements about cycling in traffic that it is reasonable to conclude that he has neither the knowledge nor the skill to make such an analysis. Moreover, nobody has ever produced an explanation that fits the known facts as to how such results would be produced. On the opposite side, the facts and reasoning that demonstrate that bikeways are most unlikely to produce such results have been known for decades. And nobody has managed to produce a reasonable contradiction of either the facts or the reasoning, despite the plethora of people such as you, Bekologist, who have some faithful belief that the facts and reasoning are not accurate. You keep asserting as fact, Bekologist, claims for which no evidence exists, and, furthermore, you argue that installing bikeways in American cities would produce results similar to those that you think have occurred in old European cities.
Allister
02-13-08, 06:11 PM
Just to clarify - does Forester consider 'anti-motoring' to be a good, bad, or neutral thing?
Yes, reducing car trips that can easily be done on foot or bike is, strictly speaking 'anti-motoring', but is it really a bad thing to try to achieve? It's one thing to force an unpopular choice on people, as I suspect John is defining it, but quite another to make the alternative to the car more attractive so that people choose it willingly.
Yes, reducing car trips that can easily be done on foot or bike is, strictly speaking 'anti-motoring', but is it really a bad thing to try to achieve? It's one thing to force an unpopular choice on people, as I suspect John is defining it, but quite another to make the alternative to the car more attractive so that people choose it willingly.
Allister
02-13-08, 06:13 PM
Why do you care so much about "reducing unecessary (in your opinion) or wasteful car journeys (made by people other than you of course)?" Why should anyone (but you) consider these reasons significant?
Congratulations. That's the single most inane question I've ever seen on Bike Forums, and I've seen a few.
Congratulations. That's the single most inane question I've ever seen on Bike Forums, and I've seen a few.
Allister
02-13-08, 06:19 PM
The three substantive claims made for bikeway systems... blahdeblahsametiredrhetoricblahdeblah.
There's more to bicyclists being 'treated as human powered vehicles and accomodated as such by communities' than just 'bikeways', oh Ye of Little Imagination.
There's more to bicyclists being 'treated as human powered vehicles and accomodated as such by communities' than just 'bikeways', oh Ye of Little Imagination.
John Forester
02-13-08, 06:22 PM
by the way, john, do you mind illuminating the forum as to when you go from claiming a lane too narrow to be safley shared to curbhugging and not taking the lane, and how a vehicular cyclist 'fares best' riding unvehicularily like you do when you hug the curb of high speed narrow lanes.
And is it 'best' if bicyclists 'not take the lane' of all narrow laned roads, or just the higher speed ones?
Keep it up, Bekologist; the more lies you tell, the more that your ideological nastiness shows.
And is it 'best' if bicyclists 'not take the lane' of all narrow laned roads, or just the higher speed ones?
Keep it up, Bekologist; the more lies you tell, the more that your ideological nastiness shows.
Bekologist
02-13-08, 06:25 PM
come on, john, you've stated in this forum you'd 'not take the lane' of a narrow laned, highway speed road. is that type of curbhugging acceptable at any speed, or just on high speed roads?
Bekologist
02-13-08, 06:29 PM
but on topic....
the fallacy of 'bicyclist fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles' is readily disproven, john.
Countries that have both higher cycling participation and lower accident rates thru a series of accomodations towards bicyclings' unique status prove 'bicyclists fare best' when accomodated via a series of social initiatives and bicycling specific infrastructure enhancements.
You claim to be an 'engineer' but suffer serious, debilitating prejudice against engineering design, social policies and development of public space proven to enhance bicycling.
the fallacy of 'bicyclist fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles' is readily disproven, john.
Countries that have both higher cycling participation and lower accident rates thru a series of accomodations towards bicyclings' unique status prove 'bicyclists fare best' when accomodated via a series of social initiatives and bicycling specific infrastructure enhancements.
You claim to be an 'engineer' but suffer serious, debilitating prejudice against engineering design, social policies and development of public space proven to enhance bicycling.
randya
02-13-08, 06:35 PM
Keep it up, Bekologist; the more lies you tell, the more that your ideological nastiness shows.
Keep it up, John Forester; the more lies you tell, the more that your ideological nastiness shows.
works both ways.
:rolleyes:
Keep it up, John Forester; the more lies you tell, the more that your ideological nastiness shows.
works both ways.
:rolleyes:
joejack951
02-13-08, 06:59 PM
joe- hilarious!
You HAVEN'T heard about reducing private auto trips as a tool to reduce global greenhouse gas emmisions? It's a VERY POPULAR and worldwide reaction to the quandry 21st century man has found ourselves in. Reducing motoring IS on the minds of entire countries, joe. why are you not aware of these issues?
Are you just a curbhugging gashuffer like john in love with autocentric dystopia?
Of course I've heard about it, and so have probably the vast majority of people driving on the roads. If all those people thought that what was being predicted about the environment truly was significant, don't you think they'd be making some sort of change? The fact that they are still travelling the same way they used to should be a clue to you that what you think is significant is insignificant to them. Get over it.
Your curbhugging insult is quite lame especially when directed at me, the guy who you mocked because he got a ticket for not using a right turn lane to go straight. According to you, I should have been closer to the curb because of the high speeds on that road.
You HAVEN'T heard about reducing private auto trips as a tool to reduce global greenhouse gas emmisions? It's a VERY POPULAR and worldwide reaction to the quandry 21st century man has found ourselves in. Reducing motoring IS on the minds of entire countries, joe. why are you not aware of these issues?
Are you just a curbhugging gashuffer like john in love with autocentric dystopia?
Of course I've heard about it, and so have probably the vast majority of people driving on the roads. If all those people thought that what was being predicted about the environment truly was significant, don't you think they'd be making some sort of change? The fact that they are still travelling the same way they used to should be a clue to you that what you think is significant is insignificant to them. Get over it.
Your curbhugging insult is quite lame especially when directed at me, the guy who you mocked because he got a ticket for not using a right turn lane to go straight. According to you, I should have been closer to the curb because of the high speeds on that road.
Bekologist
02-13-08, 07:04 PM
just trying to keep all you rabid 'vc' in the same camp, joe, with the same style of riding in traffic. Can't quite figure what it's all about, its quite vague. except the 'vc' penchant for autocentrism and resultant stunting of bicycling.
curbhugging, higher speeds for motorists? say what? clearly not 'faring best.'
take a look around you, joe. its a world, not New Jersey. people are NOT travelling the same way they used to. communities around the world are proactively changing transportation patterns. bonifide transportation engineers, politicians, policymakers and the general public realize this.
except maybe the blithering forestorites.
curbhugging, higher speeds for motorists? say what? clearly not 'faring best.'
take a look around you, joe. its a world, not New Jersey. people are NOT travelling the same way they used to. communities around the world are proactively changing transportation patterns. bonifide transportation engineers, politicians, policymakers and the general public realize this.
except maybe the blithering forestorites.
Allister
02-13-08, 07:28 PM
If all those people thought that what was being predicted about the environment truly was significant, don't you think they'd be making some sort of change?
Because, of course, people always make rational decisions. :rolleyes: Such naivety is almost cute.
Because, of course, people always make rational decisions. :rolleyes: Such naivety is almost cute.
John Forester
02-13-08, 08:52 PM
There's more to bicyclists being 'treated as human powered vehicles and accomodated as such by communities' than just 'bikeways', oh Ye of Little Imagination.
That's fine; the rest may well do good, but bikeways don't.
That's fine; the rest may well do good, but bikeways don't.
John Forester
02-13-08, 08:54 PM
So John, if I happened to be in your neighborhood, (which I am very familiar with... I used to live on the other side of Lemon Grove aka Imperial Ave) and we decided to go to lunch over to Cotijas Mexican Food
up on Broadway, and I suggested "Hey, it's a nice day... let's walk." Would you also consider that "anti-motoring?"
It's only a couple blocks, and Church and Olive streets are pretty quiet... and the bakery is almost on the way back...
To me, that is pro walking... The benefits are obvious... clean air, a bit of sunshine... a nice walk to perhaps burn off a bit of good food.
But is it Anti Motoring to consider those benefits? Is telling the children to go out and play Anti TV?
Is being on a diet Anti Food?
Yes indeed I have the audacity to suggest that you have a motorist superiority bias, as anytime I suggest that perhaps there are viable alternatives to the auto, you respond with your "anti motorist" claims.
Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar... maybe you need to go out and take a walk, John.
I have written repeatedly that my objection is to use anti-motoring as the excuse for doing harm to cyclists by advocating bikeways. That's the context in which anti-motoring is harmful, and in which I criticize it.
up on Broadway, and I suggested "Hey, it's a nice day... let's walk." Would you also consider that "anti-motoring?"
It's only a couple blocks, and Church and Olive streets are pretty quiet... and the bakery is almost on the way back...
To me, that is pro walking... The benefits are obvious... clean air, a bit of sunshine... a nice walk to perhaps burn off a bit of good food.
But is it Anti Motoring to consider those benefits? Is telling the children to go out and play Anti TV?
Is being on a diet Anti Food?
Yes indeed I have the audacity to suggest that you have a motorist superiority bias, as anytime I suggest that perhaps there are viable alternatives to the auto, you respond with your "anti motorist" claims.
Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar... maybe you need to go out and take a walk, John.
I have written repeatedly that my objection is to use anti-motoring as the excuse for doing harm to cyclists by advocating bikeways. That's the context in which anti-motoring is harmful, and in which I criticize it.
genec
02-13-08, 09:03 PM
I have written repeatedly that my objection is to use anti-motoring as the excuse for doing harm to cyclists by advocating bikeways. That's the context in which anti-motoring is harmful, and in which I criticize it.
Remove the "bikeway" qualifier; now, is advocating more cycling by more people, "anti-motoring?"
Remove the "bikeway" qualifier; now, is advocating more cycling by more people, "anti-motoring?"
JoeyBike
02-13-08, 09:05 PM
My interest is in the question of whether bicyclists should aim to behave "as drivers of vehicles" when they are not treated as such.....it seems to me that when the cyclists are not treated as drivers of vehicles then they are wise not to act like them, either.
How did I miss out on this can of worms for two weeks?
I have a whole manifesto on this subject:
How To Start A Bicycling Revolution In An Unfriendly Bike City (http://joey-bike.blogspot.com/)
For those of you with too much of a life to read all that and follow the links etc, this is the short answer:
Bikes are not cars, not even close. Laws requiring bikes to act like cars are the result of lazy lawmakers that do not ride bikes. Do not continue to be brainwashed. 300 horse power (car)= .25 horse power (cyclist)? Laughable.
How did I miss out on this can of worms for two weeks?
I have a whole manifesto on this subject:
How To Start A Bicycling Revolution In An Unfriendly Bike City (http://joey-bike.blogspot.com/)
For those of you with too much of a life to read all that and follow the links etc, this is the short answer:
Bikes are not cars, not even close. Laws requiring bikes to act like cars are the result of lazy lawmakers that do not ride bikes. Do not continue to be brainwashed. 300 horse power (car)= .25 horse power (cyclist)? Laughable.
John Forester
02-13-08, 09:08 PM
So John, if I happened to be in your neighborhood, (which I am very familiar with... I used to live on the other side of Lemon Grove aka Imperial Ave) and we decided to go to lunch over to Cotijas Mexican Food
up on Broadway, and I suggested "Hey, it's a nice day... let's walk." Would you also consider that "anti-motoring?"
It's only a couple blocks, and Church and Olive streets are pretty quiet... and the bakery is almost on the way back...
To me, that is pro walking... The benefits are obvious... clean air, a bit of sunshine... a nice walk to perhaps burn off a bit of good food.
But is it Anti Motoring to consider those benefits? Is telling the children to go out and play Anti TV?
Is being on a diet Anti Food?
Yes indeed I have the audacity to suggest that you have a motorist superiority bias, as anytime I suggest that perhaps there are viable alternatives to the auto, you respond with your "anti motorist" claims.
Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar... maybe you need to go out and take a walk, John.
And, just to annoy you, I have never eaten a meal at Cotijas restaurant. From the outside, it looks too much like a fast food place. But when I shop at Jo-Ann's Fabrics, right across the driveway from Cotijas, I walk. And when I go to Home Depot, approximately diagonally across the intersection from Cotijas, and not buying lumber or such bulky and heavy items, I also walk. When I go to the bakery, I walk. When I go to the Mexican restaurant across Lemon Grove Ave, I walk. And when the Tonsorium (barber shop) adjacent to the station was open (it has been closed for more than a year), I walked. I've even walked to Food for Less (though I don't shop there much), and, before I decided that I preferred a more skilled dentist, I walked west on Broadway to near the intersection with Federal.
All that I can say is that you don't understand my specific objection to using anti-motoring as the excuse for advocating bikeways instead of advocating the good of cyclists.
up on Broadway, and I suggested "Hey, it's a nice day... let's walk." Would you also consider that "anti-motoring?"
It's only a couple blocks, and Church and Olive streets are pretty quiet... and the bakery is almost on the way back...
To me, that is pro walking... The benefits are obvious... clean air, a bit of sunshine... a nice walk to perhaps burn off a bit of good food.
But is it Anti Motoring to consider those benefits? Is telling the children to go out and play Anti TV?
Is being on a diet Anti Food?
Yes indeed I have the audacity to suggest that you have a motorist superiority bias, as anytime I suggest that perhaps there are viable alternatives to the auto, you respond with your "anti motorist" claims.
Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar... maybe you need to go out and take a walk, John.
And, just to annoy you, I have never eaten a meal at Cotijas restaurant. From the outside, it looks too much like a fast food place. But when I shop at Jo-Ann's Fabrics, right across the driveway from Cotijas, I walk. And when I go to Home Depot, approximately diagonally across the intersection from Cotijas, and not buying lumber or such bulky and heavy items, I also walk. When I go to the bakery, I walk. When I go to the Mexican restaurant across Lemon Grove Ave, I walk. And when the Tonsorium (barber shop) adjacent to the station was open (it has been closed for more than a year), I walked. I've even walked to Food for Less (though I don't shop there much), and, before I decided that I preferred a more skilled dentist, I walked west on Broadway to near the intersection with Federal.
All that I can say is that you don't understand my specific objection to using anti-motoring as the excuse for advocating bikeways instead of advocating the good of cyclists.
John Forester
02-14-08, 08:45 AM
Actually, john, NOT reasonable. the facts are in, your ignorance or denial of the facts is curious for a so-called, self ascribed 'transportation engineer'... Bicyclists fare BEST when they are treated as human powered vehicles and accomodated as such by communities. Your professed Ignorance is the only way you get off trying to deny both greater cycling participation and safer bicycling conditions in countries that value bikes as transporttion and accomodate thru a series of bicycling-specific accomodations.
Cyclists don't 'fare best' as vehicles, john, cyclists 'fare best' when accomodated in communities as human powered vehicles with unique operating characteristics. Your statemen about 'faring best' has been abundantly proven false, AROUND THE GLOBE.
The historical and contemporary data is abundant, john. Cyclists "FARE BEST" in communities that value bikes in transportation infrastructure and recognize the unique operating characteristics of HPV.
The rutgers cycling ctudy the most recent one I've read. Your 'evidence' is based on prejudice and is woefully out of date. The only 'lunacy' is yours, john.
Bekologist, you keep harping on the idea of well-designed bike lanes doing wonderful things. Presumably, you know what well-designed bike lanes are. Please describe the characteristics of well-designed bike lanes and how those characteristics perform the desired tasks of significantly reducing car-bike collisions, reducing the level of skill that is required for safe cycling, and making cycle trips more convenient.
Cyclists don't 'fare best' as vehicles, john, cyclists 'fare best' when accomodated in communities as human powered vehicles with unique operating characteristics. Your statemen about 'faring best' has been abundantly proven false, AROUND THE GLOBE.
The historical and contemporary data is abundant, john. Cyclists "FARE BEST" in communities that value bikes in transportation infrastructure and recognize the unique operating characteristics of HPV.
The rutgers cycling ctudy the most recent one I've read. Your 'evidence' is based on prejudice and is woefully out of date. The only 'lunacy' is yours, john.
Bekologist, you keep harping on the idea of well-designed bike lanes doing wonderful things. Presumably, you know what well-designed bike lanes are. Please describe the characteristics of well-designed bike lanes and how those characteristics perform the desired tasks of significantly reducing car-bike collisions, reducing the level of skill that is required for safe cycling, and making cycle trips more convenient.
Bekologist
02-14-08, 09:07 AM
What an absurd sidestep. My quote says nothing about bike lanes doing any of those things.
Where, specifically, am I 'harping' about 'bike lanes'?
Your weak argument rests on your reductionist fallacies, john. not mine.
john- are you living under a rock? you are confused about the cycling participation rates and accident rates of bicycling in different nations?
Where, specifically, am I 'harping' about 'bike lanes'?
Your weak argument rests on your reductionist fallacies, john. not mine.
john- are you living under a rock? you are confused about the cycling participation rates and accident rates of bicycling in different nations?
bmike
02-14-08, 09:20 AM
Just started a new thread over here (http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=388013) regarding the WorldChanging article / essay My Other Car is a Bright Green City (http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/007800.html). I think it fits in well with the 'anti-motoring' / 'pro-people' / urban planning / bike debates that have been surfacing in VS and A&S.
Some highlights:
Transportation generates over a quarter of U.S. greenhouse gases, according to the E.P.A.. A portion of that comes from moving freight around, but over 20% is personal transportation, and the vast majority of that is auto-related. In the Western states, the picture is even more severe. Researcher and ally Eric de Placesays, "More than half of all fossil fuel emissions in the WCI states come from transportation."
A study quoted in the 9/05 issue of the Journal of Urban Planning and Development estimates that the greenhouse gasses emitted while building and maintaining roads add an additional 45% to the average car's annual climate footprint. And we continue to build roads at a rapid rate, all across North America.
And for you pro-motoring suburbanites:
This is what economists call "the commuting paradox." Most people travel long distances with the idea that they'll accept the burden for something better, be it a house, salary, or school. They presume the trade-off is worth the agony. But studies show that commuters are on average much less satisfied with their lives than noncommuters. A commuter who travels one hour, one way, would have to make 40% more than his current salary to be as fully satisfied with his life as a noncommuter, say economists Bruno S. Frey and Alois Stutzer of the University of Zurich's Institute for Empirical Research in Economics. People usually overestimate the value of the things they'll obtain by commuting -- more money, more material goods, more prestige -- and underestimate the benefit of what they are losing: social connections, hobbies, and health. "Commuting is a stress that doesn't pay off," says Stutzer.
And my favorite, before we get halfway: (because I feel like this is a design problem, not a car problem)
In other words, there is a direct relationship between the kinds of places we live, the transportation choices we have, and how much we drive. The best car-related innovation we have is not to improve the car, but eliminate the need to drive it everywhere we go.
And this gem, which I've been saying (not so eloquently) in response to one of the effective writers who contributes here:
[[The usual retort to these common-sense arguments is that far-flung suburbs offer such a superior quality of life that we'll never curb sprawl or pry commuters out of their cars, but, even more to the point, the existence of affluent, car-dependent, large-lot suburbs is just the voice of the people, speaking out their desires. Any opposition to its unhindered continuation is not only government interference in the free market, such people (usually development lobbies and right-wing think tanks) say, it's downright social engineering.
[[Which is nonsense, of course. The upper-middle class American McMansion suburb is one of the most socially engineered and publicly subsidized settlement patterns on the Earth. I won't bother to go into the arguments here, since a whole flotilla of books, reports, and journalistic investigations has flayed the "free market choice" talking point alive. If you're interested, you can go look it up.]]
So, pro-people? anti-motoring?
Do we need to drive, everywhere?
Will we not be satisfied until we pave paradise?
Some highlights:
Transportation generates over a quarter of U.S. greenhouse gases, according to the E.P.A.. A portion of that comes from moving freight around, but over 20% is personal transportation, and the vast majority of that is auto-related. In the Western states, the picture is even more severe. Researcher and ally Eric de Placesays, "More than half of all fossil fuel emissions in the WCI states come from transportation."
A study quoted in the 9/05 issue of the Journal of Urban Planning and Development estimates that the greenhouse gasses emitted while building and maintaining roads add an additional 45% to the average car's annual climate footprint. And we continue to build roads at a rapid rate, all across North America.
And for you pro-motoring suburbanites:
This is what economists call "the commuting paradox." Most people travel long distances with the idea that they'll accept the burden for something better, be it a house, salary, or school. They presume the trade-off is worth the agony. But studies show that commuters are on average much less satisfied with their lives than noncommuters. A commuter who travels one hour, one way, would have to make 40% more than his current salary to be as fully satisfied with his life as a noncommuter, say economists Bruno S. Frey and Alois Stutzer of the University of Zurich's Institute for Empirical Research in Economics. People usually overestimate the value of the things they'll obtain by commuting -- more money, more material goods, more prestige -- and underestimate the benefit of what they are losing: social connections, hobbies, and health. "Commuting is a stress that doesn't pay off," says Stutzer.
And my favorite, before we get halfway: (because I feel like this is a design problem, not a car problem)
In other words, there is a direct relationship between the kinds of places we live, the transportation choices we have, and how much we drive. The best car-related innovation we have is not to improve the car, but eliminate the need to drive it everywhere we go.
And this gem, which I've been saying (not so eloquently) in response to one of the effective writers who contributes here:
[[The usual retort to these common-sense arguments is that far-flung suburbs offer such a superior quality of life that we'll never curb sprawl or pry commuters out of their cars, but, even more to the point, the existence of affluent, car-dependent, large-lot suburbs is just the voice of the people, speaking out their desires. Any opposition to its unhindered continuation is not only government interference in the free market, such people (usually development lobbies and right-wing think tanks) say, it's downright social engineering.
[[Which is nonsense, of course. The upper-middle class American McMansion suburb is one of the most socially engineered and publicly subsidized settlement patterns on the Earth. I won't bother to go into the arguments here, since a whole flotilla of books, reports, and journalistic investigations has flayed the "free market choice" talking point alive. If you're interested, you can go look it up.]]
So, pro-people? anti-motoring?
Do we need to drive, everywhere?
Will we not be satisfied until we pave paradise?
genec
02-14-08, 11:30 AM
And now along comes Lance with thoughts that indeed the cycling environment can be improved...
"There are times I ride in Austin, and I'm afraid of cars," Armstrong said. "Imagine what the beginner cyclist must feel like? I think (Mayor) Will Wynn's dream was this whole revitalization of downtown, which we're getting, but it's going to make it a lot easier if people can get around on bikes."
http://www.austin360.com/recreation/content/recreation/stories/2008/02/0214bikeshop.html
"There are times I ride in Austin, and I'm afraid of cars," Armstrong said. "Imagine what the beginner cyclist must feel like? I think (Mayor) Will Wynn's dream was this whole revitalization of downtown, which we're getting, but it's going to make it a lot easier if people can get around on bikes."
http://www.austin360.com/recreation/content/recreation/stories/2008/02/0214bikeshop.html
John Forester
02-14-08, 01:41 PM
What an absurd sidestep. My quote says nothing about bike lanes doing any of those things.
Where, specifically, am I 'harping' about 'bike lanes'?
Your weak argument rests on your reductionist fallacies, john. not mine.
john- are you living under a rock? you are confused about the cycling participation rates and accident rates of bicycling in different nations?
Bekologist, your tongue as as many tines as a dinner fork. You have repeatedly advocated "well-designed bike lanes". I called on you to describe what these are and how they work to accomplish the claims made for bike lanes, that they significantly reduce car-bike collisions, that they significantly reduce the level of skill required for safe cycling, and that they make cycling trips more convenient. You say that you have never claimed that bicycle lanes do any of these things. But you have repeatedly relied on Pucher's latest paper as providing evidence that what you now, in a mealy-mouthed way, refer to as "bicycle-specific accommodations", which, naturally enough for you, you have neglected ever to identify. The evidence from your own statements is that the low car-bike collision rates shown in Pucher's paper have not been produced by bicycle lanes, but by some other portion of these "bicycle-specific accommodations."
If this is really what you believe, rather than just one more lie, then you should have given up advocating bicycle lanes for this nation and switched to advocating some other kind of "bicycle-specific accommodation". However, I have seen no sign of such a change in your activity, and I doubt that anyone else has. I consider you to be an ideological liar, based on the evidence that you have provided.
Where, specifically, am I 'harping' about 'bike lanes'?
Your weak argument rests on your reductionist fallacies, john. not mine.
john- are you living under a rock? you are confused about the cycling participation rates and accident rates of bicycling in different nations?
Bekologist, your tongue as as many tines as a dinner fork. You have repeatedly advocated "well-designed bike lanes". I called on you to describe what these are and how they work to accomplish the claims made for bike lanes, that they significantly reduce car-bike collisions, that they significantly reduce the level of skill required for safe cycling, and that they make cycling trips more convenient. You say that you have never claimed that bicycle lanes do any of these things. But you have repeatedly relied on Pucher's latest paper as providing evidence that what you now, in a mealy-mouthed way, refer to as "bicycle-specific accommodations", which, naturally enough for you, you have neglected ever to identify. The evidence from your own statements is that the low car-bike collision rates shown in Pucher's paper have not been produced by bicycle lanes, but by some other portion of these "bicycle-specific accommodations."
If this is really what you believe, rather than just one more lie, then you should have given up advocating bicycle lanes for this nation and switched to advocating some other kind of "bicycle-specific accommodation". However, I have seen no sign of such a change in your activity, and I doubt that anyone else has. I consider you to be an ideological liar, based on the evidence that you have provided.
Helmet Head
02-14-08, 01:51 PM
And now along comes Lance with thoughts that indeed the cycling environment can be improved...
http://www.austin360.com/recreation/content/recreation/stories/2008/02/0214bikeshop.html
In the forward to Bob Mionske's new book, "Bicycling & The Law", Lance Armstrong relates a story of how he and his buddies were buzzed once, and they escalated the situation by chasing the guy down where "words were exchanged" (I'm sure we can guess the number of letters these words had). Well, the guy turned out to be a bona fide homicidal maniac and literally tried to run them down. Being the greatest bicycle racer in the world does not say much about his traffic cycling knowledge and skills. Every once in a while you read about yet another one of these "pros" dooring himself.
And, again, improvement can be made, but to really change anything significantly, cyclist attitude, knowledge, skills and behavior have to be addressed.
http://www.austin360.com/recreation/content/recreation/stories/2008/02/0214bikeshop.html
In the forward to Bob Mionske's new book, "Bicycling & The Law", Lance Armstrong relates a story of how he and his buddies were buzzed once, and they escalated the situation by chasing the guy down where "words were exchanged" (I'm sure we can guess the number of letters these words had). Well, the guy turned out to be a bona fide homicidal maniac and literally tried to run them down. Being the greatest bicycle racer in the world does not say much about his traffic cycling knowledge and skills. Every once in a while you read about yet another one of these "pros" dooring himself.
And, again, improvement can be made, but to really change anything significantly, cyclist attitude, knowledge, skills and behavior have to be addressed.
vBulletin® v3.7.3, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.