John Forester's thinking in Canada's Transportation Planning

[The Human Car]

The relative merits of these two styles of infrastructure from a safety perspective are the subject of a great deal of debate. As an example, a California transportation engineer, John Forester, has advocated cycling on roads in vehicle lanes with cars as the safest mode of travel (“vehicular cycling”). His thinking has been integrated in part into North American transportation planning.

http://www.cher.ubc.ca/cyclingincities/injury.html

[WaltPoutine]

http://www.cher.ubc.ca/cyclingincities/injury.html

The whole program behind that website is based upon asking people what might/might-not make them more likely to cycle. It's another attempt to determine what the cycling environment should be based upon the opinions of non-cyclists.

People that don't cycle have no idea what they need or what in practice would actually end up making their cycling more pleasant or safe. Those that wish to cycle already do so. Those that find it difficult, inconvenient, tiring, scary are probably never going to be persuaded to take it up in any serious way. So designing _our_ environment around _their_ predjudices just cripples us to no good effect.

[invisiblehand]

I find it hard to believe that cycling carried much weight into the transportation plans of most major cities.

While I think that the studies cited there are interesting, ignoring survey/data collection methodology, there are a lot of models that fit the observations. They pretty much state something along those lines ...

Combined, these studies do not provide a consistent picture of which types of cycling routes would be safest, in part because the infrastructure was characterized in broad categories, grouping route types that might have different risks (e.g., paved and unpaved off-street paths), and did not take into account multiple infrastructure features.

[joejack951]

As an example, a California transportation engineer, John Forester, has advocated cycling on roads in vehicle lanes with cars as the safest mode of travel (“vehicular cycling”).

It probably doesn't need to be said, but that's a VERY simplistic view of vehicular cycling. A better summation in my opinion would be that Forester has advocated that cyclists are safest (or fare best) when they act as drivers of vehicles. This does not always mean riding in the (or in middle of the) traffic lane, a point which many cannot seem to comprehend.

[genec]

The whole program behind that website is based upon asking people what might/might-not make them more likely to cycle. It's another attempt to determine what the cycling environment should be based upon the opinions of non-cyclists.

People that don't cycle have no idea what they need or what in practice would actually end up making their cycling more pleasant or safe. Those that wish to cycle already do so. Those that find it difficult, inconvenient, tiring, scary are probably never going to be persuaded to take it up in any serious way. So designing _our_ environment around _their_ predjudices just cripples us to no good effect.

I agree that having the opinion of such folks is dangerous if used directly to form the basis of what is done on the roads... (even thought really that IS generally what happens when road engineers and motorists share their opinions of what should occur). But consider this, if non cyclists are offering ideas about what they think they need to ride a bike... perhaps we should listen if we expect to ever increase cyclist mode share of all transportation needs.

[John Forester]

I agree that having the opinion of such folks is dangerous if used directly to form the basis of what is done on the roads... (even thought really that IS generally what happens when road engineers and motorists share their opinions of what should occur). But consider this, if non cyclists are offering ideas about what they think they need to ride a bike... perhaps we should listen if we expect to ever increase cyclist mode share of all transportation needs.

But there is always the difference between expert knowledge and public superstition. Consider the well-known example of landsmen thinking that sailors should head for shore when bad weather approaches. Not on your life! Get out to sea, with plenty of water between you and a lee shore, unless there is so much time certainly available that you can get into a protected harbor. Bicycle advocates want to run the bicycle transportation program according to the superstitions of the non-cycling and motoring publics, because they think that this will attract transportationally significant numbers of non-cyclists and motorists into bicycle transportation. The trouble with this is that those publics want what is good for motorists but bad for cyclists. It's a bit like lowering the water level in the swimming pools to three feet deep because the non-swimmers are afraid of getting a noseful of water.

[genec]

But there is always the difference between expert knowledge and public superstition. Consider the well-known example of landsmen thinking that sailors should head for shore when bad weather approaches. Not on your life! Get out to sea, with plenty of water between you and a lee shore, unless there is so much time certainly available that you can get into a protected harbor. Bicycle advocates want to run the bicycle transportation program according to the superstitions of the non-cycling and motoring publics, because they think that this will attract transportationally significant numbers of non-cyclists and motorists into bicycle transportation. The trouble with this is that those publics want what is good for motorists but bad for cyclists. It's a bit like lowering the water level in the swimming pools to three feet deep because the non-swimmers are afraid of getting a noseful of water.

But in this case the expert knowledge is doing nothing to increase the number of participants. At least in the swimming pool model there are shallow pools available for non-swimmers.

[Helmet Head]

But in this case the expert knowledge is doing nothing to increase the number of participants. At least in the swimming pool model there are shallow pools available for non-swimmers.
The bicycling analogy of shallow pools for non-swimmers is empty parking lots and quiet streets for beginner/novice cyclists.

Putting bike lanes on a 45 mph arterial in order to accommodate novice cyclists is like putting a padded bottom at the 12' end of the pool to accommodate non-swimmers. All it can do is create a false sense of security and encourage people to do something that they are not ready to do.

If someone "needs" a bike lane to feel safe or comfortably ride on some road, they almost certainly have no business riding on that street, and nobody has any business enticing them to do so anyway by putting bike lanes on it.

[Helmet Head]

I agree that having the opinion of such folks is dangerous if used directly to form the basis of what is done on the roads... (even thought really that IS generally what happens when road engineers and motorists share their opinions of what should occur). But consider this, if non cyclists are offering ideas about what they think they need to ride a bike... perhaps we should listen if we expect to ever increase cyclist mode share of all transportation needs.
I think it's important to listen. But you have to analyze too. In particular, you have to identify root causes and address those, not perceived problems and address those.

You also have to differentiate between statements of the problem and proposed solutions. People tend to think about solutions before they fully understand the problem.

If you ask someone why he won't ride on some street, and his answer is "because there is no bike lane", that's someone who is jumping the gun. The reason he won't ride on the street is probably because he doesn't feel it is safe to ride. The reason he says it is because it has no bike lane is probably because he believe if it had a bike lane it would be safe to ride. But we know a bike lane does not make it safer to any significant/measurable degree. And we do know how the root safety issue can be addressed: cyclist skills/knowledge/behavior. There is no alternative. The fact that it may be hard to do is no excuse to not do it.

[genec]

I think it's important to listen. But you have to analyze too. In particular, you have to identify root causes and address those, not perceived problems and address those.

You also have to differentiate between statements of the problem and proposed solutions. People tend to think about solutions before they fully understand the problem.

If you ask someone why he won't ride on some street, and his answer is "because there is no bike lane", that's someone who is jumping the gun. The reason he won't ride on the street is probably because he doesn't feel it is safe to ride. The reason he says it is because it has no bike lane is probably because he believe if it had a bike lane it would be safe to ride. But we know a bike lane does not make it safer to any significant/measurable degree. And we do know how the root safety issue can be addressed: cyclist skills/knowledge/behavior. There is no alternative. The fact that it may be hard to do is no excuse to not do it.


How about offering a third solution... Find out what keys the fears of the potential cyclist and address those... if said potential cyclist said that they were not comfortable with large speeding vehicles passing within a foot or so of themselves... what then would be your solution?

Were you ever able to convince your dentist to ride a bike to work, or even on the streets?

[rando]

Putting bike lanes on a 45 mph arterial in order to accommodate novice cyclists is like putting a padded bottom at the 12' end of the pool to accommodate non-swimmers. All it can do is create a false sense of security and encourage people to do something that they are not ready to do.... and nobody has any business enticing them to do so anyway by putting bike lanes on it.


But you don't create bike lanes to accomodate "novice" Cyclists. That's not what they do, or are for. this whole argument is based on skewed logic that VC enthusiasts swallow whole because it makes for a convenient diversionary tactic and seems to make it easier to dismiss the usefulness of bike facilities. IMO.

[Bekologist]

even among experienced riders, high speed streets with narrow lanes rack DEAD LAST in what types of streets they prefer. Bicyclists (as a class and group of citizens) prefer off street paths and traffic calmed roads.

Asking to listen to the EXTREME minority view of how cyclists purportedly 'fare best' is much more useless to bicyclists than attempting to accomodate the majority of bicyclists and potential bicyclists.

Taking lessons from other countries compared to the us and canada with our coorespondingly weak, paltry cyclist share, one clear pattern emerges:

CYCLISTS FARE BEST when accomodated in communites as human powered vehicles with unique operating characteristics. Not the forestorite fallacy. despite the wrongful vehlemence fo the forestorites, 'vehicular cycling' is NOT in conflict with bike paths, bike lanes and wide lanes, traffic calming and off road infrastructure and social programs designed to benefit bicyclists. all vehicular cyclists have the ability to recognize a shoulder or a bike lane that is vehicular to operate in, and ride accordingly.

for those of you that are still drinking the 'no special treatment' koolaid, you are doing bicyclists a grave disservice.

[Bekologist]

yes, the world of transportation engineering is happy to distance themselves from forestor's prejudices and crackpot social theories he attaches to 'vehicular' cycling.

Anyone not blinded by the fallacies of the vc camp recognize that



letting the extreme minority decide on how cyclists 'fare best' is even MORE of a disservice than attempts to accomodate bicyclists and potential bicyclists thru engineering redesign and social programs to stimulate and encourage bicycling.

The fallacy 'cyclist fare best when acting and treated as vehicles' is completley erronous- There is a large and ever growing body of statistical and very strongly implied cause and effect between bicycling, bicyclist safety, accomodations and social programs.

Bicyclists fare best in communities where they are recognized as unique human powered vehicles and accomodated as such.

Leave the planing for bikes up to guys like head and jon? guys that are most braggardly about their riding attitude? or listen to people that are considering all abilities and styles of bicyclists when planning social programs and engineering enhancements for bicycling?

I think planning for all bicyclists is a better idea than just for head and his proud retorts about his abilities riding 50 mph roads . Besides, the 'vc' are MOST capable and correspondingly need LESS consideration, right? they are ALWAYS going ON and ON about how they can ride ANY road.....(except a lot of roads that jon f. helped get bikes banned from in California when a slow speed alternative is available)

Remember, too- bike facilities, bike paths, end of trip facilities, education for both biker and motorists, social education efforts, and even bike lanes that are vehicular in design ARE NOT in conflict with vc belief- ( which is just riding like you want to act like a vehicle, right ? ;)

Since there is no blanket 'vc' argument condemming the planning of accomodations for bicyclists, and the vc are also supossedly the most able to decipher the road environment in a vehicular manner- BIKE LANE STRIPES OR NOT-

the idea of vc acting as a roadblock to greater planning & accomodations for bicyclists ( greater numbers of bicyclists riding safer), really shows a very selfsh level of sociopathic retardation.

forestoties- worthless rapscallions of the lowest order.

[Bekologist]

It probably doesn't need to be said, but that's a VERY simplistic view of vehicular cycling........This does not always mean riding in the (or in middle of the) traffic lane, a point which many cannot seem to comprehend.
It also means they can and do ride vehicularily in bike lanes, ride on bike paths, ride out of the way of traffic off to the side, take advantage of community bike infrastructure, get advantages from social programs that favor bicyclists and bicycling, ride on the shoulders of roads, etc.....

forestor himself has a overly simplistic, even dishonest view of 'vehicular' bicycling....

[John Forester]

yes, the world of transportation engineering is happy to distance themselves from forestor's prejudices and crackpot social theories he attaches to 'vehicular' cycling.

Anyone not blinded by the fallacies of the vc camp recognize that



letting the extreme minority decide on how cyclists 'fare best' is even MORE of a disservice than attempts to accomodate bicyclists and potential bicyclists thru engineering redesign and social programs to stimulate and encourage bicycling.

The fallacy 'cyclist fare best when acting and treated as vehicles' is completley erronous- There is a large and ever growing body of statistical and very strongly implied cause and effect between bicycling, bicyclist safety, accomodations and social programs.

Bicyclists fare best in communities where they are recognized as unique human powered vehicles and accomodated as such.

Leave the planing for bikes up to guys like head and jon? guys that are most braggardly about their riding attitude? or listen to people that are considering all abilities and styles of bicyclists when planning social programs and engineering enhancements for bicycling?

I think planning for all bicyclists is a better idea than just for head and his proud retorts about his abilities riding 50 mph roads . Besides, the 'vc' are MOST capable and correspondingly need LESS consideration, right? they are ALWAYS going ON and ON about how they can ride ANY road.....(except a lot of roads that jon f. helped get bikes banned from in California when a slow speed alternative is available)

Remember, too- bike facilities, bike paths, end of trip facilities, education for both biker and motorists, social education efforts, and even bike lanes that are vehicular in design ARE NOT in conflict with vc belief- ( which is just riding like you want to act like a vehicle, right ? ;)

Since there is no blanket 'vc' argument condemming the planning of accomodations for bicyclists, and the vc are also supossedly the most able to decipher the road environment in a vehicular manner- BIKE LANE STRIPES OR NOT-

the idea of vc acting as a roadblock to greater planning & accomodations for bicyclists ( greater numbers of bicyclists riding safer), really shows a very selfsh level of sociopathic retardation.

forestoties- worthless rapscallions of the lowest order.

More ideological illogicalities from you, bekologist. The only items among those you list that contradict vehicular cycling are bike lanes and some types of bike paths. That's where the controversy exists, nowhere else.

[Bekologist]

and bike lanes provide an effective 'carrot and stick' effect to getting bicyclists ON road and garnering greater recognition from motorists... theres' a significant body of evidence showing facilities enhancements and social programs get bicyclists on the streets in greater numbers and a reduction in acidents.

the evidence is out there. the vc camp purporting it does not is disengenous.

[Bekologist]

come on, john, just SOME portions of SOME bike lanes are in 'conflict' with 'vehicular cycling. and I've seen proud , anti-facilities forestoties 'vehicle drivers' using bike paths.

john, you support (some) bike paths, if i recall correctly, jon. How about Denver's system of over 100 miles of bike specific paths routing bikes across the city with a minimum of intersection conflict with motorists?

You also concede there are bikelanes that do not violate vehciular principles.

jon, get off the simpleton horse. it isn't flattering. Your prejudices are showing!!!

(and why so rude? you agree with the majority of my comment...)

[Sixty Fiver]

I live a car free life and in 2007 rode 16,000 kilometres in Edmonton, Alberta... of that, more than 12,000 kilometres was spent commuting and doing utilitarian riding and can also say that I am out on our streets nearly every day in every kind of weather.

In addition to that I am deeply involved in the cycling community, sit on the board of our commuter's society, and volunteer many many hours as a mechanic which puts me in touch with hundreds of riders who are for the most part, commuters.

I consider Edmonton to be a fairly good city to ride in and one of the reasons for that is because there has been some strong cycling advocacy going on for several decades and our city government actually has several individuals who's jobs are to work closely with cyclists and in most cases, it is our commuter's society that provides that voice.

Because of these prolonged effoirts to improve the conditions for cyclists and pedestrians, every new development has to consider the needs of cyclists and pedestrians. This has resulted in a marked increase of dedicated multi use / car free routes available.

Within our city of 1 million there are 400 km of bike paths, bike lanes, and multi use trails that cyclists and pedestrians can use to get around the city but there are always situations where you will have to share the road with vehicles and in these cases, a vehicular approach is often what is needed.

My 13 km commute takes me across the city in a north south direction and of these 13km more than half can be ridden in a car free / car light environment and riders travelling east and west can also enjoy a great deal of dedicated multi use, car free routes.

With that being said, I take the lane when I need to and find that most motorists here are fairly considerate although there will always be those asshats who don't think bikes should be on the road.

If there is a prevalent concern it is that people are fearful of cycle-commuting because of the very real risks one takes in putting themselves in traffic. Even the most experienced cyclists have to acknowledge that as soon as you start sharing space with objects that weigh more than 100 times as much as you do and travel at much higher speeds, your risk of accidents and injury goes way up.

I was in one accident this summer where I was cut off and broadsided a car that pulled out of a blind alley on a quiet residential street and posted bike route and in another instance was clipped by the mirror of a truck that passed me too closely on a very busy 4 lane where I was taking the lane.

I have also had a few incidents on the multi use paths that involved other cyclists who were not riding in a safe manner... there were no injuries incurred and I only suffered minor damage to my bike.

In a perfect world, cyclist and cars would never have to mix and the respective safety of those cyclists would go way up and we see this when we see statistics form European countries where cycling is considered a normal means of transportation and not an anomaly.

Cycling in North America is still seen my most as a recreational activity and not a viable means of transportation and changing this erroneous view will go a long ways to making the roads safer for cyclists

A bike lane does not guarantee your safety but in many areas of our city, we have shared use lanes for buses, taxis, and bicycles and when I ride these I find that I am given respect by the buses and taxis and do feel that I am relatively safer than I would be if I was taking the lane. Very few cars intrude into these lanes due to strict enforcement and fines for drivers who think they can use these dedicated lanes.

I feel that if we increased the amount of dedicated roadways we have for cyclists that would decrease risks and by decreasing the risks we will see more cyclists on the road. Our current level of driver education also needs to be updated to include more information on cyclists and how to safely share the road with non motorized vehicles. Right now, there is pretty much nothing in the curriculum.

The problems we face as cyclists are real and recognized but the solution is not a simple one as it has to be done on so many levels and involve so many disparate groups and individuals.

[genec]

I feel that if we increased the amount of dedicated roadways we have for cyclists that would decrease risks and by decreasing the risks we will see more cyclists on the road. Our current level of driver education also needs to be updated to include more information on cyclists and how to safely share the road with non motorized vehicles. Right now, there is pretty much nothing in the curriculum.

The problems we face as cyclists are real and recognized but the solution is not a simple one as it has to be done on so many levels and involve so many disparate groups and individuals.

Well said overall. Sadly your last paragraph is not quite right... as apparently the problems we face are not fully recognized by some...

[John Forester]

come on, john, just SOME portions of SOME bike lanes are in 'conflict' with 'vehicular cycling. and I've seen proud , anti-facilities forestoties 'vehicle drivers' using bike paths.

john, you support (some) bike paths, if i recall correctly, jon. How about Denver's system of over 100 miles of bike specific paths routing bikes across the city with a minimum of intersection conflict with motorists?

You also concede there are bikelanes that do not violate vehciular principles.

jon, get off the simpleton horse. it isn't flattering. Your prejudices are showing!!!

(and why so rude? you agree with the majority of my comment...)

Please describe the characteristics of the bike lane that does not contradict the rules of the road. This is the second such request for your wisdom; the first was not fulfilled.

[John Forester]

come on, john, just SOME portions of SOME bike lanes are in 'conflict' with 'vehicular cycling. and I've seen proud , anti-facilities forestoties 'vehicle drivers' using bike paths.

john, you support (some) bike paths, if i recall correctly, jon. How about Denver's system of over 100 miles of bike specific paths routing bikes across the city with a minimum of intersection conflict with motorists?

You also concede there are bikelanes that do not violate vehciular principles.

jon, get off the simpleton horse. it isn't flattering. Your prejudices are showing!!!

(and why so rude? you agree with the majority of my comment...)

As I have always said, bike paths that have only infrequent intersections with motor traffic, and those intersections are well managed, present generally low risks of car-bike collision. However, I have also said that such locations are generally few in most urban areas, and, also, might well not be located to serve significant transportational purposes. Bike paths are fine in reasonable locations, but they cannot be relied upon to provide for useful cycling by persons without normal traffic-cycling skills, the ability to operate as drivers of vehicles. I also point out that the traffic on many urban paths is frequently chaotic and so dangerous that it requires slow cycling, which destroys the utility of the path at those times.

[Bekologist]

OK, john, DENVER????? are you PRO or CON? (although, judging from your knowledge of bike lighting, don't expect you to be current regarding ANY aspect of bicycling....)

for or against that system, and expanding that system in Denver metro?

How about using Denver or Minneapolis as examples of american path networks to enhance bicycling in communities? FOR of AGAINST?


your post above is (very) thinly veiled disapproval.

[Bekologist]

john, you have ridden your bike vehicularily in a bike lane. you also have ridden your bike vehicularily on a shoulder.

I'll leave it to you -


why don't YOU describe what makes bike lanes not contradict the rules of the road to allow you to ride in them?

[The Human Car]

... as apparently the problems we face are not fully recognized by some...

IMHO The problem is with the solutions to the recognized problems.

[John Forester]

OK, john, DENVER????? are you PRO or CON? (although, judging from your knowledge of bike lighting, don't expect you to be current regarding ANY aspect of bicycling....)

for or against that system, and expanding that system in Denver metro?

How about using Denver or Minneapolis as examples of american path networks to enhance bicycling in communities? FOR of AGAINST?


your post above is (very) thinly veiled disapproval.

I have not cycled in Denver; all I know is from the maps. It appears that some of the paths shown follow waterways and have few intersections with motor traffic. What volume and type of use these paths attract I do not know.

I have cycled in Minneapolis, where I used to have family cycling connections, (people who cycled across town to UM in St. Paul almost all year round). In those days, the bike path system did not do much for bicycle transportation because it didn't really go to desired destinations. If I have the location right, there is a new bike path using an abandoned railbed, running east-west considerably south of the city center. This benefits from the grade separation that had existed for the rail line. Again, however, I do not know the volume or type of traffic that this attracts.

[John Forester]

john, you have ridden your bike vehicularily in a bike lane. you also have ridden your bike vehicularily on a shoulder.

I'll leave it to you -


why don't YOU describe what makes bike lanes not contradict the rules of the road to allow you to ride in them?

Several of us have described, at length, for decades, why bike lanes contradict the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles. You, Bekologist, have consistently maintained that some bike lanes do not contradict the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles. I have twice requested that you provide the characteristics of those that do not, and you have twice refused. Therefore, as is so frequent in these discussions with bicycle advocate anti-motorist ideologists, this is just one more demonstration that you have no evidence on your side. If you had, you would have been proclaiming it from the housetops. Instead, all you have ever provided are public opinion polls and statistics from other nations that do not demonstrate any scientific knowledge of bicycle transportation engineering.

[WaltPoutine]

OK, john, DENVER????? are you PRO or CON? (although, judging from your knowledge of bike lighting, don't expect you to be current regarding ANY aspect of bicycling....)

What happened? Does he remind you of your father or is it just that you feel that arguing with Forester makes you as relevant as he is?

[genec]

As I have always said, bike paths that have only infrequent intersections with motor traffic, and those intersections are well managed, present generally low risks of car-bike collision. However, I have also said that such locations are generally few in most urban areas, and, also, might well not be located to serve significant transportational purposes. Bike paths are fine in reasonable locations, but they cannot be relied upon to provide for useful cycling by persons without normal traffic-cycling skills, the ability to operate as drivers of vehicles. I also point out that the traffic on many urban paths is frequently chaotic and so dangerous that it requires slow cycling, which destroys the utility of the path at those times.

So if an "urban path" is well designed, has few intersections, and permits fast cycling, then do you find paths acceptable?

[Sixty Fiver]

Well said overall. Sadly your last paragraph is not quite right... as apparently the problems we face are not fully recognized by some...

I should clarify that in that we recognize the problems we face (usually) and I can also understand the position of people who do not walk, or inn this case, ride in our shoes.

Many, even though they may be sympathetic and supportive do not really know what it is like for those who choose to use alternative means of transportation.

The solutions have to be developed by all the stakeholders in this so that all can take ownership and not feel that things are being forced upon them by the other.

This has been going on for the better part of a century and you would think that we would have figured things out by now and again, as it has happened so many times in the past, we find ourselves looking across the pond for answers.

[WaltPoutine]

I agree that having the opinion of such folks is dangerous if used directly to form the basis of what is done on the roads... (even thought really that IS generally what happens when road engineers and motorists share their opinions of what should occur).

I don't even know if it's dangerous. It just seems plain irrelevant.

But consider this, if non cyclists are offering ideas about what they think they need to ride a bike... perhaps we should listen if we expect to ever increase cyclist mode share of all transportation needs.

The practical effect of following many of the policies which such people want will be to convince me to drive a car instead. I currently live in a city which has implemented bi-directional bikepaths on one side only of each street. The non-cyclists here love them. In the winter (which is a damn long season here) they are unmaintained as per city policy. Because it's expected that cyclists are NOT in regular traffic lanes that leads to a certain amount of what seems to be resentment on the part of motorists when they find a cyclist ahead of them.

That's what bike lanes have trained motorists to expect here: bicyclists out of the way in the gutter-ghetto while they speed along at ridiculous velocities in an urban area.

I'd really like you to consider that this is the practical and concrete effect and not just rhetoric, or blind adherence to Forester. Truth be told I've only read a fraction of what he has written.

[WaltPoutine]

So if an "urban path" is well designed, has few intersections, and permits fast cycling, then do you find paths acceptable?

Even if he did that specific question completely omits the important message that you're sending to motorists and cyclists: namely that cyclists should be off the road. The people who yell "get on the sidewalk" have been educated by bike-lane/bike-path lobbyists to expect that bicycles will be out of their way.

[Bekologist]

come on, john, reiterating your tired, dishonest spiel about preffered class lanes for bikes realy doesn't anwser the question.


Bike lanes to the right of faster traffic without frequent intersection junctions ARE vehicular. A bike lane that breaks and continues to the left of right turn lanes IS a vehicular application of a preffered class lane for bicyclists.

Your purportation to the contrary (citing turning traffic, parking traffic, or turning bicyclists) emphatically DO NOT invalidate the vehicularity of well implemented on road bike infrastructure. Just as a vehicle in an HOV lane has to leave the HOV lane to make a right turn, the vehicularity of a bicyclist is preserved in the same manner.

And, john, you've ridden out of the travel lanes, vehicularily, in a bike lane and on a shoulder. are you stating you are NOT riding 'vc' when you are riding in a bike lane like helmet head uses on his partime commute in San Diego?

john, bike lanes can be designed vehicularily. any purportations to the contrary on your part strike out on logic and rely on false machinations and prejudice.

[buzzman]

...The people who yell "get on the sidewalk" have been educated by bike-lane/bike-path lobbyists to expect that bicycles will be out of their way.


I disagree. I have been cycling throughout North America since the late 1960's, long before there were many bike lanes/bike paths, and people have occasionally yelled, "Get on the sidewalk!"- and just as frequently or infrequently as they did then.

It's not a vast conspiracy it's a mindset that some people have- one that I've ignored for 40 years of road cycling. If there is a bike path/lane that serves me and I can move at roughly the same speed as I would on the road I'm only too happy to use it. I enjoy riding in as car-free an environment as possible and see no shame in that. But if I've chosen to ride on the road and someone yells that I'm not going to ignore a good bike path or bike lane to prove them wrong- why let people like that rule my behavior one way or the other. Why do you give them so much power?

[Bekologist]

What happened? Does he remind you of your father or is it just that you feel that arguing with Forester makes you as relevant as he is?

walt-Hardly. my dad is cool and he still rides a bicycle!

john's fallacies strike dischordant with increasing bicycling share and safety in this country.

his tired, pedantic spiel is anathema to american bicycling.

I choose to spend some free time debunking the myths john has created surrounding bicycling. he's wrong and a lot of us know it. john prejudices are so clear you can even see it in print:

'the bicycling advocacy community has distanced itself from the prejudices of john forestor' in a recent Momentum article discussing bicyclist share and accomodations in canada.



john is wrong, his prejudices need to go away.

[WaltPoutine]

I disagree. I have been cycling throughout North America since the late 1960's, long before there were many bike lanes/bike paths, and people have occasionally yelled, "Get on the sidewalk!"- and just as frequently or infrequently as they did then.

That's a useful and interesting observatin. I can't claim anything like as long an experience as that -- especially not in N.America.

It's not a vast conspiracy it's a mindset that some people have

Agreed, and if I've made it sound as though it's a conspiracy then I've failed to be clear in what I'm saying. I don't believe that at all. I do believe however that the mindsets of at least two groups are possibly re-inforcing each other here: the anti-cycling motorists and the anti-motoring cyclists. Both desire segregation rather than equal co-operation and co-existence.

If there is a bike path/lane that serves me and I can move at roughly the same speed as I would on the road I'm only too happy to use it. [...] I'm not going to ignore a good bike path or bike lane to prove them wrong

Of course. I don't refuse to ride in non-dangerous bike paths/lanes solely in order to claim some sort of purity or make some sort of point. I evaluate the situation on its own merits: if it's safe and convenient then I use it. I can put my hand on my heart however and say that I've rarely met one of those beasts. Instead I've encountered stupidly designed, poorly constructed, inconvenient and downright murderous bike paths and lanes with but a few exceptions (and those are usually completely rural long-distance paths).

And I will, and have, gone to great lengths at the local political level to stop any new bike lanes or paths being constructed. It's pretty much an over-riding priority for me now and has resulted in me campaigning actively against several candidates whom I might otherwise have voted for.

[John Forester]

So if an "urban path" is well designed, has few intersections, and permits fast cycling, then do you find paths acceptable?

No. Check your grammar. I would say that any bike path that is well designed, has few intersections, and permits fast cycling is acceptable. Whether or not it was worth the cost depends, of course, on the amount of bicycle transportation that it carries.

[Bekologist]

and what about recreational bicyclists , john? and value to the community?

you, a selfstyled 'transportation engineer' (doubtful), should be able to take an unbiased look at path networks and realize their worth extends FAR beyond facilitating transportational bicycling. Have you taken a new look at Denver or Minneapolis and read what the actual effects have been on the communities at large, and for people that use them? OR are you just regurgitating your personal, biased 'experiences' :roflmao: on a bike path in the 1970's?

And to reiterate a point I made above that john has decided to ignore ('cause he's got no game), HOV lanes and bike lanes both share similar characteristics that do not invalidate the 'vehicularity' of the vehicles using them, despite jon's unfocused and prejudical harangue.

[John Forester]

Bike lanes to the right of faster traffic without frequent intersection junctions ARE vehicular. A bike lane that breaks and continues to the left of right turn lanes IS a vehicular application of a preffered class lane for bicyclists.



So, Bekologist has just above provided the characteristics of well-designed bike lanes. Most interesting, these characteristics.

The bike lane has to be to the right of faster traffic. So, if it is well-designed, the moment that motor traffic slows down, the bike lane moves over to leave the curb lane for the slower traffic. Much the same needs to be said for right-turning traffic. When a motorist comes along who wants to turn right, the bike lane jumps to the left of the motor lane, carrying the cyclist with it. Oh, no, not quite. The bike lane there is discontinuous, giving just enough room for the two confused drivers to collide.

And a well-designed bike lane cannot be on a normal street, but has to be located on a street with infrequent intersections. Well, since the great majority of collisions of all types occur as the result of turning and crossing movements, just eliminating the intersections and driveways makes the street much safer in the first place. Therefore, according to Bekologist, good bikelanes will exist only on the few streets that have few intersections, and, as we know, these streets have most of their intersections controlled by traffic signals. Therefore, according to Bekologist, bike lanes are desirable only on the few safest streets in town.

Bekologist's mental ideological limitations prevent him from understanding what ought to be plain, and has been said for decades. That is, since the positions and movements implied by the bike lane contradict the positions and movements required by the rules of the road, both cyclists and motorists get confused and operate improperly. Of course, as Bekologist so requently reiterates, brilliant cyclists such as myself understand the system so well that we can, nearly always, outwit the bike-lane designer and decide what we should be doing rather than what the bike-lane designer apparently intended. However, that level of understanding is much less frequently found among motorists, and is never found among the beginning cyclists whom Bekologist and his allies hope to attract to bicycle transportation. In short, since bike lanes are for the superbly well-informed, they should never be installed where plain ordinary bicycle traffic is to be expected.

[John Forester]

And to reiterate a point I made above that john has decided to ignore ('cause he's got no game), HOV lanes and bike lanes both share similar characteristics that do not invalidate the 'vehicularity' of the vehicles using them, despite jon's unfocused and prejudical harangue.

The traffic in HOV lanes is limited to vehicles carrying more than one or two passengers (different jurisdiction have different limits), in order that the traffic in the HOV lane travels sufficiently faster that the difference in speed will persuade more people to carpool, thus reducing the number of automobiles traveling to the urban center each morning. All of the HOV lanes that I have ever heard of, and I think all of them, are on roads without intersections, which therefore prevents the major problems associated with bike lanes. Furthermore, the traffic in and around HOV lanes is not classified by vehicle type, but only by the number of passengers. Presumably a bus carrying only its driver would be prohibited from an HOV lane (but the transportation authorities have probably managed an exception for their vehicles). However, any driver of a vehicle that, at that moment, qualifies for the HOV lane has the perfect right to use any lane, and nobody will think the worse of him. There is no expectation that a car with one passenger is any more or less likely to cause a collision than is a car with four passengers. And there is the expectation that all drivers of passenger cars meet the standard qualifications for driving such, regardless of which lane they are using.

In short, the attempt to equate the logic of bike lanes with the logic of HOV lanes is no more than ideological absurdity.

[John Forester]

and what about recreational bicyclists , john? and value to the community?

you, a selfstyled 'transportation engineer' (doubtful), should be able to take an unbiased look at path networks and realize their worth extends FAR beyond facilitating transportational bicycling. Have you taken a new look at Denver or Minneapolis and read what the actual effects have been on the communities at large, and for people that use them? OR are you just regurgitating your personal, biased 'experiences' :roflmao: on a bike path in the 1970's?



Recreational facilities should be paid for out of recreation funds, not transportation funds. That has been a standard criterion for decades. However, it is my understanding that people such as yourself aim to reduce motoring, which means increasing transportational bicycling, not recreational. If you want to promote bicycle recreation, then go to the sporting discussion lists and cease bothering us here on a transportational list.

[Bekologist]

I ignored your argument about HOV lanes because it is so illogical that it wasn't worth answering, though, apparently, its illogicality doesn't reach your ideologically limited understanding. However, you have now asserted that I have no answer, so here it is.

The traffic in HOV lanes is limited to vehicles carrying more than one or two passengers (different jurisdiction have different limits), in order that the traffic in the HOV lane travels sufficiently faster that the difference in speed will persuade more people to carpool, thus reducing the number of automobiles traveling to the urban center each morning. the same can be said of bike lanes. aside from capacity restrictions, SIMILAR, not dissimilar. ONE strike.

All of the HOV lanes that I have ever heard of, and I think all of them, are on roads without intersections, which therefore prevents the major problems associated with bike lanes. and bike lanes between intersections are SIMILAR, not disimilar. Two strikes against your reasoning.


Furthermore, the traffic in and around HOV lanes is not classified by vehicle type, but only by the number of passengers. Presumably a bus carrying only its driver would be prohibited from an HOV lane (but the transportation authorities have probably managed an exception for their vehicles). However, any driver of a vehicle that, at that moment, qualifies for the HOV lane has the perfect right to use any lane, and nobody will think the worse of him. There is no expectation that a car with one passenger is any more or less likely to cause a collision than is a car with four passengers. And there is the expectation that all drivers of passenger cars meet the standard qualifications for driving such, regardless of which lane they are using.

and bicyclists in my state are free to use any lane that motorists are allowed, with the caveat they should not travel in the inside lanes of travel on multiple laned roads unless making a turn. This is a restriction regardless of bike lane stripes, so a far right lane that is classed for bikes DOES NOT prevent bikes where i live from riding in the travel lanes.
SIMILAR, not dissimilar.
THREE STRIKES against your reasoning, jon.

In short, the attempt to equate the logic of bike lanes with the logic of HOV lanes is no more than ideological absurdity.

your weak attempts to dismiss my reasoning have the monopoly on absurdities, jon.

[v1k1ng1001]

We expect our member to show respect for others. Respecting their person, their views, their time and their opinions, and their belief systems ... even if you disagree with them.

http://is2.okcupid.com/users/160/286/16028639719632273897/mt1133492618.jpg

[The Human Car]

One day a driver is driving and on a two lane exit ramp and the stripe between the two lanes ends and he's like: Conflict point! I'm going to crash! What kind of idiotic engineer would design a "merge area" like this?

I really hope no one here identifies with that driver, conflict points happen, the idea is how to make them as safe as possible and a merge area (no striping) is one such commonly used road feature that tells road users to negotiate the right of way.

For example a couple of stills of my ride through a bike lane. Behind me is a parking lane, bike lane (left stripe is bottom center) and a travel lane. Ahead is two travel lanes.
http://photos-d.ak.facebook.com/photos-ak-sf2p/v197/199/49/513493075/n513493075_347407_8564.jpg
To me this looks like a perfectly acceptable merge area.


And to show a little more detail closer to the intersection:
http://photos-a.ak.facebook.com/photos-ak-sf2p/v197/199/49/513493075/n513493075_347408_8904.jpg


The bike lane there is discontinuous, giving just enough room for the two confused drivers to collide.
I don't agree with this assessment.

[The Human Car]

PS. I thought that maybe one more shot that included the bike lane might be helpful.
http://photos-d.ak.facebook.com/photos-ak-sf2p/v197/199/49/513493075/n513493075_347435_1931.jpg

[The Human Car]

PS. I thought that maybe one more shot that included the bike lane might be helpful.
(Sorry about the quality the road is real rough.)

[Bekologist]

how about, "The bike lane is discontinous, giving both drivers the impetus to yield to traffic ahead of them in the road."

I think 'collisions' is a bit strong, dontchyathink?

[Bekologist]

In short, the attempt to equate the logic of bike lanes with the logic of HOV lanes is no more than ideological absurdity.
is that the "transportation engineer" talking, john?

There are abundant similarities between HOV lanes and preffered class bicycle lanes.

[Helmet Head]

Agreed, and if I've made it sound as though it's a conspiracy then I've failed to be clear in what I'm saying. I don't believe that at all. I do believe however that the mindsets of at least two groups are possibly re-inforcing each other here: the anti-cycling motorists and the anti-motoring cyclists. Both desire segregation rather than equal co-operation and co-existence.

:beer:

I need to copy and save this. This is the problem in a nutshell.

[Helmet Head]

Bike lanes to the right of faster traffic without frequent intersection junctions ARE vehicular. A bike lane that breaks and continues to the left of right turn lanes IS a vehicular application of a preffered class lane for bicyclists.


So, Bekologist has just above provided the characteristics of well-designed bike lanes. Most interesting, these characteristics.

The bike lane has to be to the right of faster traffic. So, if it is well-designed, the moment that motor traffic slows down, the bike lane moves over to leave the curb lane for the slower traffic. Much the same needs to be said for right-turning traffic. When a motorist comes along who wants to turn right, the bike lane jumps to the left of the motor lane, carrying the cyclist with it. Oh, no, not quite. The bike lane there is discontinuous, giving just enough room for the two confused drivers to collide.

And a well-designed bike lane cannot be on a normal street, but has to be located on a street with infrequent intersections. Well, since the great majority of collisions of all types occur as the result of turning and crossing movements, just eliminating the intersections and driveways makes the street much safer in the first place. Therefore, according to Bekologist, good bikelanes will exist only on the few streets that have few intersections, and, as we know, these streets have most of their intersections controlled by traffic signals. Therefore, according to Bekologist, bike lanes are desirable only on the few safest streets in town.

Bekologist's mental ideological limitations prevent him from understanding what ought to be plain, and has been said for decades. That is, since the positions and movements implied by the bike lane contradict the positions and movements required by the rules of the road, both cyclists and motorists get confused and operate improperly. Of course, as Bekologist so requently reiterates, brilliant cyclists such as myself understand the system so well that we can, nearly always, outwit the bike-lane designer and decide what we should be doing rather than what the bike-lane designer apparently intended. However, that level of understanding is much less frequently found among motorists, and is never found among the beginning cyclists whom Bekologist and his allies hope to attract to bicycle transportation. In short, since bike lanes are for the superbly well-informed, they should never be installed where plain ordinary bicycle traffic is to be expected.
:beer: :beer:

Wow, this thread is producing some gems. This is a home run even for John Forester. And, I might add, an excellent example of how to disagree with someone, and demolish their argument, without expressing even a hint of personal animosity. Though, I think it might have been a bit more effective without the "Bekologist's mental ideological limitations prevent him from understanding..." assessment.

[Helmet Head]

One day a driver is driving and on a two lane exit ramp and the stripe between the two lanes ends and he's like: Conflict point! I'm going to crash! What kind of idiotic engineer would design a "merge area" like this?

I really hope no one here identifies with that driver, conflict points happen, the idea is how to make them as safe as possible and a merge area (no striping) is one such commonly used road feature that tells road users to negotiate the right of way.

For example a couple of stills of my ride through a bike lane. Behind me is a parking lane, bike lane (left stripe is bottom center) and a travel lane. Ahead is two travel lanes.
http://photos-d.ak.facebook.com/photos-ak-sf2p/v197/199/49/513493075/n513493075_347407_8564.jpg
To me this looks like a perfectly acceptable merge area.


And to show a little more detail closer to the intersection:
http://photos-a.ak.facebook.com/photos-ak-sf2p/v197/199/49/513493075/n513493075_347408_8904.jpg



I don't agree with this assessment.
That's a bike lane? Car drivers are not allowed to travel in it?