Calling a Forester statement into question.

[Helmet Head]

so spoke the master of obfuscation.

:rolleyes:
Please direct your comments at what people say, and not at the people themselves.
"Master of obfuscation" is a comment about the person, not about his writing. Can you really not see and appreciate the distinction?

[chipcom]

But haven't you ever seen adult cyclists, much less kids, signal (without looking) and go? They seem to think that just signaling gives them the right of way to go. It sounds ridiculous, I know, but it's the only logical conclusion based on their behavior.

Sounds like the behavior of way too many drivers...just like rolling through stops. Must be vehicular then. :rolleyes:

[chipcom]

The other thing you guys (Buzzman, Script, Bek) seem to have in common is relatively little interest in what someone actually means by the words that they write, and much more interest in your interpretation of their words, regardless of the writer's intent. Such obstinacy makes communication practically impossible.

As I have mentioned to you before...if the words you write are not interpreted in the way you intend by the reader, then the communication problem is yours, not the reader's. Communication isn't throwing up a wall of words and expecting people to use a crystal ball to understand your meaning. :rolleyes:

It is the writer's responsibility to ensure that their intent is understood, not the reader's responsibility to somehow read the writer's mind.

[-=£em in Pa=-]

I voted 'yes' only because kids dont overthink stuff like adults do.
In my youth would ride in the road usually, but up on the sidewalk when necessary.
I also rode my first bike in 1965. Things were much different then.
The percentages have changed, ie; more time in the road than sidewalk(lane etc)
but the thought process hasnt.....whatever needs to be done, just do it.
Dogma be damned.

[Helmet Head]

As I have mentioned to you before...if the words you write are not interpreted in the way you intend by the reader, then the communication problem is yours, not the reader's. Communication isn't throwing up a wall of words and expecting people to use a crystal ball to understand your meaning. :rolleyes:

It is the writer's responsibility to ensure that their intent is understood, not the reader's responsibility to somehow read the writer's mind.
I agree to a certain extent, but it's also a two-way street. The reader has an obligation to make a reasonable effort to understand what was intended. For example, communication with a reader who insists on going with a literal interpretation of everything that others write is not possible.

And any time there is a question as to the writer's intent, and the writer is there to clarify, uh, he, and nobody else, is the ultimate authority on what his own words mean. That should be obvious. I certainly wouldn't insist on my interpretation of your words when you're telling me you meant something else by them.

Remember, words are an intermediary step in communication. They represent a translation of the writer's thoughts into words, and then are interpreted again by the reader into his own understanding. Both translation and interpretation steps are subject to error. If there are ten people who read this post, there are ten different interpretations. Hopefully all will get the gist of what I intended, but some may not. It's always possible none will.

[Bekologist]

yes, john is inaccurately ascribing the 'do something stupid' admonishment to the bicyclist education materials of the day.

john is manufacturing that, to discredit bicycling education efforts that preceded HIS crackpot education materials.

jon is the sole fabricator of the 'taught to ride stupid' myth in his disengenous fallacies he uses to support his flawed sophistry.

anyone seen that 1963 bikesafety movie "someone got fat?" no 'stupid' message there at all!

[dobovedo]

Wouldn't a more appropriate question be whether it is even necessary for supposedly cognizant, experienced and otherwise right minded adults to ride the same as children? The whole point of teaching a child to behave a certain way is that they aren't experienced enough to make judgment calls. You are essentially programming them to be safe in as many situations as possible until they grow up and gain experience and wisdom.

Or am I wrong every time I "talk to a stranger"?

No... I don't ride as I did as a child. Took the training wheels off last week.

[Script]

The other thing you guys (Buzzman, Script, Bek) seem to have in common is relatively little interest in what someone actually means by the words that they write, and much more interest in your interpretation of their words, regardless of the writer's intent. Such obstinacy makes communication practically impossible.

Huh????

Actually means, interpretation, writer's intent, obstinacy?

Ouch! My goal was merely to support the position of those 'others' as they interpreted the statements. I didn't hear any criticism, just questions. Even had there been criticism (better-argument) isn't that okay?
It's amazing how often those whose positions are challenged shout about misunderstanding or interpretation or obstinacy or criticism instead of approaching it as a different point of view.
I remember either hearing or reading about a reporter questioning the deep meaning in the lyrics of a song by a famous writer. The writer's response was 'it's just a song'. I wrote it 'cause the words worked, not to transmit some secret meaning.
Simply stated, there's always room for different interpretations.:D

[WaltPoutine]

As I have mentioned to you before...if the words you write are not interpreted in the way you intend by the reader, then the communication problem is yours, not the reader's. Communication isn't throwing up a wall of words and expecting people to use a crystal ball to understand your meaning. :rolleyes:

It is the writer's responsibility to ensure that their intent is understood, not the reader's responsibility to somehow read the writer's mind.

And there we have it: a clear admission from chipcom that he eats children ;P

[Helmet Head]

Huh????

Actually means, interpretation, writer's intent, obstinacy?

Ouch! My goal was merely to support the position of those 'others' as they interpreted the statements. I didn't hear any criticism, just questions. Even had there been criticism (better-argument) isn't that okay?
It's amazing how often those whose positions are challenged shout about misunderstanding or interpretation or obstinacy or criticism instead of approaching it as a different point of view.
I remember either hearing or reading about a reporter questioning the deep meaning in the lyrics of a song by a famous writer. The writer's response was 'it's just a song'. I wrote it 'cause the words worked, not to transmit some secret meaning.
Simply stated, there's always room for different interpretations.:D
Well, room for different interpretations of what Shakespeare or Chaucer meant is one thing, there is even room for arguing that one interpretation is more correct (i.e., in line with what the writer intended) than another.

But there is no room for arguing with the writer about his intent. The writer is the ultimate/definitive authority on what he intended his words to mean, no matter how you or anyone else interpreted them.

Perhaps I misunderstood, but I detected an attitude of "I don't care what he meant, I'm going to interpret it the way I understood it", or something close to that, in all of your posts in this thread of discussion. And, again, I honestly cannot believe that someone with a modicum of exposure to Forester's writings would really think that Forester might suggest that bicyclists don't have to signal their intentions when turning. I just don't see how anyone can make an honest effort to understand what Forester meant with his words, and still think that.

[Helmet Head]

And there we have it: a clear admission from chipcom that he eats children ;P
And he prefers them cooked rare! I would never have guessed.

[invisiblehand]

It is the writer's responsibility to ensure that their intent is understood, not the reader's responsibility to somehow read the writer's mind.

But to be fair Chip -- and this applies to both sides of the aisle -- I think that many a reader fails to put in any effort to understand the writer. Moreover, I would argue that some purposely distort the meaning for their own purpose.

[TRaffic Jammer]

All kids, when being prepared to be eaten, should be served rare. It's the only way to truly enjoy people.

[dobovedo]

All kids, when being prepared to be eaten, should be served rare. It's the only way to truly enjoy people.

tastes of chicken

[TRaffic Jammer]

anyone seen that 1963 bikesafety movie "someone got fat?" no 'stupid' message there at all!

http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=cQgAMkMmsfg
just in case someone wants to see it

[Helmet Head]

But to be fair Chip -- and this applies to both sides of the aisle -- I think that many a reader fails to put in any effort to understand the writer. Moreover, I would argue that some purposely distort the meaning for their own purpose.
Yes, invisiblehand, and you are a good example for others to follow. We don't always agree, but I think you always put in an honest effort to understand the writer, when you disagree you comment on the words, not the person, and I've never seen you distort meaning for your own purpose. In contrast, post #34 seemed like an intentional distortion in order to serve the poster's purpose (starting by taking Forester's sentence out of the context of him discussing the intent of the writers of the "instructions of the time" and treating it literally as if this was what he was advocating), as did the posts expressing agreement with this distorted interpretation:



Signalling your turns alerts motorists that the cyclist is going to do something stupid, like turn in front of them.

Can you please elaborate on that statement?

Are you suggesting cyclists not signal their intentions?

Are you suggesting that cyclists signal but don't look back or confirm that they have indeed been noticed before they turn?

Or are you suggesting that cyclists are just plain stupid- no matter what they do.

Here is the sentence as posted in the context of the paragraph from which it was extracted:


Your description tallies quite well with the instructions of the time. ...
...

Note the import of the instructions. Stopping at stop signs protects the motorists who have right of way. Signalling your turns alerts motorists that the cyclist is going to do something stupid, like turn in front of them.

Forester is clearly talking about what was emphasized ("the import") in the instructions of the time, not his own instruction. But that last sentence was lifted out of context and interpreted literally, as if this was Forester's own recommendation. That's blatant distortion. Or people just don't know how to read.

[Bekologist]

hed, you clipped too much- not that your multiple quotes help to clarify things -

jon wasn't saying 'signalling your turns is stupid' he was perpetuating his fabrication that bike education materials predating 'ec' taught people to ride stupidly.

BZZZZZZZZ. INCORRECT, sir. 'someone got fat' is a great example of early 60's bike safety materials before forestorism muddied the waters.

[chipcom]

And there we have it: a clear admission from chipcom that he eats children ;P

and anything else that gets within three feet of my hands or mouth!

[Bekologist]

FIVE FEET from the parked children, chip!!!

[Helmet Head]

and anything else that gets within three feet of my hands or mouth!
It's nice to see you finally realize the value in providing a name to the practice of riding a bicycle on roads in traffic in accordance with the vehicular rules of the road, and that the best name for that is vehicular cycling. It's good to have you on board as a VC advocate, Chip! Welcome!

If the words you write are not interpreted in the way you intend, then the communication problem yours, not the reader's.

As I have mentioned to you before...if the words you write are not interpreted in the way you intend by the reader, then the communication problem is yours, not the reader's. Communication isn't throwing up a wall of words and expecting people to use a crystal ball to understand your meaning. :rolleyes:

It is the writer's responsibility to ensure that their intent is understood, not the reader's responsibility to somehow read the writer's mind.

[chipcom]

If the words you write are not interpreted in the way you intend, then the communication problem yours, not the reader's.

Yup, exactly. So what's your point? :lol:

[Helmet Head]

It's nice to see you finally realize the value in providing a name to the practice of riding a bicycle on roads in traffic in accordance with the vehicular rules of the road, and that the best name for that is vehicular cycling. It's good to have you on board as a VC advocate, Chip! Welcome!

Yup, exactly.
This gives me a lot of hope. Thanks!

[LittleBigMan]

First, this is in no way meant as a attack or anything of the like on John Forester. While a lot of us disagree with & do not like what he has to say he has a right to say it.

I am calling a statment by him into question though. That statement is this one:
Most Americans on bicycles ride in the manner that they learned as children, according to societal norms that were produced by the motoring establishment in order to keep cyclists in their place.

Let's use the members of BF as a representation of most Americans. Vote in this poll, either yes or no, which will indicate whether you still ride in the manner that you learned as a child. Yes meaning you still do & no meaning you do not.

I would really like to see proof of the so called societal norms. What does that even mean, anyway? I'd love to see the documented proof that the motoring public created to keep cyclists in their place. Does such proof exist? If it does can anyone provide a web link to it?
Every time we point out motorist behavior and use it to promote our ideas of how to make cycling safer, more pleasant, more convenient, or more popular, we re-emphasize the belief that there is an inequality between motorists and cyclists that must be changed.

[buzzman]

... Just telling kids to signal, and nothing else, is not nearly enough if your goal is cyclist safety (but it is if your goal is motorist convenience). That's what Forester means, of course. No reasonably experienced cyclist could have possibly meant anything else with those words, and I find it astounding that someone with the experience that you obviously have could interpret it any other way.

I don't mean to harp on this, but I feel this type of miscommunication lies at the heart of much of the disagreement here. Like Robert's insistence that Forester's depiction of vehicular excludes defensive practices entirely. How anyone could read anything Forester has written and conclude that I find to be totally baffling.

HH, please allow me to take responsibility for any errors in communication you seem to have from what I posted.

I lifted JF's statement because it was illustrative of a point that I, and dare I say several others, have continuously made in these forums. And the point is that JF's tendency towards denigration of cyclists makes it difficult to understand for whom or what he is advocating. The use of the word "stupid" is nothing I recall seeing in instructions of that time. The word and it's use in that context is solely JF's interpretation of what is being implied in cycling instructions that he may or may not necessarily agree with. My sense is that JF advocates for his distinct version of what he coined as "Vehicular Cycling". He does not advocate for cyclists, he does not advocate for "safer streets" and he holds those who do not follow the strict dogmatic and ideological interpretation of his particular brand of VC as gospel with great contempt and disdain.

My questions about what he implies were actually meant, therefore, to be interpreted with a touch of irony- since I know quite well that JF encourages cyclists to signal their intentions, to look back and confirm that their intentions have been communicated and to only make their turns when they are certain they can safely proceed. But I also know that JF thinks cyclists that do not fall in lock step with his methodologies are referred to as phobic, stupid, children.

And that, my dear reader, was the point I was attempting to make.

And now to another point somewhat related. Why single out JF's statement, style, his posts in particular?I do so because he, whether I or anyone else in these forums or elsewhere agree with him, is still seen as having a strong influence on cycling advocacy. Basically he is in a leadership position and I feel that not only are many of his ideas out of touch his manner and tone is alienating to many cyclists. When I have made this point directly in response to his posts I received this reply.

The question is not whether the words that I use are discomfitting to many who have different views, but whether or not they are accurate.

Fine. So be it. But if he,or you, wonders why people want to put him on ignore or call so many of his statements into question then he may want to tone down that rhetoric- to me it's a responsibility that goes hand in hand with true leadership.

[invisiblehand]

And now to another point somewhat related. Why single out JF's statement, style, his posts in particular?I do so because he, whether I or anyone else in these forums or elsewhere agree with him, is still seen as having a strong influence on cycling advocacy. Basically he is in a leadership position and I feel that not only are many of his ideas out of touch his manner and tone is alienating to many cyclists. When I have made this point directly in response to his posts I received this reply.

Part of the reason -- of course, I am writing generally and not about buzzman specifically -- is that John actually took the time to write down these ideas providing the foundation for conversation. Regardless of whether one agrees with the material, it really is a huge contribution.

[Bekologist]

....more of a disservice than a contribution.

[invisiblehand]

....more of a disservice than a contribution.

Even if you disagree with his conclusions, he has influenced the way you think and the context of any serious conversation on cycling advocacy/safety.

Just consider all of the threads you have started on Forester or VC, Bek.

[buzzman]

Part of the reason -- of course, I am writing generally and not about buzzman specifically -- is that John actually took the time to write down these ideas providing the foundation for conversation. Regardless of whether one agrees with the material, it really is a huge contribution.

I agree.

But without regurgitating the same old arguments his contributions, while substantial, have not been 100% positive in my opinion. His tone, which was and has been adapted by many of those who have embraced his notions, has been divisive within the cycling community. It continues to divide many of us. It could not be more clearly demonstrated than in these forums, which are stalemated in the virtual world of the internet far more than they are in the real world. The real world will change of it's own accord and no amount of petty, sophistic bantering will prevent it. I think many of those changes will be in direct opposition to what JF has proposed in his books and his posts on-line and will ultimately favor cyclists and safer cycling.

[Helmet Head]

Buzzman, thank you for the clarification. To put that in context, allow me to quote invisiblehand:

...this applies to both sides of the aisle -- I think that many a reader fails to put in any effort to understand the writer. Moreover, I would argue that some purposely distort the meaning for their own purpose.

With that in mind, particularly the bold part...

HH, please allow me to take responsibility for any errors in communication you seem to have from what I posted.

I lifted JF's statement because it was illustrative of a point that I, and dare I say several others, have continuously made in these forums. And the point is that JF's tendency towards denigration of cyclists makes it difficult to understand for whom or what he is advocating. The use of the word "stupid" is nothing I recall seeing in instructions of that time. The word and it's use in that context is solely JF's interpretation of what is being implied in cycling instructions that he may or may not necessarily agree with. My sense is that JF advocates for his distinct version of what he coined as "Vehicular Cycling". He does not advocate for cyclists, he does not advocate for "safer streets" and he holds those who do not follow the strict dogmatic and ideological interpretation of his particular brand of VC as gospel with great contempt and disdain.

My questions about what he implies were actually meant, therefore, to be interpreted with a touch of irony- since I know quite well that JF encourages cyclists to signal their intentions, to look back and confirm that their intentions have been communicated and to only make their turns when they are certain they can safely proceed. But I also know that JF thinks cyclists that do not fall in lock step with his methodologies are referred to as phobic, stupid, children.

And that, my dear reader, was the point I was attempting to make.
Ah, so you purposely distorted the meaning of Forester's words in order to further your own purpose (discredit Forester because you object to what you think he thinks).

Consider Forester's words again in the entire paragraph from which you lifted the one statement:


Note the import of the instructions. Stopping at stop signs protects the motorists who have right of way. Signalling your turns alerts motorists that the cyclist is going to do something stupid, like turn in front of them.

Is it really so outlandish to suggest a motorist perspective that considers a cyclist turning in front of him to be doing something stupid? Of course the word "stupid" was not used in the instructions, and Forester wrote nothing that implied that it was. What he is saying is that the instructions are written from an implied motorist perspective that anticipates cyclists to act stupidly, doesn't even try to address that, but does try to encourage cyclist behavior that would make it easier for motorists to avoid hitting cyclists despite their stupid behavior. That's why they teach them to stop at stop signs, but not mention anything about yielding to other traffic before proceeding. That's why they teach cyclists to signal turns, but nothing about looking back (which is not as easy as it sounds - and that's per Robert Hurst as well as Forester et al.) and again nothing about yielding.

You say you object to him pointing this out because your "sense is that JF advocates for his distinct version of what he coined as 'Vehicular Cycling'". This seems to amount to some kind of emotional objection to nothing more than JF giving a name to what he advocates, because in this case all he is talking about is the importance of yielding as well as stopping at stop signs, and looking back and yielding as well as signaling when turning, unless you're disagreeing with him on that. Are you? If not, what is the substance of your objection to what Forester posted and to which you responded with admitted irony and pretty blatant derision?



And now to another point somewhat related. Why single out JF's statement, style, his posts in particular? I do so because he, whether I or anyone else in these forums or elsewhere agree with him, is still seen as having a strong influence on cycling advocacy. Basically he is in a leadership position and I feel that not only are many of his ideas out of touch his manner and tone is alienating to many cyclists. When I have made this point directly in response to his posts I received this reply.


Fine. So be it. But if he,or you, wonders why people want to put him on ignore or call so many of his statements into question then he may want to tone down that rhetoric- to me it's a responsibility that goes hand in hand with true leadership.
Every human being has room for improvement in his behavior and treatment for others, and that applies to behavior in online mediums. Certainly I do, and Forester is no exception. That he would probably be more effective in advocating what he is advocating if he adjusted his style/tone is widely shared, even within the VC advocacy community. But trying to convey an objection to his style/approach by feigning an objection with the fundamental merits of what he is saying is not very effective either. It's certainly not very productive.

[Helmet Head]

I agree.

But without regurgitating the same old arguments his contributions, while substantial, have not been 100% positive in my opinion. His tone, which was and has been adapted by many of those who have embraced his notions, has been divisive within the cycling community. It continues to divide many of us. It could not be more clearly demonstrated than in these forums, which are stalemated in the virtual world of the internet far more than they are in the real world. The real world will change of it's own accord and no amount of petty, sophistic bantering will prevent it. I think many of those changes will be in direct opposition to what JF has proposed in his books and his posts on-line and will ultimately favor cyclists and safer cycling.
It is not only his tone. The fact is, the whole facilities debate is as inherently divisive within the cycling community as are the abortion debate, the gun control debate, the universal health care debate, the death penalty debate, and the Iraq war debate in the broader community.

I don't think it's possible to determine how much of the divisiveness is due to Forester's tone, and how much is inevitable due to the inherent controversy in the issues at hand. We human beings have a tendency to try to find a scapegoat for our problems, and in this case Forester, VC advocates, and their tone, are all obvious explanations for the divisiveness in the cycling advocacy community, but, I think, as is often the case, that that is being overly simplistic.

By the way, if I share my opinion that bike lanes bring far more harm to cyclists than benefits, is that done in an appropriate tone?

[John Forester]

I lifted JF's statement because it was illustrative of a point that I, and dare I say several others, have continuously made in these forums. And the point is that JF's tendency towards denigration of cyclists makes it difficult to understand for whom or what he is advocating. The use of the word "stupid" is nothing I recall seeing in instructions of that time. The word and it's use in that context is solely JF's interpretation of what is being implied in cycling instructions that he may or may not necessarily agree with. My sense is that JF advocates for his distinct version of what he coined as "Vehicular Cycling". He does not advocate for cyclists, he does not advocate for "safer streets" and he holds those who do not follow the strict dogmatic and ideological interpretation of his particular brand of VC as gospel with great contempt and disdain.


much snipped to emphasize the above concept



Of course you would never see cyclists explicitly described as stupid in the bike-safey instruction materials. However, my use of the word stupid as applying to what a motorist would think about a cyclist does not, contrary to your assertion, buzzman, result simply from reading an instruction that I may or may not necessarily agree with. Decades ago, when I was assisting (unpaid, of course) in California's attempt to improve bicyclist training (which was given up, probably because the bikeway program was seen to be more effective in keeping cyclists in their supposed places) I examined many bike-safety instructional materials that were then recent or current. One characteristic that I noticed was that none of these materials ever instructed the cyclist to look at traffic and exercise his judgement as to what to do and when to do it. The authors of the materials apparently believed that as long as the cyclist stuck to the edge of the road, stopped at stop signs, and signalled his turns, he would be safe, or as safe as a cyclist can be.

As a kind of confirmation of this way of thought, I had (don't know what's happened to it) a poster published by the AAA. The poster is the view from the rear of a pair of cyclists as seen by a motorist overtaking them. The left-hand cyclist is riding a bicycle and may be a child. The right-hand cyclist is riding a tricycle and is clearly a child. Both cyclists are just riding along the road, looking ahead in what might be the normal manner, except that both of them have their left arms extended horizontally in the left-turn signal. Does that boggle your minds, readers?

This is the public way of thought that created the bikeway system to keep cyclists in their place.

[John Forester]

I agree.

But without regurgitating the same old arguments his contributions, while substantial, have not been 100% positive in my opinion. His tone, which was and has been adapted by many of those who have embraced his notions, has been divisive within the cycling community. It continues to divide many of us. It could not be more clearly demonstrated than in these forums, which are stalemated in the virtual world of the internet far more than they are in the real world. The real world will change of it's own accord and no amount of petty, sophistic bantering will prevent it. I think many of those changes will be in direct opposition to what JF has proposed in his books and his posts on-line and will ultimately favor cyclists and safer cycling.

Indeed, the controversy is divisive and its tone is harsh, and it is not difficult to sort out the reason. The vehicular cycling advocates hold that cyclists fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles. They support their view with an impressive array of facts and reasoning, such as known crash types and frequencies, known car-bike collision types and frequencies, standard traffic-engineering principles, standard human-factors principles, which all fit together to support the vehicular-cycling view. Vehicular-cycling advocates also advocate that society should do better in accommodating vehicular cyclists, both physically, in better roads, and intellectually. The bicycle advocates (as they call themselves) have placed their hopes on bikeway systems, principally bike lane systems because there are so few locations suitable for bike paths. Not only is there no scientific evidence that such systems make cycling safer, or lower the level of skill that is required for safe cycling, but, in fact. the weight of the evidence is against them. In confirmation of that conclusion, the bikeway advocates have never provided any evidence on these points, and deny the known fact that the bikeway program was created by motorists for their own convenience. Instead, bikeway advocates advance scientifically irrelevant evidence of the popularity and low casualty rates of bicycle transportation in nations with entirely different urban patterns, transportation histories, and social and commercial arrangements. In short, bicycle advocates believe that the popularity of bicycle transportation in obsolete pre-automotive cities (OPACs) would be developed in American cities if bikeway systems were built.

One side bases its position on knowledge and the current and likely future conditions. The other side bases its position on the hope that bikeways will transform American cities and urban life by means of a mechanism which they have not been able to identify. Complicating the controversy is the undoubted fact that those in power in highway affairs, motorists and their organizations, understand that bikeways generally make motoring more convenient by keeping bicycles in their supposed place.

It is no wonder that the controversy is divisive and its tone is harsh. When realists and ideologues collide, anger develops.

[Helmet Head]

Indeed, the controversy is divisive and its tone is harsh, and it is not difficult to sort out the reason. The vehicular cycling advocates hold that cyclists fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles. They support their view with an impressive array of facts and reasoning, such as known crash types and frequencies, known car-bike collision types and frequencies, standard traffic-engineering principles, standard human-factors principles, which all fit together to support the vehicular-cycling view. Vehicular-cycling advocates also advocate that society should do better in accommodating vehicular cyclists, both physically, in better roads, and intellectually. The bicycle advocates (as they call themselves) have placed their hopes on bikeway systems, principally bike lane systems because there are so few locations suitable for bike paths. Not only is there no scientific evidence that such systems make cycling safer, or lower the level of skill that is required for safe cycling, but, in fact. the weight of the evidence is against them. In confirmation of that conclusion, the bikeway advocates have never provided any evidence on these points, and deny the known fact that the bikeway program was created by motorists for their own convenience. Instead, bikeway advocates advance scientifically irrelevant evidence of the popularity and low casualty rates of bicycle transportation in nations with entirely different urban patterns, transportation histories, and social and commercial arrangements. In short, bicycle advocates believe that the popularity of bicycle transportation in obsolete pre-automotive cities (OPACs) would be developed in American cities if bikeway systems were built.

One side bases its position on knowledge and the current and likely future conditions. The other side bases its position on the hope that bikeways will transform American cities and urban life by means of a mechanism which they have not been able to identify. Complicating the controversy is the undoubted fact that those in power in highway affairs, motorists and their organizations, understand that bikeways generally make motoring more convenient by keeping bicycles in their supposed place.

It is no wonder that the controversy is divisive and its tone is harsh. When realists and ideologues collide, anger develops.
Well stated, John. Too bad so few will read it.

It is ironic that the VC advocates are often referred to as the ideologues, when we are the ones who practice daily what we preach - that's being realistic - and it's the "bike advocates" who hold Amsterdam, downtown Portland or some other OPAC as the "ideal" round hole into which they wish to pound their segregated cycling square peg, while they (if they cycle at all) basically practice what they denigrate (vehicular cycling) during the times they are present in reality.

[buzzman]

Sorry guys but despite the ton of verbage that preceded this statement I see it not as a conclusion based on facts but on preconceived notions and biases.


This is the public way of thought that created the bikeway system to keep cyclists in their place.

Since this statement was made in response to my posts I will respond since I have obviously been included in what is being referred to as the "public way of thought".

#1- While I support bikeways as a part of a system of cyclist and vehicular transportation I by no means see it as the whole solution. To suggest that I, and others, that support bikeways under some circumstances " have placed their (our) hopes on bikeway systems" is a way of inaccurately reframing the argument. Most of us are adaptive in our solutions and even see riding vehicularly as part of the overall solution when that solution is most effective. My argument against one size fits all solutions is just as strong against bike lanes, bike paths, MUP's when they are poorly designed, constructed, maintained or installed when not needed as it is against seeing VC as the panacea to solve all ills.

#2 We disagree about what it means to be realistic and what is an ideologue. To me being realistic is adapting our approaches to various environments knowing that compromises are sometimes necessary or no forward momentum will be made. Ideologues, in my view, paint their opposition as ignorant, emotionally charged, phobic, stupid, childish idealists usually as a preemptive defense against such labels being applied to themselves and see no room for compromise.

[LittleBigMan]

Doesn't anyone ever notice that they, as a cyclist, have to face a vast majority of motorists (including friends and family) that believe that riding a bicycle on the road in a vehicular fashion, as if one actually has legal right to, is not normal?

If it were normal, why do we need special facilities?

I support the desires of cyclists who want bicycle facilities to separate them from motor traffic, just as I want them to support my desire to be recognized as a road user of equal importance with motorists. But probably everyone in these discussions has at one time or another voiced their concern about the inequality that exists in American society between cyclists and motorists.

[buzzman]

Doesn't anyone ever notice that they, as a cyclist, have to face a vast majority of motorists (including friends and family) that believe that riding a bicycle on the road in a vehicular fashion, as if one actually has legal right to, is not normal?

If it were normal, why do we need special facilities?

I support the desires of cyclists who want bicycle facilities to separate them from motor traffic, just as I want them to support my desire to be recognized as a road user of equal importance with motorists. But probably everyone in these discussions has at one time or another voiced their concern about the inequality that exists in American society between cyclists and motorists.

I agree with the gist of your statement while at the same time see a great deal of gray area, which is often ignored in order to simplify these issues into purely black and white.

The problem is that while we could conceivably survey the opinions of many motorists and perhaps support your statement that most automobile road users see bicycles on the road riding in a vehicular fashion as not normal the actual on road behavior of most drivers in most circumstances may not support this contention.

Though I often commute on a bike path into Boston I am a consistent road rider for longer bike transport and recreation and some commutes. At those times I ride in what I would classify as a vehicular fashion and am subject to roughly the same amount of aggressive driving and road rage as I do when driving a car. The danger is only amplified by the increased vulnerability of a cyclist over someone encased in the closed environment of a car. But for the most part, while I do tend to choose my routes carefully to avoid potential conflicts, I am treated with roughly the same respect as a motorist.

While driver behavior is a factor I find road design, traffic volume, road conditions and number of intersections to be more of a factor for the need for bike facilities.

[buzzman]

Well stated, John. Too bad so few will read it.

It is ironic that the VC advocates are often referred to as the ideologues, when we are the ones who practice daily what we preach - that's being realistic - and it's the "bike advocates" who hold Amsterdam, downtown Portland or some other OPAC as the "ideal" round hole into which they wish to pound their segregated cycling square peg, while they (if they cycle at all) basically practice what they denigrate (vehicular cycling) during the times they are present in reality.


#1- while some of us may take issue with your or JF's very particular definitions of (vehicular cycling) I don't necessarily see the basic concept of riding as a vehicle and following the rules of the road and local traffic law being denigrated. I do see the vehicular cycling "ideal", which has no models anywhere in the world to even remotely demonstrate it's effectiveness*, being denigrated as a one size fits all solution.

#2. Having visions of improvements to transportation infrastructure is just as realistic as riding one's bike everyday in whatever fashion safely gets one from point A to B. Do you imagine those of us who cycle regularly but advocate for bikeways as part of an integrated system of transportation by bike ride on sidewalks and the wrong way down highways or not at all until such a system is available?

*edit: I'm sure this will get a rather strident response. But what I mean here is- I have ridden in Amsterdam and cities with extensive bike infrastructures I see how those systems work they are demonstrable in their environments. Please tell me of a city anywhere, particularly in America where I can ride and see vehicular cycling promoted and practiced by a large percentage of cyclists and supported by law enforcement encouraged by the municipality devoid of any other special facilities for cyclists.

[buzzman]

By the way, if I share my opinion that bike lanes bring far more harm to cyclists than benefits, is that done in an appropriate tone?

I'm sorry if you see my attempts at removing terms like childish, phobic, stupid etc from the dialogue among those who wish to be taken seriously as advocates be it on line or in person as my means of claiming to be an arbiter of what is or isn't an "appropriate tone" then I have once again miscommunicated my intentions.

Although the "tone" of your statement does not bother me I would, however, take issue with it as a fact.

I might even agree with this statement:

that some bike lanes bring far more harm to cyclists than benefits...

I would strongly disagree with this statement:

that all bike lanes bring far more harm to cyclists than benefits...

If you wish to see everything in as simplistic a form as possible, everything as black and white then I, and others, will probably continue to call you on it.

[Helmet Head]

Buzzman, it is a fact. It's a statement about what my opinion is.
My opinion is that there is no bike lane that brings more benefit than harm to cyclists.
But I'm waiting for the one example of a road with a bike lane that would not be improved as beneficial to cyclists with the removal of the bike lane stripe.

[Script]

Buzzman, it is a fact. It's a statement about what my opinion is.
My opinion is that there is no bike lane that brings more benefit than harm to cyclists.
But I'm waiting for the one example of a road with a bike lane that would not be improved as beneficial to cyclists with the removal of the bike lane stripe.

Am I to understand that 'my opinion' is a 'fact'? Somehow, I thought 'facts' required some supporting data? Although in today's world, folks create 'facts' by saying ' the consensus of ________ agrees with me, therefore it is a fact.

I could provide numerous examples of where the addition of a bike lane added enough width to the roadway to enhance the safety of cyclists but I'm sure there is a way to counter that with some of the text about the ignorance of drivers about recognizing bike lanes on roads and not being able to notice the bicycles or diamonds or words stenciled on the roadways.

I guess it comes back to interpretation. Using 'stupid' in a description does not enhance the credibility of the writer but it does make one wonder what the goal is.

I always though of myself as a pragmatist. Maybe I need to rethink that. :D:D

[buzzman]

Buzzman, it is a fact. It's a statement about what my opinion is.
My opinion is that there is no bike lane that brings more benefit than harm to cyclists.
But I'm waiting for the one example of a road with a bike lane that would not be improved as beneficial to cyclists with the removal of the bike lane stripe.


If you are of the mind that because it is your opinion it is a fact then I understand why I have such difficulty following your logic. In that case, all of your opinions are facts and no wonder why you are bollocksed when you are challenged.

I have written occasionally about the improvements in NYC since more bike lanes were added to streets and avenues. These are tangible, demonstrable, practical improvements. It has increased ridership and the "Bicyclist Fatalities and Serious Injuries in New York City 1996-2005" study, which was released in 2006, demonstrated the effectiveness of the added bike lanes. As anyone who rides in NYC can tell you the bike lanes have by no means solved all the problems nor are they, in and of themselves, perfect. There is still a long way to go but it is a beginning. NYC's DOT in response to the aforementioned study is adding yet more bike lanes. This must cause you such grief and consternation since it is so contrary to your opinion and therefore, in your mind, so contrary to the "facts". I hate to be the one to break it to you but bike lanes are improving things for cyclists in NYC and not in order to get bikes out of the way of cars but the opposite- to get the cars out of the way of bikes. To increase ridership and decrease the use of the private automobile. (ye gads! an "anti-motorist" agenda promoting bike lanes when the whole bikeway thing was, according to JF, a means by which a motoring public could get bikes out of the way- Koyaanisqatsi!)

But this argument has been made in A&S again and again and again and again. The study was discussed at great length and still I am sure you are not convinced of the conclusions of the DOT and others about the efficacy of bike lanes. You can listen to me and thousands of others who can provide anecdotal and, as I have in the past, video of riding in NYC's bike lanes safely and happily negotiating between the bike lane and other traffic lanes when necessary.

But since your opinion is a fact all of this will fall on deaf ears and like a bicycle wheel in a training stand it will go round and round and round but take us nowhere. But I suppose it's good for the exercise.:)

[Helmet Head]

If you are of the mind that because it is your opinion it is a fact then I understand why I have such difficulty following your logic. In that case, all of your opinions are facts and no wonder why you are bollocksed when you are challenged.
Please distinguish between X being a fact and someone's opinion that X is true being a fact.
"JFK was a great president" is not a fact.
"Bill Clinton believes JFK was a great president" is a fact.
Get it?


I have written occasionally about the improvements in NYC since more bike lanes were added to streets and avenues. These are tangible, demonstrable, practical improvements. It has increased ridership and the "Bicyclist Fatalities and Serious Injuries in New York City 1996-2005" study, which was released in 2006, demonstrated the effectiveness of the added bike lanes. As anyone who rides in NYC can tell you the bike lanes have by no means solved all the problems nor are they, in and of themselves, perfect. There is still a long way to go but it is a beginning. NYC's DOT in response to the aforementioned study is adding yet more bike lanes. This must cause you such grief and consternation since it is so contrary to your opinion and therefore, in your mind, so contrary to the "facts". I hate to be the one to break it to you but bike lanes are improving things for cyclists in NYC and not in order to get bikes out of the way of cars but the opposite- to get the cars out of the way of bikes. To increase ridership and decrease the use of the private automobile. (ye gads! an "anti-motorist" agenda promoting bike lanes when the whole bikeway thing was, according to JF, a means by which a motoring public could get bikes out of the way- Koyaanisqatsi!)

But this argument has been made in A&S again and again and again and again. The study was discussed at great length and still I am sure you are not convinced of the conclusions of the DOT and others about the efficacy of bike lanes. You can listen to me and thousands of others who can provide anecdotal and, as I have in the past, video of riding in NYC's bike lanes safely and happily negotiating between the bike lane and other traffic lanes when necessary.
I have never questioned whether bike lanes plus a whole bunch of other stuff (including sreet realignments, etc.) might be beneficial to cyclists - though I believe all the benefits ultimately come from all the other stuff.

Please name the street upon which is located a bike lane for which removal of the bike lane stripe would not be a benefit for bicyclists.


But since your opinion is a fact all of this will fall on deaf ears and like a bicycle wheel in a training stand it will go round and round and round but take us nowhere. But I suppose it's good for the exercise.:)
I have never stated that my opinion is a fact; I have stated that what my opinion is is a fact. You are again purposely distorting what I said for your own purpose (to disparage the person with whom you have a disagreement, as usual).

[-=£em in Pa=-]

This thread lends a little insight to the thought process used by religious
extremists who teach their kids blowing themselves up for some deity is noble
and pious.

Thank goodness there is no chance of this type of VCealotism ever catching on
outside of BF
:beer:

[buzzman]

I have never stated that my opinion is a fact; I have stated that what my opinion is is a fact. You are again purposely distorting what I said for your own purpose (to disparage the person with whom you have a disagreement, as usual).

HH I will concede in order to save us more of this sophistry. You are absolutely correct- it is indeed a fact that you have an opinion- absolutely positively correct. I stand corrected.

But now perhaps the easiest question you could have asked me:

Please name the street upon which is located a bike lane for which removal of the bike lane stripe would not be a benefit for bicyclists.

I could compile a substantial list of NYC streets since most of the bike lanes are an improvement over nothing but some serve me personally better than others. I will list these since they were used consistently by me and several of my colleagues all summer long, at any and all hours of the day. Though I would ride without the bike lane designations (I prefer riding with them) but my friends use them and did not ride before they were there and would not ride without them.

They are the 10th Street bike lanes from the West Side path all the way to the east side.

The 9th street bike lanes running from east to west.

And the 90th and 91st bike lanes that connect the West Side Bike path to and from Central Park.


Should I list more? Have you ridden on any of these? Is this falling on deaf ears? How would you know if I'm right or wrong if you have not ridden on these particular streets prior to the existence and now with bike lanes? What would you base your opposition to them on- your opinion? Certainly not the NYC DOT bike safety study, which supports my opinion with facts.

[-=£em in Pa=-]

Please name the street upon which is located a bike lane for which removal of the bike lane stripe would not be a benefit for bicyclists.


Any in this area

http://www.bikely.com/maps/bike-path/West-Palm-Beach-to-Fort-Pierce

[Script]

I have never stated that my opinion is a fact; I have stated that what my opinion is is a fact. You are again purposely distorting what I said for your own purpose (to disparage the person with whom you have a disagreement, as usual).

So are we saying it depends on what "is is'?

Sorry, couldn't help myself.:)

[rando]

it is my opinion that my opinion, is in fact, my opinion.

[buzzman]

Any in this area

http://www.bikely.com/maps/bike-path/West-Palm-Beach-to-Fort-Pierce

I had family for many years in the Ft. Pierce/Vero Beach area of Florida. Riding anywhere in FL is a major challenge since so many of the roads are so narrow with high speed vehicles ranging from pick ups to tractor trailer trucks hauling tons of citrus. I would ride like a fiend from Ft. Pierce to the bike lane and breathe a huge sigh of relief once I got onto the facilitated highway.

This is a prime example of where a bike lane is far superior to the road having no bike lane. The only thing that used to trouble me was the "why" as to the way every road was designed. FL could be a cyclists paradise with some simple changes in infrastructure.

And they are an area that fell prey to the "recreational bike path/side path" mindset the idea of using a bike for transportation was way too remote a concept. As a form of exercise they could abide it so no problem building paths that go nowhere! But they are only just now seeing the purpose of connecting these paths so you could actually get somewhere on a bike.

[Helmet Head]

it is my opinion that my opinion, is in fact, my opinion.
If that's true, then it is a fact that it is your opinion that your opinion, is in fact, your opinion.

[-=£em in Pa=-]

Another thing that is not mentioned ever is that if we do attain
the semi-utopian situation of maybe having 40% of people who
commute do so on bicycles, lanes will be needed to keep bicyclists IN.
Human nature being what it is, it is fair to believe that people would be
straying all over the road in this unlikely but still possible scenerio.
If people came out in these huge numbers, segregation would be necassary.
Religious VCealotism could not possibly work in a situation where many
people rode, always.