John Forester's thinking in Canada's Transportation Planning

[genec]

Before the training, she will probably not be comfortable.
After the training, maybe still.
But after a few weeks of practice, no problem.
People do it all the time.


BS... less than 2% of the nation "does it all the time."
Is that dentist riding yet???

And you have yet to present any method of attracting any newbie cyclists to your training program.

Even the local bike shops don't know if it.

:rolleyes:

[Helmet Head]

BS... less than 2% of the nation "does it all the time."
Is that dentist riding yet???

And you have yet to present any method of attracting any newbie cyclists to your training program.

Even the local bike shops don't know if it.

:rolleyes:
BS??? Just because less than 2% of the nation "does it all the time" does not mean that people do not do it "all the time".

It is true that people eat uni all the time.
It is also true that less than 2% of the nation "does it all the time".

Just because we haven't figured out how to market it effectively yet doesn't mean we should give up our rights to the road in favor of some bizarre fantasy about converting every city in the U.S. into Amsterdam. :rolleyes:

[genec]

Just because we haven't figured out how to market it effectively yet doesn't mean we should give up our rights to the road in favor of some bizarre fantasy about converting every city in the U.S. into Amsterdam. :rolleyes:

Why not... we're doing a fine job of converting every US city into the Indianapolis Motor Speedway?


I notice you keep evading the dentist question... have you been able to get anyone to take up cycling???

[John Forester]

I want someone with the same skill level as the average motorist to be able to ride a bike safely, comfortably and efficiently...

Yes, indeed, a person with the same skill level as the average motorist can ride a bike safely and effectively, because the traffic skills are so close as to be indistinguishable. Whether that person would be comfortable depends entirely on the individual, but those persons who ride in the vehicular manner generally find that they are as comfortable in traffic as any other driver.

[Helmet Head]

Just because we haven't figured out how to market it effectively yet doesn't mean we should give up our rights to the road in favor of some bizarre fantasy about converting every city in the U.S. into Amsterdam.

Why not... we're doing a fine job of converting every US city into the Indianapolis Motor Speedway?

Why is it so hard to understand that most people HAVE NO INTEREST in riding bikes, and, as long as they can motor their way from place to place at a reasonable cost, they are going to prefer doing so over using their own power to get around?

Unless you plan on running for president and managing to become a dictator in the process, a dictator with the political power to eliminate parking lots and garages and onstreet parking and inflate the price of gas to $20/gallon, that interest just isn't going to be there. You can stick your head in the sand and continue denying it, or accept it and move on. Your choice.



I notice you keep evading the dentist question... have you been able to get anyone to take up cycling???
I haven't put much time or energy into it. Again, I don't expect to convert very many people to bicycling as long as motoring remains a viable option.

[randya]

Why is it so hard to understand that most people HAVE NO INTEREST in riding bikes, and, as long as they can motor their way from place to place at a reasonable cost, they are going to prefer doing so over using their own power to get around?
the only reason it appears to be at a reasonable cost is because motoring is heavily subsidized by taxes at all levels, for roads and other infrastructure, for oil wars, etc., and the cost of all the negative side effects are externalized, i.e. the health costs of breathing air polluted by personal motor vehicles, the cost of cleaning up fuel leaks and groundwater pollution at refineries and gas stations, the damage done to DOI-managed public land leased for oil and gas development, etc.

You're the one with your head in the sand, Serge. And the policies of sprawl, as exemplified by the ADC's worshipful reverence for Houston, the largest unzoned city in the country and a huge clusterf*ck of incompatible development, will continue to perpetuate your little assbackwards mythology until the oil runs out. Pretty sad, really.

[noisebeam]

And you're confusing what can be learned by any reasonably healthy adult, and even many children, in a few weeks when accompanied with a little training (from a class or a good book) with 30+ year experience.

Not anywhere near that much experience is required.

Right. A little instruction, and a little practice, and she's ready to go.

Before the training, she will probably not be comfortable.
After the training, maybe still.
But after a few weeks of practice, no problem.
People do it all the time.

That's right. I learned how to cycle comfortably in heavy traffic in 1-2mo - I wasn't even reasonably healthy at the time, 35lbs overweight and half the cycling speed as today. As far as experience duration goes, I am very in-experienced - I've only been at it for a few years (and in those few years also cycled in several countries and larger US cities)
The most important thing a new cyclist can do to learn how to comfortably cycle in traffic is to think about it and strive for improvement in self.

I could have also taken the path to not think much about it and ride on sidewalks and paths.

Why did I choose to be vehicular? I made that choice before I found BFs. I need to think about what led me that direction. Perhaps contributing was one moment I do clearly remember was a non-cyclist, anti-motorist (a hard core environmentalist) who told me, 'oh your cycling in phx, you better know that if you ride on the sidewalk and get in an accident with a car it is your fault.' While they were not 100% legally correct, it did make me look up the rules and learn that riding on the streets is safer.

Al

[John Forester]

Here you go mixing up my 30+ years experience and assuming that all cyclists have the same level of skill.

You are talking apples and oranges.

Not all cyclists are going to have the experience that you, John F, and I, and even noisebeam have.

Try to put yourself in the shoes of a 19 year old co-ed for 10 seconds... remember she can readily drive anywhere... with only 3 years behind the wheel, and only so many weekends of driver's ed. And she does this without reverting to any belief system, nor copping any attitude...

Now put this co-ed on a bike with the same level of training and experience, and ask if she is comfortable among the SUVs and cell phone toting drivers moving by at 45-50MPH.

Ask your dentist again why he doesn't bike commute.

Quit trying to put the onus on me... try thinking about all the other folks out there that are not here on BF and ask why there are so many dusty bikes sitting unused in so many garages.

What is it going to take to get folks to consider using a bike to go 1/2 mile to the store to pick up a carton of milk?

What is it going to take to get elementary school kids to ride bikes to school instead of being taxied by worried moms in oversized SUVS?

Try putting a touch of empathy to work... and consider what newbie cyclists face. Still haven't taught that first class yet and dealt with actual newbie cyclists, eh?

45-50 mph traffic? When I was teaching classes of adults, some young, some middle-aged, many newbies (though, fortunately I never had a class that didn't have a few experienced cyclists in it), I had them doing multiple left turns, one after another, from El Camino Real between Palo Alto and Sunnyvale. Six lane arterial, posted 45 as I remember, with something like 38,000 motor vehicles per day. Certainly, that was the sixth Saturday morning, but not all the preceding was traffic training; we did fun events like 10-mile time trials too. And, I did not warn them in advance, for I had discovered that attendance would be low that morning. But that's what we did for the traffic portion of that day's instruction, right turn onto ECR from a side road, turn left at the next suitable unsignalized intersection, regroup and U-turn on the side street, return to ECR and left turn again at a different intersection. Each person probably did 10 or so left turns sufficiently separated from the others that we were not a group. And afterwards their eyes were shining and they were so happy, because they had discovered that what I had previously told them, and trained them to do on quiet streets, worked just as well on ECR.

[gcottay]

Yes, indeed, a person with the same skill level as the average motorist can ride a bike safely and effectively, because the traffic skills are so close as to be indistinguishable. Whether that person would be comfortable depends entirely on the individual, but those persons who ride in the vehicular manner generally find that they are as comfortable in traffic as any other driver.

Mr. Forester:

I have benefited from your thinking on riding my bike as if it were another vehicle -- just a quick and non-comprehensive summary that fails to do justice to your work.

It seems to me, however, that you detract from your work's credibility by overstatement.

For example:

Although I've not made a lifelong study of the subject, it seems to me bike riding traffic skills are similar to car driving skills are similar to truck driving skills are similar transit bus driving skills but with some obvious differences. Removing "as to be indistinguishable" from your first statement would bring more enthusiastic cyclists along with you.

I read that comfort level depends entirely on the individual with a similar inclination to disagree because of the "entirely." Having read your excellent work, I realize you would never claim that infrastructure, weather, traffic volume and speed etc have no bearing on rider comfort, but that, as written, is how it seems. Lose the "entirely" and, I suggest, you keep more of us students on track with you.

A last example, would be the use of "driver" in reference to a cyclist. Though this does reinforce a significant point, it also ignores what for at least some riders is a significant reason for self-power travel on two or three or four wheels. I ride because I would much rather ride than drive and enjoy riding a vehicle powered by my own engine.

Free advice and perhaps worth the price to you. In any event, thanks for your work.

[noisebeam]

Try to put yourself in the shoes of a 19 year old co-ed for 10 seconds... remember she can readily drive anywhere... with only 3 years behind the wheel, and only so many weekends of driver's ed. And she does this without reverting to any belief system, nor copping any attitude...

She's got a lot of beliefs and attitude that make that possible unfortunately.


Now put this co-ed on a bike with the same level of training and experience, and ask if she is comfortable among the SUVs and cell phone toting drivers moving by at 45-50MPH.

Only because that challenges her previously held beliefs and attitudes about driving.

Al

[Helmet Head]

the only reason it appears to be at a reasonable cost is because motoring is heavily subsidized by taxes at all levels, for roads and other infrastructure, for oil wars, etc., and the cost of all the negative side effects are externalized, i.e. the health costs of breathing air polluted by personal motor vehicles, the cost of cleaning up fuel leaks and groundwater pollution at refineries and gas stations, the damage done to DOI-managed public land leased for oil and gas development, etc.

You're the one with your head in the sand, Serge. And the policies of sprawl, as exemplified by the ADC's worshipful reverence for Houston, the largest unzoned city in the country and a huge clusterf*ck of incompatible development, will continue to perpetuate your little assbackwards mythology until the oil runs out. Pretty sad, really.
I'm against all the subsidizing as you may imagine.

But by about how much do you think the price of motoring is subsidized? Without the subsidizing, how much more would it cost? Double? The pollution created by a car today is a fraction of what a car in the 60s did. What is the cost of that per year, compared to the cost of owning and driving that car? If all roads were tolled, how much more would driving cost - though presumably taxes would be lower too.

How much more would motoring have to cost before you started seeing significant numbers of people switching from biking to motoring?

And don't forget, the cost of biking is subsidized too, since we also don't pay for the roads in order to bike on them.

[Helmet Head]

Yes, indeed, a person with the same skill level as the average motorist can ride a bike safely and effectively, because the traffic skills are so close as to be indistinguishable. Whether that person would be comfortable depends entirely on the individual, but those persons who ride in the vehicular manner generally find that they are as comfortable in traffic as any other driver.
Mr. Forester:

I have benefited from your thinking on riding my bike as if it were another vehicle -- just a quick and non-comprehensive summary that fails to do justice to your work.

It seems to me, however, that you detract from your work's credibility by overstatement.

For example:

Although I've not made a lifelong study of the subject, it seems to me bike riding traffic skills are similar to car driving skills are similar to truck driving skills are similar transit bus driving skills but with some obvious differences. Removing "as to be indistinguishable" from your first statement would bring more enthusiastic cyclists along with you.

Mr. Forester chooses his words carefully, and can be easily misunderstood by someone who does not read with attention.

In this case he specifically wrote, "because the traffic skills are so close as to be indistinguishable". Note that traffic skills are different from operating skills.. It's the operating skills that vary from operating a bike to a car to a bus, not the traffic skills. The differences in traffic skills required are virtually, well, "indistinguishable". A big part of learning to ride a bike comfortably and safely in traffic is learning to apply the traffic skills that you already know as a motor vehicle driver when you're on your bike.


I read that comfort level depends entirely on the individual with a similar inclination to disagree because of the "entirely." Having read your excellent work, I realize you would never claim that infrastructure, weather, traffic volume and speed etc have no bearing on rider comfort, but that, as written, is how it seems. Lose the "entirely" and, I suggest, you keep more of us students on track with you.
But in a given traffic situation, whether a given person would be comfortable does depend entirely on that individual.


A last example, would be the use of "driver" in reference to a cyclist. Though this does reinforce a significant point, it also ignores what for at least some riders is a significant reason for self-power travel on two or three or four wheels. I ride because I would much rather ride than drive and enjoy riding a vehicle powered by my own engine.

Free advice and perhaps worth the price to you. In any event, thanks for your work.
When what you're trying to do is get bicyclists to think and act like drivers, then it makes sense to use that term accordingly.

[Allister]

How much more would motoring have to cost before you started seeing significant numbers of people switching from biking to motoring?

I assume you mean 'motoring to biking' there.

Even a few cents a litre more on the petrol price has seen a noticeable increase not only in bike use, but also scooter use and PT use in my city. It doesn't take much.

And don't forget, the cost of biking is subsidized too, since we also don't pay for the roads in order to bike on them.

:rolleyes: x 1000.

Are you serioulsy going to wheel out that old chestnut that's been destroyed a thousand times before? You sound more like a bonehead motorist every day, Serge.

[Allister]

Why is it so hard to understand that most people HAVE NO INTEREST in riding bikes, and, as long as they can motor their way from place to place at a reasonable cost, they are going to prefer doing so over using their own power to get around?

Which is where bicycle advocacy comes in - generating interest in cycling. What is it that you're doing, if not advocating cycling?

Unless you plan on running for president and managing to become a dictator in the process, a dictator with the political power to eliminate parking lots and garages and onstreet parking and inflate the price of gas to $20/gallon, that interest just isn't going to be there. You can stick your head in the sand and continue denying it, or accept it and move on. Your choice.

Or you can set your goals a little lower and work locally with bike advocacy groups and local governments to effect change. No hyberbole required.

You're the one with your head in the sand if you think it's futile to even try.


I don't expect to convert very many people to bicycling as long as motoring remains a viable option.

LOL. Nice rationalisation of your ineffectiveness.

[joejack951]

That is simply yet another detrimental-to-cyclists effect of the joint effort of anti-cycling motorists and anti-motoring cyclists trying to segregate cyclists from motorists which true cycling advocates like JoeJack are trying to correct. You're not helping.

My court case is the poster child for why paint and path advocacy does cyclists not one bit of good. Without being able to use the road that I was pulled over on, I can NOT leave my neighborhood. In order for me to cycle more than a mile without repeating the same scenery (or to get to work, the grocery store, or to get pizza), I need this road (which has no bike lane and no plans for one) so having rights to use it as a vehicle driver are of the utmost importance to me.

I lost my first court case because both the judge and the cop agreed that cycling as a vehicle driver on that road is too dangerous and I failed to address this (focussing on the actual wording of the law instead). This belief of theirs is so ingrained and they believe with such passion that the law no longer matters to either of them. The cop believed that I should be on the sidewalk and the judge told me that I should go find some roads with bike lanes to cycle on. It's truly incredible how effectively some people have been persuaded that cycling on normal roads as a vehicle driver is certain death. Continuing to push this myth will only cause further harm to cyclists hoping to use the current road system (the most comprehensive set of bikeable paths known to man).

[genec]

LOL. Nice rationalisation of your ineffectiveness.

Isn't amazing... it always comes back to this for the VC crowd... that apparently no one really wants to bicycle... in spite of the US having the highest individual bicycle ownership in the free world.

:rolleyes:

[John Forester]

the only reason it appears to be at a reasonable cost is because motoring is heavily subsidized by taxes at all levels, for roads and other infrastructure, for oil wars, etc., and the cost of all the negative side effects are externalized, i.e. the health costs of breathing air polluted by personal motor vehicles, the cost of cleaning up fuel leaks and groundwater pollution at refineries and gas stations, the damage done to DOI-managed public land leased for oil and gas development, etc.

You're the one with your head in the sand, Serge. And the policies of sprawl, as exemplified by the ADC's worshipful reverence for Houston, the largest unzoned city in the country and a huge clusterf*ck of incompatible development, will continue to perpetuate your little assbackwards mythology until the oil runs out. Pretty sad, really.


Not at all, randya. As long as the costs of motoring to the user are less than the costs of bicycling, motoring will be chosen. Since you have just based your argument on the costs of motoring that are not born by the motorist, then you should be spending your time increasing those costs until cycling becomes cost-effective. Instead of doing what your own argument suggests to be the appropriate strategy, you pester us cyclists by trying to persuade these motorists that the facilities designed by motorists for their own convenience will be so pleasant that these motorists will spontaneously take up cycling, even though motoring is too cheap to give up.

[ghettocruiser]

And don't forget, the cost of biking is subsidized too, since we also don't pay for the roads in order to bike on them.

?

How did this topic get so regionally misrepresented?

All non-freeway roads are paid for entirely by municipal property taxes here. I pay the same (substantial) amount for road infrastructure regardless of whether I drive on it, ride on it, or don't use it at all.

[Blue Order]

?

How did this topic get so regionally misrepresented?

All non-freeway roads are paid for entirely by municipal property taxes here. I pay the same (substantial) amount for road infrastructure regardless of whether I drive on it, ride on it, or don't use it at all.They're also paid for by property tax (and sales tax) where Helmet Head lives.

[The Human Car]

My court case is the poster child for why paint and path advocacy does cyclists not one bit of good. Without being able to use the road that I was pulled over on, I can NOT leave my neighborhood. In order for me to cycle more than a mile without repeating the same scenery (or to get to work, the grocery store, or to get pizza), I need this road (which has no bike lane and no plans for one) so having rights to use it as a vehicle driver are of the utmost importance to me.

Can I ask how many miles of trails and bike lanes (very rough is ok) you have over in Wilmington that caused such a result?

[joejack951]

Can I ask how many miles of trails and bike lanes (very rough is ok) you have over in Wilmington that caused such a result?

Good question. While I have not travelled every road in Wilmington, I've probably been on most of them.

I'd estimate less than 20 miles of bike lanes (all of which exist outside of the city in the suburbs) and less than 15 miles of paths exist in Wilmington. Note that some of the bike lanes are merely shoulders with a bike lane stencil (literally, nothing was done about where right turn lanes overlap the shoulder).

Notable bike lanes are on Marsh Road, Silverside Road, Shipley Road (these 3 roads all intersect or parallel Naamans), Route 48, and Route 52 (more may exist on some very secondary roads but I'm not aware of them). Notable paths are the side path along a short section of 141 near Barley Mill Road (more is planned though), the newly constructed two way path near Astra Zeneca at 141 and 202 (possibly intended for just employees but the bike stencils are painfully obvious from the road), the path connecting Bellevue State Park with Rockland Park, and a short path connecting a nearby neighborhood with Bechtel Park and the neighboring grade school. There are some short paths that connect some of the older north Wilmington (where I live) neighborhoods as well but there are all quite short (1/4 to 1/2 mile long max.).

[Helmet Head]

?

How did this topic get so regionally misrepresented?

All non-freeway roads are paid for entirely by municipal property taxes here. I pay the same (substantial) amount for road infrastructure regardless of whether I drive on it, ride on it, or don't use it at all.
That's like the subsidized tobacco farmer claiming he's not subsidized because he pays his taxes. :rolleyes:

Unless you pay a toll for using a road, your use of it is subsidized. The fact that you pay for the subsidization is another matter, and is largely true for motoring as well.

EDIT: I suppose you could say that motoring is more subsidized than bicycling with respect to externalities like pollution - but like I said earlier, those are being lessoned. Within the next century or two, if not the next few decades, we're almost certainly going to turn to nuclear power and electric personal transport.

[Helmet Head]

Which is where bicycle advocacy comes in - generating interest in cycling. What is it that you're doing, if not advocating cycling?
I believe large numbers can be influenced, like 2% grown to 4% or 6%, but the upper ceiling is probably fairly low, as long as motoring remains relatively affordable and practical.


Or you can set your goals a little lower and work locally with bike advocacy groups and local governments to effect change. No hyberbole required.

I already do both. But that's not going to convert every U.S. city into haveing an Amsterdam like segregated bicycling system, which is what we were talking about.


You're the one with your head in the sand if you think it's futile to even try.

You're distorting what we're talking about in order to further your own cause - denigrate me.
I think it's futile to convert every U.S. city into an Amsterdam, so I don't waste my time and resources fantasizing about that, or advocating plans and programs that are dependent on ultimately achieving that.

I do believe in making modest improvements, particularly in the areas of improving cyclist safety through improved cyclist knowledge and behavior, which in turn should bring us modest increases in people engaging in the activity of bicycling. But any big changes have to come from motoring becoming more and more expensive and less and less practical.


LOL. Nice rationalisation of your ineffectiveness.
Please address the arguments and not make it personal. Thank you.

[randya]

...we're almost certainly going to turn to nuclear power and electric personal transport.
:eek:


what a relief!


:rolleyes:

[buzzman]

I already do both. But that's not going to convert every U.S. city into haveing an Amsterdam like segregated bicycling system, which is what we were talking about.


You're distorting what we're talking about in order to further your own cause - denigrate me.
I think it's futile to convert every U.S. city into an Amsterdam, so I don't waste my time and resources fantasizing about that, or advocating plans and programs that are dependent on ultimately achieving that.



I just did a search of this thread of the word "Amsterdam". Yours is the only post that I can find that refers to Amsterdam.

Who, other than you, said that turning every US city into having an Amsterdam-like segregated bicycling system was the goal? Even the post by Allister to which you were responding made no reference to Amsterdam. And so far as I can see Allister does not even reside in the US. He seemed to me to be talking about cities in general and not US cities particularly.

If anyone is distorting what we're talking about to further their own cause I would venture to say it's you. By reframing the argument you've left little room for real discussion.

The article cited by the OP was:

#1 about North America and primarily Canadian cities (though it did reference the US.)

#2 mentions Europe (Denmark, Netherlands and Germany) but never Amsterdam specifically nor does it make any direct reference to that city. The bicycle infrastructures I have ridden on in France, Switzerland and the Netherlands were different dependent on city and region. They were not all built on the Amsterdam model, which serves Amsterdam well but not every European city as well. The bike paths and lanes of Rotterdam are quite different from Amsterdam. Rotterdam was rebuilt after the 2nd world war and the city has a very different layout to Amsterdam it's bike paths reflect that.

#3 what exactly has your personal experience been when you've ridden in Amsterdam? Did you find that bike infrastructure insufficient for that city? Why do you take issue with it and what does it have to do with this discussion. Please elaborate.

#4 The OP's article said the following:

Our study will examine the association between bicyclists' injuries and the cycling environment (primarily the types of route, including integration or separation of the cyclist from motorized or pedestrian traffic; types of intersection; and presence of car parking and junctions)...The results of this study will provide sound evidence for transportation planners, allowing them to select cycling infrastructure that will improve the safety of cycling in Canadian cities. This should not only reduce the risk of traumatic injuries to cyclists, but, as a result, promote cycling as an urban transportation option, with attendant personal and public health benefits.

it draws no conclusions nor does it promote any specific solution. Instead it says, "allowing them to select cycling infrastructure..." To select implies choices. No where did I get the sense from the article that one particular choice was being promoted. It was a proposal for a study nothing more nothing less.

[Helmet Head]

I just did a search of this thread of the word "Amsterdam". Yours is the only post that I can find that refers to Amsterdam.

Who, other than you, said that turning every US city into having an Amsterdam-like segregated bicycling system was the goal? Even the post by Allister to which you were responding made no reference to Amsterdam. And so far as I can see Allister does not even reside in the US. He seemed to me to be talking about cities in general and not US cities particularly.

I was having a discussion with Gene, into which Allister jumped. That's fine, but he took things out of context. That's not fine. Now you're jumping in, ignoring context again.

Look at post #105. I made every effort to retain context, but you guys still missed it.
The conversation went like this:
HH: ... doesn't mean we should give up our rights to the road in favor of some bizarre fantasy about converting every city in the U.S. into Amsterdam.
GENE: Why not... we're doing a fine job of converting every US city into the Indianapolis Motor Speedway?
Note that he accepts my characterization of the position... some bizarre fantasy about converting every city in the U.S. into Amsterdam... and about that asks: Why not?
It is to that that I replied:"Why is it so hard to understand that most people HAVE NO INTEREST in riding bikes, and, as long as they can motor their way from place to place at a reasonable cost, they are going to prefer doing so over using their own power to get around?

Unless you plan on running for president and managing to become a dictator in the process, a dictator with the political power to eliminate parking lots and garages and onstreet parking and inflate the price of gas to $20/gallon, that interest just isn't going to be there. You can stick your head in the sand and continue denying it, or accept it and move on. Your choice."All of that is captured in one post, #105.
Never-the-less, Allister just grabbed one sentence out of all that: "Why is it so hard to understand that most people HAVE NO INTEREST in riding bikes, and, as long as they can motor their way from place to place at a reasonable cost, they are going to prefer doing so over using their own power to get around?", which is fine, except he interpreted it out of context, twisting the meaning for his own purpose (to belittle his straw man characterization of my position).

He did not interpret that in the context of my explaining why not to Gene with respect to why it is not practical to try and turn every U.S. city into Amsterdam. He ignores all that and suggests "Which is where bicycle advocacy comes in - generating interest in cycling." But generating "some interest in cycling" is not exactly going to turn every U.S. city into Amsterdam.

He also quoted the latter part of that quote, and then commented, "Or you can set your goals a little lower...". Well, sure. But I'm not the one whose goal is to turn every U.S. into Amsterdam, or something like it.



If anyone is distorting what we're talking about to further their own cause I would venture to say it's you. By reframing the argument you've left little room for real discussion.
Take it up with Gene. I was having a discussion with him, and he expressed no issue with that framing. Frankly, I was a bit surprised he did not protest, but was glad to see him being honest about what he was ultimately talking about. In the end, facilities advocates don't have much of a choice. You can be honest like Gene and admit what all this is is just steps towards the ultimate solution: a totally segregated cycling system with separated grade intersections everywhere etc., and we just have to put up with the problems getting there (bike lanes, loss of rights to the roads, etc.), because that's the price we have to pay to achieve this fantastic goal.

The alternative is to try to argue that some well designed facilities here and there are an end in themselves. Well, you won't even get an argument from Forester on that, as long as they truly are well designed facilities. Forester is arguably the biggest advocate of well designed bike paths in California.

All that's left, then, is arguing for poorly designed facilities here and there as an end in itself (anything, however crappy, is better than nothing, as long as it is "for bikes").

Maybe there's some other position in there that I missed... let me know.


The article cited by the OP was:

#1 about North America and primarily Canadian cities (though it did reference the US.)

#2 mentions Europe (Denmark, Netherlands and Germany) but never Amsterdam specifically nor does it make any direct reference to that city. The bicycle infrastructures I have ridden on in France, Switzerland and the Netherlands were different dependent on city and region. They were not all built on the Amsterdam model, which serves Amsterdam well but not every European city as well. The bike paths and lanes of Rotterdam are quite different from Amsterdam. Rotterdam was rebuilt after the 2nd world war and the city has a very different layout to Amsterdam it's bike paths reflect that.

#3 what exactly has your personal experience been when you've ridden in Amsterdam? Did you find that bike infrastructure insufficient for that city? Why do you take issue with it and what does it have to do with this discussion. Please elaborate.

#4 The OP's article said the following:



it draws no conclusions nor does it promote any specific solution. Instead it says, "allowing them to select cycling infrastructure..." To select implies choices. No where did I get the sense from the article that one particular choice was being promoted. It was a proposal for a study nothing more nothing less.
I was having a discussion with Gene that branched off from that, and I, for one, was not talking about the details in the OP or the article cited at all. That's what happens in these threads. It's how discussion naturally evolves.

I've never been to Amsterdam. What I mean by Amsterdam is not the specifics, but having a very segregated system for which it is famous, much like the photos Gene posted when he went on his recent trip to northern Europe. I assumed Gene understood I was talking in generalities and not specifics in terms of "turning every U.S. city into Amsterdam". He was responding as if he had that understanding. Note that his analogy was "converting every US city into the Indianapolis Motor Speedway" Obviously, he did not literally mean race courses, just as I literally did not mean "exactly like Amsterdam".

[Allister]

Unless you pay a toll for using a road, your use of it is subsidized. The fact that you pay for the subsidization is another matter, and is largely true for motoring as well.


You need to learn the difference between 'subsidised' and 'publicly funded'.

[Allister]

I believe large numbers can be influenced, like 2% grown to 4% or 6%, but the upper ceiling is probably fairly low, as long as motoring remains relatively affordable and practical.

For many trips, cars are already expensive and impractical, and yet they are still used far too regularly for these trips by people that never even consider an alternative. You're underestimating the force of habit.

I already do both. But that's not going to convert every U.S. city into haveing an Amsterdam like segregated bicycling system, which is what we were talking about.

You're the only one talking about that, Serge.

Just because you can't replicate Amsterdam everywhere, it doesn't mean that cities can't make significant differences in the way they move people about, of which increased bicycling is only a small part.

You're distorting what we're talking about in order to further your own cause - denigrate me..

You should get someone to look at that persecution complex there, Serge. My only 'cause' if I have one, is to correct some of the more ridiculous comments that I see. It only seems like I pick on you because you make so many of them.

I think it's futile to convert every U.S. city into an Amsterdam, so I don't waste my time and resources fantasizing about that, or advocating plans and programs that are dependent on ultimately achieving that.

That's fine, but why stand in the way of those that do have a bit of optimism and vision?

I do believe in making modest improvements, particularly in the areas of improving cyclist safety through improved cyclist knowledge and behavior, which in turn should bring us modest increases in people engaging in the activity of bicycling.

We all do what we think is best, but your hope that education will increase ridership is naive. "Improved cyclist knowledge and behavior" can only have an effect on people that are already riding, by it's very definition.

Tell me, have you seen anyone take up riding as a result of your VC proselytising?

But any big changes have to come from motoring becoming more and more expensive and less and less practical.


And that's already happening. 'Big' changes are merely the result of lots of little changes over time, and the time to start making those little changes is now. You're not helping.

Please address the arguments and not make it personal. Thank you.

Truth hurts, eh?

[WaltPoutine]

Why is it so hard to understand that most people HAVE NO INTEREST in riding bikes, and, as long as they can motor their way from place to place at a reasonable cost, they are going to prefer doing so over using their own power to get around?

Unless you plan on running for president and managing to become a dictator in the process, a dictator with the political power to eliminate parking lots and garages and onstreet parking and inflate the price of gas to $20/gallon, that interest just isn't going to be there. You can stick your head in the sand and continue denying it, or accept it and move on. Your choice.

It surprises me that there is any disagreement on this point. Motoring is easy, socially acceptable and relatively cheap in N.America. People have already invested huge amounts of money and time in making it as comfortable for themselves as possible. If you consider the inertia in trying to get people to switch from any set of engrained habits to new ones (I'm familiar mostly with replacing Microsoft-based small-to-medium business computing environments with Free/Open systems) even if the new habits rationally offer huge advantages in the long-term then it is unreasonable to expect that there will be large conversions to cycling.

I hope I'm not taking him out of context here or misunderstanding him (I can go back and dig out the quotes which to me appear to support my interpretation) but it seems to me that "genec" believes that the provision of a few bike lanes will result in a significant increase in the cycling population.

That seems to me to miss several points:

1. Examples of cities in which there is apparently a correlation between high (compared to N.America) cycling numbers and extensive provision of bike lanes miss the point that the bike lanes were developed in response to high cycling populations. Not the other way around. These were cities which already had a cycling culture.

2. There are examples (from the UK and Republic of Ireland) in which the provision of bike lanes can be seen to correlate with a decrease in the number of cyclists. This decrease is especially pronounced among younger road users.

3. Many non-cyclists declare inconvenience and social image (sweat, messy hair, looking stupid) as a factor which stops them riding. I think this point is bolstered by the evidence of recent increases in cycling (e.g. in Los Angeles centered around groups like Midnight Ridazz) being a fashion/trend driven surge. Once bicycling (especially fixed-gear, tallbike, singlespeed) became perceived as outlaw-chic (thanks mostly to bike messengers very visible panache) then quite a lot of people that had low interest previously became involved. Some of them will probably retain a lifelong interest.

4. The other big factor obviously is fear and danger. This is the one that sees parents stopping their teenage kids from riding to school, which increases the number of cars on the road, which increases the perceived danger. This aspect is played up by everyone: helmet manufacturers and helmet pushers (check the archives of this very forum), bike lane advocates, cycling advocates (who seem to feel that the constant regurgitation of unfortunate cyclist fatalities and accidents is appropriate (imagine a motoring forum where the details of every car crash are picked over? [1]) and above all motorists.

I'd argue that the net effect of "professional advocates of bike facilities" is to present a distorted picture of risk to everyone concerned. To some extent these very forum pages create an echo chamber which makes it seem as though getting on a bicycle is a dangerous, risky business and that there is no way that anyone sane would do it unless their behind a massive crash barrier travelling at 8 mph.

[1] The distortion of risk perception is, I feel, something which we don't pay enough attention to. A recent Psychology Today article suggests some of the ways in which we get tricked. I'd suggest that we're contributing to Effect II:
http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/pto-20071228-000005.html

Anyway, it seems like this isn't going anywhere at the moment. I'd just like the bike lane advocates to make an apology for the vast majority of what they, the government and Shell/Exxon have foisted upon me and to issue a thanks to the parsimonious, penny-pinching politicians that did not want to construct such white elephants. Here's a big thumbs down to the miles of door-zone bike lanes all over the world constructed in the name of "environmentalism" and "safety".

[genec]

Take it up with Gene. I was having a discussion with him, and he expressed no issue with that framing. Frankly, I was a bit surprised he did not protest, but was glad to see him being honest about what he was ultimately talking about. In the end, facilities advocates don't have much of a choice. You can be honest like Gene and admit what all this is is just steps towards the ultimate solution: a totally segregated cycling system with separated grade intersections everywhere etc., and we just have to put up with the problems getting there (bike lanes, loss of rights to the roads, etc.), because that's the price we have to pay to achieve this fantastic goal.



Lets be completely honest here... if you go back and follow the thread where I came in, I did specify "high speed arterials." I have no intention nor expectation of turning every city into Oulu, where indeed cycling was wonderfully fully segregated.

I do have an opinion that here in the US we can do a far better job of taking care of cyclists than we now do. We have the technology to build fantastic roadways, and the design of roadways can and should take cyclists into mind. I envision nothing more than a system of lower speed roads such as the current residential streets, with connecting paths where high speed arterials run as 50-60MPH "urban freeways;" and I envision bike boulevards which include traffic calming where paths are impractical. I also envision bike freeways similar to auto freeways, to permit fast cross town trips. The basic idea is to limit the interaction between motorists and cyclists on high speed roads.

The bottom line is that the same care should be given to the design of bikeways that goes into designing all other roads, to encourage cycling as both a means of recreation and transportation.

Now neither cyclists nor motorists WANT to deal with each other on the roadways... Cyclists would prefer nice quiet roads without cars... and motorists would prefer to drive fast without impedance. Vehicular cycling denies this basic truth... and in doing so, it's advocates deny any forward progress of well designed bikeways.

The reality is that the general public wants a segregated system... and VC denies this, and rants about this desire of the general public as a "motoring establishment agenda" and the desire of cyclists as "childish..." Nothing could be further from the truth.

[genec]

The bottom line is: In the meantime, there is consistent evidence that there is "safety in numbers." This suggests that successful measures to increase the percent of trips made by bicycle will also make cycling safer.


And since vehicular cycling has never shown to encourage cycling anywhere... that fact alone puts it in a negative light.

[WaltPoutine]

Cyclists would prefer nice quiet roads without cars...

I really do not care if there are cars on the road as long as they're driven in a manner which is safe and reasonable. I quite enjoy cycling in high traffic cities. I also like long, quiet rides in the countryside with hardly a car every ten minutes. Cars are not a problem as long as their drivers understand that I'm on the road behaving as a vehicle just like them. And the majority of motorists, with a few exceptions, seem to understand this.

The reality is that the general public wants a segregated system...

The reality is that the general public doesn't think about bicycling. And when they do their thinking is partly informed by viewpoints promoted in the media and in NGOs and local government by people that in the main do not believe that VC is the solution. So we get a circular feedback. Bike lane pushers are educating the public that bicyclists need bike lanes because it is dangerous to be in traffic. Thus, when they think about it, the public believes that cyling is dangerous and they won't do it without bikelanes. And bikelanes cost money and reduce parking space so they don't want bikelanes so they don't cycle.

The only part of that loop which it is possible for us to remove is the idea that cycling in regular traffic is dangerous. You're doing the exact opposite of that.

and VC denies this, and rants about this desire of the general public as a "motoring establishment agenda" and the desire of cyclists as "childish..." Nothing could be further from the truth.

Well, maybe "childish" is a bit too inflammatory and insulting (and truth be told there are some children that have a better knowledge of safe cycling than some adults) but you can hardly deny that motorists, government and the semi-professional advocates/activists (who derive some of their organisations' funding from a government which is deeply in thrall to the interests of big oil) have all worked together to the practical detriment of cyclists for years.

Basically it ain't broke. Don't tinker with it.

[genec]

I really do not care if there are cars on the road as long as they're driven in a manner which is safe and reasonable. I quite enjoy cycling in high traffic cities. I also like long, quiet rides in the countryside with hardly a car every ten minutes. Cars are not a problem as long as their drivers understand that I'm on the road behaving as a vehicle just like them. And the majority of motorists, with a few exceptions, seem to understand this.


I love the fact that your statement above has so many caveats... just like the statements that John Forester uses... He too mentions that as long as drivers behave in a proper manner and obey the laws and rules, cycling on the road is perfectly safe.

45,000 people die in the US each year because some driver did not "behave in a proper manner and obey the laws and rules..."

45,000 deaths annually is not exactly an illustration of "it ain't broke."

How much more evidence do you need?

[WaltPoutine]

It's just a correlation. It has not been demonstrated that other road users are practically more aware of cyclists due to increasing numbers. I find it plausible, but stating it as a proven causation is inaccurate.

And since vehicular cycling has never shown to encourage cycling anywhere... that fact alone puts it in a negative light.

There is no evidence that VC increases or decreases the number of cyclists. There is evidence that it stops people getting run over by garbage trucks because they were forced into a bikelane by some Machiavellian "bike advocate" that calculated that a few deaths on crap facilities is worth it to get the numbers up so that the overall deaths go down. Note, I'm not accusing you "genec" of this in particular. I'm arguing that this is the net result of such thinking and it seems that many people are blinding themselves to the practical consequences of such arguments.

[WaltPoutine]

I love the fact that your statement above has so many caveats...

I distrust any of your statements which lack caveats. It suggests blind adherence to ideology and a rigidity in thinking. Nothing is simple and anyone painting a simple picture is either distorting or else has not examined a problem enough.

[genec]

It's just a correlation. It has not been demonstrated that other road users are practically more aware of cyclists due to increasing numbers. I find it plausible, but stating it as a proven causation is inaccurate.



There is no evidence that VC increases or decreases the number of cyclists. There is evidence that it stops people getting run over by garbage trucks because they were forced into a bikelane by some Machiavellian "bike advocate" that calculated that a few deaths on crap facilities is worth it to get the numbers up so that the overall deaths go down. Note, I'm not accusing you "genec" of this in particular. I'm arguing that this is the net result of such thinking and it seems that many people are blinding themselves to the practical consequences of such arguments.

The real solution is to get ride of "crap facilities."

Expecting to train each and every cyclist also suggests "blind adherence to ideology and a rigidity in thinking."

[The Human Car]

Now neither cyclists nor motorists WANT to deal with each other on the roadways... Cyclists would prefer nice quiet roads without cars... and motorists would prefer to drive fast without impedance. Vehicular cycling denies this basic truth... and in doing so, it's advocates deny any forward progress of well designed bikeways.

The reality is that the general public wants a segregated system... and VC denies this, and rants about this desire of the general public as a "motoring establishment agenda" and the desire of cyclists as "childish..." Nothing could be further from the truth.

What really concerns me in all this, in the fight against a segregated system it seems the VC crowd is shooting themselves in the foot. In theory they should like/want WOL and shoulders but in the fight against segregation we get zip.

[noisebeam]

What really concerns me in all this, in the fight against a segregated system it seems the VC crowd is shooting themselves in the foot. In theory they should like/want WOL and shoulders but in the fight against segregation we get zip.
Round here cycling advocates have successfully worked with ADOT so new roads have a 16' outside lane instead of originally designed 12-14'. Now it is part of baseline design for new roads.
Al

[Bekologist]

As long as the costs of motoring to the user are less than the costs of bicycling, motoring will be chosen..

if that were the case, most people would be bicycling, john- over half of all private trips in the USA are two miles or less. Obviously something other than 'cost' affects our paltry ride share in North America.

John, you err with your simpleminded economic analysis of bicycling versus the cost of motoring. economic 'costs' are NOT the only consideration. a host of studies have shown this, perhaps your 'engineering' prejudices prevent you seeing this- it's not just a 'cost' analysis.

Envirnonment and 'comfort' for the participants influence people about bicycling as much if not more than the 'cost' of doing so.

[The Human Car]

Round here cycling advocates have successfully worked with ADOT so new roads have a 16' outside lane instead of originally designed 12-14'. Now it is part of baseline design for new roads.
Tempe is doing some marvelous stuff and I assume it is do in part with the stress on being a designated Bicycle Friendly City. My personal take on the BFC levels is once a city gets beyond the Bronze level it gets a more holistic approach to bicycling advocacy.

If you have a link for the 16' outside lane road design I would appreciate it.

[Helmet Head]

You need to learn the difference between 'subsidised' and 'publicly funded'.
Your comments are appreciated Allister, but I suggest they would be more effective if they were less personal. Instead of "You need to learn ...", just point out that there is a difference.

Anyway, I know the difference. My point is that there is a lot of overlap.
That was the point of my example about the subsidized farmer claiming he is not subsidized because he pays his taxes.

[invisiblehand]

You really should talk to Allen about VA issues, PM me if you don't have his email address.

Allen M ...? I have a hard time making these meetings. I see him at WABA meetings when I show up every blue moon. But they meet in Bethesda which is a pretty inconvenient hike for me.

[invisiblehand]

if that were the case, most people would be bicycling, john- over half of all private trips in the USA are two miles or less. Obviously something other than 'cost' affects our paltry ride share in North America.

John, you err with your simpleminded economic analysis of bicycling versus the cost of motoring. economic 'costs' are NOT the only consideration. a host of studies have shown this, perhaps your 'engineering' prejudices prevent you seeing this- it's not just a 'cost' analysis.

Envirnonment and 'comfort' for the participants influence people about bicycling as much if not more than the 'cost' of doing so.

What benefits and costs do you think enters into the average person's mind when deciding to drive or bike to -- for instance -- the supermarket?

EDIT: Bek, you are not the only one alluding to this; so my question is not an attempt to pick on you personally. This is a more general statement. Comfort and fun are "benefits and costs" in a non-pecuniary sense. But just like you are willing to say pay money for a movie or a vacation, there is a mapping between the two.

[Bekologist]

its not just the economic cost analysis that drives them to drive to the store, epistimologist.

studies have shown people consider the environment and their comfortability when the consider bicycling. any bonifide 'transportation engineer' should be able to recognize how environment shapes choices.

given a store three blocks away, on a 50MPH narrow laned arterial with lots of passing traffic, very few will consider riding a bike. Improve the environment to reflect more human scaled transportation, and more people will ride. john's denial of this further reinforces his prejudices for all to see. it belies his purported 'engineer' moniker. his prejudices have debased john into a ' bicycle transportation obstructionist' rather than a 'bicycle transportation engineer'

[genec]

Round here cycling advocates have successfully worked with ADOT so new roads have a 16' outside lane instead of originally designed 12-14'. Now it is part of baseline design for new roads.
Al

That is a start. Now what are the speed limits on those roads? What is the speed traffic actually drives?

The biggest issue with a plain old WOL is that they invite fast speeds with those wide lanes.

Now if they made narrow lanes instead, and made the most outside lane a narrow lane with sharrows or some other calming method... then perhaps these roads would be quite cyclist friendly.

[noisebeam]

Tempe is doing some marvelous stuff and I assume it is do in part with the stress on being a designated Bicycle Friendly City. My personal take on the BFC levels is once a city gets beyond the Bronze level it gets a more holistic approach to bicycling advocacy.

If you have a link for the 16' outside lane road design I would appreciate it.

This was not a Tempe thing. It was with ADOT, mainly with new roads being built in the outer limits of the city.
I disagree about Tempe doing marvelous stuff related to cycling. Focus in on MUP in park like settings (i.e not transportational) and traffic calming on 25mph streets with added BLs, bulb-outs and speed humps.
examples: http://www.tempe.gov/tim/ (see the first three hot topics)
http://www.tempe.gov/tim/Bike/BicycleProjects.htm

Al

[Helmet Head]

Lets be completely honest here... if you go back and follow the thread where I came in, I did specify "high speed arterials." I have no intention nor expectation of turning every city into Oulu, where indeed cycling was wonderfully fully segregated.
Yes, I know that. But that's a lot of words to repeat every time you want to express that, and saying "converting every city in the U.S. into Amsterdam" means the same thing, and is shorter to say. That is, that interpretation words for me, and everything I said about it is consistent with that interpretation.


I do have an opinion that here in the US we can do a far better job of taking care of cyclists than we now do.

I don't think "we" should be taking care of anybody. People should take care of themselves. And I don't mean drivers taking care of drivers and cyclists taking care of cyclists. I mean each driver taking care of himself, and each cyclist taking care of himself.

But if you want to characterize making sure that traffic signal recognize cyclists as "'we' taking care of cyclists", okay.


We have the technology to build fantastic roadways, and the design of roadways can and should take cyclists into mind. I envision nothing more than a system of lower speed roads such as the current residential streets, with connecting paths where high speed arterials run as 50-60MPH "urban freeways;" and I envision bike boulevards which include traffic calming where paths are impractical. I also envision bike freeways similar to auto freeways, to permit fast cross town trips. The basic idea is to limit the interaction between motorists and cyclists on high speed roads.

Help me see your vision. I can see a path out of Sorrento Valley through the hills west of I-5 to take you up to Genessee. But I can't envision how southbound cyclist traffic on Genessee would be able to get onto that path, short of a multi-million dollar separated grade crossing. Heck, we can't even figure out a sane way onto the Rose Canyon path which has been there, what, 20 years? And those are the easy ones. How do you envision getting from the top of La Jolla Shores Drive to UTC without putting the cyclist on high speed arterials? From Clairemont to UC? From the bottom of La Jolla Shores to the n/w end of Clairemont Mesa Blvd? Where would you put these bike boulevards and bike paths? And remember, you can't rely on using university or high school property - that's technically private and not available for public transportation purposes. If you can envision that, let me know. In the mean time, I'm going to continue to use and promote the vehicular method on existing surface streets, high speed arterial or not. It might not be ideal, but it is reality.


The bottom line is that the same care should be given to the design of bikeways that goes into designing all other roads, to encourage cycling as both a means of recreation and transportation.
It is not the job of planners to encourage anything in particular, nor should it be. It is their job to meet existing demand.


Now neither cyclists nor motorists WANT to deal with each other on the roadways... Cyclists would prefer nice quiet roads without cars... and motorists would prefer to drive fast without impedance. Vehicular cycling denies this basic truth... and in doing so, it's advocates deny any forward progress of well designed bikeways.

The reality is that the general public wants a segregated system... and VC denies this, and rants about this desire of the general public as a "motoring establishment agenda" and the desire of cyclists as "childish..." Nothing could be further from the truth.
The "reality" that you say the public wants sounds like total fantasy to me. But let me know what you envision for the problem routes I noted above.

[Helmet Head]

The reality is that the general public doesn't think about bicycling. And when they do their thinking is partly informed by viewpoints promoted in the media and in NGOs and local government by people that in the main do not believe that VC is the solution. So we get a circular feedback. Bike lane pushers are educating the public that bicyclists need bike lanes because it is dangerous to be in traffic. Thus, when they think about it, the public believes that cyling is dangerous and they won't do it without bikelanes. And bikelanes cost money and reduce parking space so they don't want bikelanes so they don't cycle.

The only part of that loop which it is possible for us to remove is the idea that cycling in regular traffic is dangerous. You're [Genec] doing the exact opposite of that.

Exactly. :beer:

Think about that Gene. Do you recognize the existence of the reinforcing feedback loop?

Cycling in traffic is dangerous->Bikes on roads is dangerous->Cars/bikes must be separated->Government takes steps to separate cars/bikes with segregated facilities->When cars/bike are not separated it is dangerous->Bikes in traffic is dangerous->...

Do you see that it's a problem? That it is anti-cycling? Do you see that Walt is correct about the only way for us to interrupt the loop is to address the notion that cycling in traffic is dangerous? Do you see that the facilities advocacy you favor does the exact opposite?

[Helmet Head]

As long as the costs of motoring to the user are less than the costs of bicycling, motoring will be chosen..

if that were the case, most people would be bicycling, john- over half of all private trips in the USA are two miles or less. Obviously something other than 'cost' affects our paltry ride share in North America.

John, you err with your simpleminded economic analysis of bicycling versus the cost of motoring. economic 'costs' are NOT the only consideration. a host of studies have shown this, perhaps your 'engineering' prejudices prevent you seeing this- it's not just a 'cost' analysis.

Envirnonment and 'comfort' for the participants influence people about bicycling as much if not more than the 'cost' of doing so.
Please stop with the personal attacks, Beck.

I could say that it is your simpleminded understanding of economics and "cost" that is making it difficult for you to understand what Forester means, but that too would be a personal attack so I won't do it.

I will point out that when Forester writes of the "costs of motoring to the user" and the "costs of bicycling", he's not talking only about costs paid for with money. Physical effort is a cost. Time is a cost. Relative lack of carrying capacity (for material as well as passengers) of a bike relative to a car is a cost. All of that, and more, goes into the cost analysis. And as long that analysis continues to prove motoring to be less costly to the user than bicycling, costs based on his own perceptions, values and preferences, the user is going to continue to choose motoring over bicycling.

Note that similar cost analysis explains why more people choose bicycling in areas where they do (like Portland and Amsterdam).

[Helmet Head]

That is a start. Now what are the speed limits on those roads? What is the speed traffic actually drives?

The biggest issue with a plain old WOL is that they invite fast speeds with those wide lanes.

Now if they made narrow lanes instead, and made the most outside lane a narrow lane with sharrows or some other calming method... then perhaps these roads would be quite cyclist friendly.
The plain old WOL does invite fast speeds, all over the lane, including the margin, when cyclists are not present. And that's GOOD for cycling, because it keeps the entire lane, including the margin, free of debris.

When a properly positioned cyclist is present, then motorists do slow down and adjust left to pass safely. So the overtaking speed differential is lower than it would be if they didn't slow down.

Note that if you add a bike lane stripe to such a WOL there are two immediate effects:
Debris is no longer being constantly swept by motor traffic from the margin.
Motorists are much less inclined to slow down or adjust laterally before overtaking a cyclist.As far as striping the road to have a shared narrow outside lane, that's my preference too (with or without sharrows). But good luck trying to get someone like John E to agree to such a design on a road like Palomar Airport Rd.