John Forester's thinking in Canada's Transportation Planning

[genec]

The main focus of VC is not to be against bike facilities. That's a secondary focus. The main focus is the promotion of the right of cyclists to act like vehicle drivers on the road. Another secondary focus is the advocacy of cyclists acting like vehicle drivers when riding on roads.

The reason opposition to segregated bike facilities is a focus at all is because to act like a vehicle driver it is essential to think and feel like a vehicle driver, and segregated facilities work to inhibit and discourage that.

And yet motorists (vehicle drivers) are quite fine with their "segregated facilities..." otherwise known as Freeways...

Ever use a freeway? Notice the smooth unobstructed flow of traffic?

[genec]

Bek, I've seen firsthand the results of people putting in bikelanes. It's bad. Really bad. There are bonafide studies showing correlations between the introduction of facilities and the decline in cycling. That's what bike facilities thinking has accomplished over thirty years: a failure. There has been NO comparable attempt in terms of funding and promotion to make VC a priority and judging by the rhetoric here that will continue to be the case.

Walt... where did such films as One Got Fat (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQgAMkMmsfg) come from?

Or how about this 1950 bike safety film... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1QEKTZyQmwk

Where did these come from? How long ago was this sort of cycling promoted?

Vehicular cycling works... in the proper context... it fails miserably when roads are taken to the extreme of the 85 percentile rule and begin to more resemble Freeways then urban and residential streets. Forester even mentions in his writing that negotiation between motorist and cyclist becomes difficult at speed differentials of 15MPH or more... which is easily what is experienced by cyclist riding even at 20MPH on a 50MPH arterial (where motorists are driving at perhaps 60MPH). When suburban arterials are signed at speeds of 50, 55, and 60 MPH... bike lanes are NOT the answer... neither is "sharing the road."

If the motoring public intends to treat arterials as Freeways... then they must provide for other slower traffic. That is my thrust for "extensive networks of bike superhighways routed through hyperspace to connect Utopia to the suburbs of Never-never Land" as you so ungraciously put it.

Vehicular cycling works well when all participants on the roadways follow the rules, written and otherwise... But there is significant evidence that even that does not occur... based on the 45,000 deaths of motorists annually.

So get off your high horse and look at reality.

[The Human Car]

The main focus of VC is not to be against bike facilities. That's a secondary focus. The main focus is the promotion of the right of cyclists to act like vehicle drivers on the road. Another secondary focus is the advocacy of cyclists acting like vehicle drivers when riding on roads.

The reason opposition to segregated bike facilities is a focus at all is because to act like a vehicle driver it is essential to think and feel like a vehicle driver, and segregated facilities work to inhibit and discourage that.

Being first or second does not negate the fact that the issue has a major focus. Maintaining that the current road system promotes cyclists to act like vehicle drivers on the road while wrong way and sidewalk riding remain a significant problem on our roadways is just plain and simply, wrong.

All the hows and whys of why WOLs, shoulders, rail trails and stream valley trails are OK and other bike facilities "work to inhibit and discourage" cyclists act like a vehicle driver is just double speak.

[Helmet Head]

Being first or second does not negate the fact that the issue has a major focus.
Agreed, but you said opposing segregated facilities was the main focus of VC which it is not.


Maintaining that the current road system promotes cyclists to act like vehicle drivers on the road while wrong way and sidewalk riding remain a significant problem on our roadways is just plain and simply, wrong.

Agreed, except I don't know anyone who maintains that the current road system promotes cyclists to act like vehicle drivers on the road. I, for one, just don't know of anything that it does to inhibit or discourage it.


All the hows and whys of why WOLs, shoulders, rail trails and stream valley trails are OK and other bike facilities "work to inhibit and discourage" cyclists act like a vehicle driver is just double speak.
You have written nothing that I can discern that would explain why you think bike lanes work to inhibit and discourage cyclists from acting like vehicle drivers is double speak.

[Bekologist]

it very interesting, barry... the bike lane treatments on Maui are vehicular in design for thru traffic with lots of intersection redesigns and signage directing motorists and bicyclists both as to the proper vehicular operation mixing faster motorized traffic with bicyclists at intersections.

It's very interesting as Maui has only so many roads, and the main ones are quite considerate for vehicular cycling in the bike lanes!

[Helmet Head]

And yet motorists (vehicle drivers) are quite fine with their "segregated facilities..." otherwise known as Freeways...

Ever use a freeway? Notice the smooth unobstructed flow of traffic?
This would be relevant if someone was arguing that segregation alone is the problem.
But no one is arguing that.

The problem is segregation of bicyclists from vehicle drivers. If, say, a separate road was set up for bicyclists, and legally recognized as a road and subject to all the same rules of the road, including requiring cyclists to act like drivers on this bikes-only road, then I would be fine with that.

The problem I have is when a portion of the road is demarcated as "bikes only, except ..." and is subject to different rules (particularly at intersections), or when there is separate pavement that is treated more like a free-for-all sidewalk than an orderly road.

[John Forester]

Apparently no one but yourself understands "vehicular cycling." You criticized even your strongest proponent here not too long ago when you declared his entries on wikipedia as written by someone that doesn't understand "vehicular cycling" at all.

Sorry John... it appears that unless we pass some secret set of standards known only to you... apparently no one knows "vehicular cycling."

Don't be so silly at this late date. Vehicular cycling is operating according to the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles. These are general rules and there is quite a lot of permitted variation in exactly how they are obeyed.

[The Human Car]

In any case I'm unsure as to what you're arguing here. Are you arguing that bikelanes stop cyclists riding against traffic, on the sidewalk or being a gutter bunny? Because if you are then you've not been watching how the novice cyclists whom "genec" wants to lure out onto the road with no VC training behave.

My "argument" is for VC advocates to stress the positive issues of their camp as it is counterproductive to go around fighting bike lanes without something superior in its place.

One example does not set a baseline trend.


I've attempted (albeit in a small way) to educate friends and family about some basic VC principals. It's been effective with some of them. You and "genec" on the other hand seem to be doing your darndest to denigrate VC training as the primary focus of bicycling advocacy.

It is my opinion that fighting bike lanes "denigrate VC training as the primary focus of bicycling advocacy."

It's not me or Gene that is doing this, it is the very elite of the VC camp.


There has been no massive amount of government funding going into promoting VC. As soon as tens of millions of dollars are trickled through the eager paws of the functionaries (currently promoting bikelanes which they know increase the chances of some poor kid being squashed by a bus or a truck) into the active teaching of VC then you can declare it a failure.

This just shows you how out of touch a lot of the VC camp is. Safe Routes To School money IS available for education and I have applied for Grant for an educational program but lost out to this (http://www.onelesscar.org/resources_safe.php). Even within Park & Recs (you probably know them as the folks that make totally useless trails for transportation purposes) I helped get them interested in providing safety training. A lot can be gained by just pursing your own agenda without fighting everyone else's agenda.


As things stand the vast majority of funding either obtained through government infrastructure projects or raised by 501c3 organizations is spent on lobbying for, or constructing weird experimental bikelanes and bikepaths. You've had your shot at that for over 30 freakin' years. How long will it take you to admit that this is a misguided course? For ever?

This is very sad statement. VC has been at for over "30-50 freakin' years" and has made essentially ZERO progress. And who says I advocated for these projects you mentioned? At a drop of a hat I, a fellow cyclists is suddenly the enemy even though the basic thing that separates us is being against bike lanes. I pursue what I think will do the most good which currently is education and law enforcement and I don't waste my time fighting the bike lane folks, we try and work together.

While you roll your eyes so that you can't see the evidence you're setting back the chances of N.America ever having a realistic chance of a cycling population.

That statement is totally backwards IMHO. Baltimore up to about a month ago had just 1.5 miles of bike lanes in a remote peninsula and some of the worst cycling stats per capita that you have ever seen even for a major city. While at the same time we have tons of low speed roads and other conditions that make Baltimore a VC paradise. As far a cycling population Baltimore boasts a whooping 0.2% of bike commuters compared to a state average of 0.3%. Is there any other major city that has a lower then their state average of bike commuters? From the data I have looked at this is a pretty freaky phenomenon.


But whatever, pick a path, any path and tell me how you'd improve it so that I can get a level of safety on a par with that achieved by riding according to the rules of the road.

Even the basic premise of this question is all wrong. 50% of bike traffic accidents happen because of cyclists not following the rules of the road, so no duh following the rules of the road will help even before you put a VC spin on things. The question is why are cyclists not following the rules of the road and why is VC training not helping with these stats?


Sigh ... why can't we all just work along together to the same goal and speak with a unified voice demanding the removal of bikelanes and the introduction of Road 1 and Road 2 training in high-schools and for any interested adults? I wish we could all get along. *Rolls eyes, tucks head into sand and adopts passive aggressive posture*

Ah yes the world would be such a better place if everyone would just agree me. Says everyone with a different opinion.

I hate to break it to you but it's time you grew up and realized that almost all the time there are going to be people that disagree with you and if your progress is totally dependent on them agreeing with you a 100% then not much is going to happen. But more to the point but first by way of an example; lets say we have a treatment for cancer that is not very effective and someone discovers a more effective treatment but it takes 10 years of processing time before it can be administered. Would anyone advocate stopping the less effective treatment before the better treatment becomes available? Get the Road 1 & 2 courses in the high schools (IMHO it needs to be done before that) first then talk about removal of bike lanes.

There is power in creating positive energy and positive programs and you totally lose when you even make people who are close but not quite your position the enemy.

[WaltPoutine]

My "argument" is for VC advocates to stress the positive issues of their camp as it is counterproductive to go around fighting bike lanes without something superior in its place.

Look, just answer the specific question. You made some obscure statement about right-hooks, curb-hugging and sidewalk riding which implies that bikelanes diminish those activities. Are you really arguing that this is true?


It is my opinion that fighting bike lanes "denigrate VC training as the primary focus of bicycling advocacy."

Fine. Completely bonkers. But you're entitled to a belief just as I am free to believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster (blessings upon his noodliness.) It's not a very interesting belief without some sort of backing though.

This just shows you how out of touch a lot of the VC camp is. Safe Routes To School money IS available for education and I have applied for Grant for an educational program but lost out to this (http://www.onelesscar.org/resources_safe.php). Even within Park & Recs (you probably know them as the folks that make totally useless trails for transportation purposes) I helped get them interested in providing safety training.

OK. So your failure to get a grant proves that similar amounts of money have been spent during the past 30 years on VC education as have been spent on bikelanes, bike trails, MUPs, advanced stop lines, and all the other stuff that has failed to turn the USA into a cycling paradise. That's a bizarre interpretation.

A lot can be gained by just pursing your own agenda without fighting everyone else's agenda.

Ah, that must be from either The Prince or The Art of War? In any case it's completely bleeding irrelevant. My agenda involves not having dangerous facilities around me. Your agenda is apparently inimical to mine. In order to achieve what I want I have to stop you getting what you want. Zero sum. No positive energy BS is possible in this situation.

And who says I advocated for these projects you mentioned?

If you are actively working towards their removal, (or heck if you're even supportive of the idea of removing them) then I apologize. Now is your opportunity to make this clear.

At a drop of a hat I, a fellow cyclists is suddenly the enemy even though the basic thing that separates us is being against bike lanes.

"Fellow cyclist"? What are we? Volvo owners flashing our headlights at each other in a simulacrum of community? There are lots of different people cycling with very different reasons for doing so. As should be obvious by now there are very divergent interests. Mine involve not having my life put at risk by "bike advocates" that believe it's OK to endanger and inconvenience me in order to further their speculative attempts to design the future.


That statement is totally backwards IMHO. Baltimore up to about a month ago had just 1.5 miles of bike lanes in a remote peninsula and some of the worst cycling stats per capita that you have ever seen even for a major city. While at the same time we have tons of low speed roads and other conditions that make Baltimore a VC paradise. As far a cycling population Baltimore boasts a whooping 0.2% of bike commuters compared to a state average of 0.3%. Is there any other major city that has a lower then their state average of bike commuters? From the data I have looked at this is a pretty freaky phenomenon.

I'm sorry I don't understand what your point is at all.


Even the basic premise of this question is all wrong.


You're the one that constructed the premises. Right here:

The bike lane in question can be changed to improve cyclists safety


Again, how? I don't know what you mean by "the bike lane in question", but seeing as you must obviously have something in mind I'd appreciate you tackling this concrete example.


50% of bike traffic accidents happen because of cyclists not following the rules of the road, so no duh following the rules of the road will help even before you put a VC spin on things. The question is why are cyclists not following the rules of the road and why is VC training not helping with these stats?


When you say "why is VC training not helping with these stats" you are asserting that VC-trained cyclists have the same "50% of bike traffic accidents happen because of cyclists not following the rules of the road". Is that true?

Ah yes the world would be such a better place if everyone would just agree me. Says everyone with a different opinion.

I hate to break it to you but it's time you grew up and realized that almost all the time there are going to be people that disagree with you

Sorry I was obviously a bit too subtle with my heavy handed sarcasm. The above was parody of I think the environment can be vastly improved, but that we as cyclists continually send out divergent "voices," and Is our own in-fighting here a reflection of that stagnation and division that essentially pits us against one another with no positive forward movement for either side? . Ironically given your little homily it also applies to your own apparent inability to accept that the reason that there's disagreement on the subject is because ... gasp ... we have very different interpretations of the most effective course of action and I believe that your interpretation is causing a serious problem for me. So continue with your happy little beavering on the Baltimore Bike Plan, but remember it's not appreciated by many people.

[Bekologist]

wow. canada will be well served ignoring the engineering prejudices of the vc camp.

[noisebeam]

wow. canada will be well served ignoring the engineering prejudices of the vc camp.

They will be well served if they don't:
-Place bike lane stripes at intersection approaches unless there is a study for that specific intersection that shows that it can provide benefit for cyclists.
-Place bike lanes in door zones
-Stripe bike lanes narrower than 6'
-Have no plan and no funding for maintaining striped bike lanes.

Al

[The Human Car]

Look, just answer the specific question. You made some obscure statement about right-hooks, curb-hugging and sidewalk riding which implies that bikelanes diminish those activities. Are you really arguing that this is true?

There have been studies that hint that bike lanes reduce errors by cyclists, such as sidewalk riding, wrong way riding and the swerve out. What I do know is nearby cities with bike lanes have more cyclists and less crashes per capita then Baltimore without bike lanes. I can find no evidence that bike lanes increase the overall danger to cyclists.

Mine involve not having my life put at risk by "bike advocates" that believe it's OK to endanger and inconvenience me in order to further their speculative attempts to design the future.

So don't ride in such a way that your life is put at risk, you may want to seriously think about (re)taking the Road 1&2 course if bike lanes are such a threat to the way you ride. Seriously dude, it's just paint and it does not cause an accident [for a VC trained cyclist] any more then not wearing a helmet causes one.

In summary once the Board of Education adopts VC as a required curriculum and/or VC is integrated with required motor vehicle training and licensing then talk to me about what I should and should not be doing with bike lanes. Till then VC is not a solution to a social problem it is only what an individual can do for themselves.

[edit]

[LittleBigMan]

I'm new to this thread.

I don't know about North America, but after over a decade of never being hit by a car, I feel quite safe riding my bike to work. The trip takes about an hour in Atlanta rush hour traffic.

I was injured in a fall in August 2001 when I was attacked unexpectedly by a pedestrian. But I count that as a mugging.

I also slipped on some wet RR tracks once and got a little road rash on my thigh. No biggie.

When I was a teenager, I hit a curve on some wet leaves and went down. That one was kind of funny...but no injuries.

I'm not saying cycling isn't dangerous, I'm just saying that for me, it hasn't been very dangerous at all.

In fact, I'd say that with all the deaths I've seen from diseases related to physical inactivity amongst coworkers in the last 20 years, I'd say not cycling is probably a lot more dangerous.

[randya]

people view relative risk of different activities in odd ways. there's absolutely nothing rational about it. most of my recent crashes have been solo, me pushing my limits; I've been doored a few times over the years but nothing serious. Then there was the bus thing...:rolleyes: for over 40 years of regular riding, not bad, I'd say. most of that time there were no bike lanes, but I'm adaptive.

[joejack951]

I'm sorry, joe. your perspective is radically different from reality, dude. if you think no bike specific pavement redesigns would behoove maui bicyclists,

you clearly can't recognize good clean pavement on which to ride safely in a vehicular fashion to the right of faster traffic.

Here are some Maui "bike lanes." Please explain how the space to the right of the stripe is any different than it would otherwise be if it was not labeled as a bike lane (and yes, all the space to the right in these pictures was signed as a bike lane). Also tell me how differently motorists would act if that space wasn't designated as a bike lane.

Did you happen to notice the speed limit signs on Maui's main roads either? 45mph limit, 35mph minimum effectively making it illegal for a cyclist to leave the side of the road? That's some great cyclist accomodation on a non-limited access road :rolleyes:

[Please note that none of these pictures were taken trying to show Maui's bike lanes. My wife just happened to snap these shots. By sheer luck, she happened to catch the best of Maui's shoulder/bike lanes. In many places, this shoulder was way too narrow for safe operation or it was covered in debris. The treatment of the bike lane at intersections with right turn only lanes was sad, dividing a ten foot lane into a 3-4 foot bike lane and a 6 foot "car lane" to the right. Totally useless.]

http://home.comcast.net/~joejackson951/bike/DSC06131.JPG

http://home.comcast.net/~joejackson951/bike/DSC06138.JPG

http://home.comcast.net/~joejackson951/bike/DSC06152.JPG

[randya]

Here are some Maui "bike lanes." Please explain how the space to the right of the stripe is any different than it would otherwise be if it was not labeled as a bike lane (and yes, all the space to the right in these pictures was signed as a bike lane). Also tell me how differently motorists would act if that space wasn't designated as a bike lane.

Did you happen to notice the speed limit signs on Maui's main roads either? 45mph limit, 35mph minimum effectively making it illegal for a cyclist to leave the side of the road? That's some great cyclist accomodation on a non-limited access road :rolleyes:

[Please note that none of these pictures were taken trying to show Maui's bike lanes. My wife just happened to snap these shots. By sheer luck, she happened to catch the best of Maui's shoulder/bike lanes. In many places, this shoulder was way too narrow for safe operation or it was covered in debris. The treatment of the bike lane at intersections with right turn only lanes was sad, dividing a ten foot lane into a 3-4 foot bike lane and a 6 foot "car lane" to the right. Totally useless.]

those look like pretty good wide shoulders to ride on, why would you want to ride in the traffic lane there? and why wouldn't you want the fog line there?
:rolleyes:

[randya]

here's a more recent VC video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jdrrxIpQpt4&NR=1)

[joejack951]

those look like pretty good wide shoulders to ride on, why would you want to ride in the traffic lane there? and why wouldn't you want the fog line there?
:rolleyes:

Like I said, those pictures show the decent parts of the bike lane, which is basically just a normal road shoulder in most areas. What you are missing (because the pictures don't show it. As I said, we weren't taking pictures of the bike lane) is the areas of the pavement to the right of the fog line covered in debris or reduced down to unuseable widths, without any indication that the bike lane has ended or removal of the ban on slow moving traffic. To be clear, I have zero issue with the fog line or the presence of the shoulder or the extra pavement width. What I have issue with is the labeling of that area as a bike lane and the expectation that cyclists will stay there at all times given the generally unobtainable minimum posted speed limit of 35mph. I also have issue with the terrible bike lane treatment at intersections with right turn only lanes (I wish I had a picture, mybe Bek can take one).

If you really want to once again hear the reasons why one would want to use the traffic lane instead of the shoulder even when the shoulder appears ok to ride in, I'm sure HH would love to chime in on the subject, or I could do so myself.

[Bekologist]

those aren't pictures of the well considered intersection treatments seen across central Maui.

like Randya, I also have no idea why you'd be riding in the travel lanes heading to Lahaina, Joejack. I doubt anybody would.

Canada could take a few lessons from the bike infrastructure seen on Maui, but I bet they've got good people on the job.

[randya]

Did you see HH doing the 'power weave' at 7:30 in this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1QEKTZyQmwk)?

:D

[Allister]

Did you see HH doing the 'power weave' at 7:30 in this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1QEKTZyQmwk)?

:D

The commentator described him to a tee, too.