Is JF a god, demon or just a human?

[Helmet Head]

It tells me that a lot of people disagree with you and you cannot handle it. I wonder if you have an issue accepting others as who they are, what they believe in and the fact that they (even though you SAY you know) MAY have a differing opinion than you. Knowing it is very different from considering it.

I am not justifying any negativity that may arise from your discussions, I'm just seeing (and this is MY opinion here) that you are one of those who is not willing to see another point of view. If I were to do that, it would limit my knowledge and my capability to adjust, adapt and be a part of the rest of the environment.

Do I think this is a fight? Read my post again, Sparky. Real slow this time. ;)
In any disagreement it is tempting to see each side as unable to see the other view.
The real test is the ability of each side to explain the view of the other side.
Do you think I don't understand the view of the pro-blers? That I don't understand they believe bike lanes makes cycling safer because they think the bike lane makes motorists more aware of bicyclists being in the road, less likely to hit cyclists because the stripe keeps their paths separated, that they think the bike lanes make them less likely to be harassed for simply being in the road, that they think bike lanes encourage more cyclists to be out there, that the bike lanes make traffic which includes cyclists more orderly, that the bike lanes define specific space for bicyclists, and that's a good thing? What do you think I'm missing?

[-=£em in Pa=-]

Woo! thats a relevant comment. I guess I struck a raw nerve, eh? If I recall this thread is about the transportation matrix,
roughstuff

shocker, the kavemans klub couldnt understand the simplest analogy.

[Bekologist]

In any disagreement it is tempting to see each side as unable to see the other view.
The real test is the ability of each side to explain the view of the other side. Actually, not. the real test is in the results, and the evidence increasingly supports infrastructure and social enhancements that increase cyclist modal share and safety, acceptable and utilized across greater socio-economic groups.


Do you think I don't understand the view of the pro-blers? That I don't understand edited in bold the world body of evidence increasingly shows that bike lanes makes cycling safer because... the bike lane makes motorists more aware of bicyclists being in the road, less likely to hit cyclists because the stripe keeps their paths separated, that... the bike lanes make them less likely to be harassed for simply being in the road, that..... bike lanes encourage more cyclists to be out there, that the bike lanes make traffic which includes cyclists more orderly, that the bike lanes define specific space for bicyclists, and that's a good thing? What do you think I'm
missing? What are you missing? you're missing the last step in the logical process. Delete the 'they believe' (subjective) with ' the world body of evidence increasingly shows that' (objective) and you've pretty much got it figured out head.

...pretty much hit all the cognizant points there, head. evidence seen in cities around the world progressively working to better accomdodate multimodal transportation patterns.

Where's the "I think john's a farce?" option in the poll? that's my anwser. I want an 'other'

[Psycle_chic]

What do you think I'm missing?

Surprisingly a whole lot. If you would read back on my posts, Sparky, then you MIGHT be able to figure it out.

But I don't want to get too personal. I don't want to challenge your man-hood. I think from here on I'll let you stew in your own self righteousness and self promotion. It's a hoot! :lol:

[joejack951]

It tells me that a lot of people disagree with you and you cannot handle it. I wonder if you have an issue accepting others as who they are, what they believe in and the fact that they (even though you SAY you know) MAY have a differing opinion than you. Knowing it is very different from considering it.

You seem to be missing the fact that in this forum, we often debate topics. Debating would be useless if either side decided to simply "accept others [and their beliefs] as who they are." When you are debating with someone who has a different opinion than you, a good debater will challenge the other side as to why they believe what they believe. If you want to have meaningful beliefs, you should have some good evidence to back up those beliefs and should be able to clearly state that evdience when challenged on your beliefs. From what I've read in this forum, the pro-BLers have plenty of beliefs but very little to back them up aside from biased studies, that even with their bias, often show that facilities cause more injuries than they prevent. The helmet topic is another great one for seeing beliefs (that helmets can save so many lives) with little to no substance to back them up.

I am not justifying any negativity that may arise from your discussions, I'm just seeing (and this is MY opinion here) that you are one of those who is not willing to see another point of view. If I were to do that, it would limit my knowledge and my capability to adjust, adapt and be a part of the rest of the environment.

Considering others' point of view is a good thing to do. But, before you go adopting/accepting their point of view, don't you think you ought to question why they have that perspective, especially when their perspective can ultimately affect you? If you truly want to increase your knowledge on a subject, blind acceptance of statements of belief will seriously hinder that goal.

[John Forester]

Originally Posted by hh
Do you think I don't understand the view of the pro-blers? That I don't understand edited in bold the world body of evidence increasingly shows that bike lanes makes cycling safer because... the bike lane makes motorists more aware of bicyclists being in the road, less likely to hit cyclists because the stripe keeps their paths separated, that... the bike lanes make them less likely to be harassed for simply being in the road, that..... bike lanes encourage more cyclists to be out there, that the bike lanes make traffic which includes cyclists more orderly, that the bike lanes define specific space for bicyclists, and that's a good thing? What do you think I'm
missing?


Actually, not. the real test is in the results, and the evidence increasingly supports infrastructure and social enhancements that increase cyclist modal share and safety, acceptable and utilized across greater socio-economic groups.

What are you missing? you're missing the last step in the logical process. Delete the 'they believe' (subjective) with ' the world body of evidence increasingly shows that' (objective) and you've pretty much got it figured out head.

...pretty much hit all the cognizant points there, head. evidence seen in cities around the world progressively working to better accomdodate multimodal transportation patterns.

Where's the "I think john's a farce?" option in the poll? that's my anwser. I want an 'other'

Yes, Bekologist, you believe just what HH says that you believe. HH has it right, in that respect. However, the fact that HH can accurately describe your beliefs show only that he has accurate knowledge about what to criticize. I don't know when HH worked out your beliefs, but I worked out the same description more than a decade ago; it's nothing either fancy or new. HH had the temerity to accurately state your beliefs with courage, because he knows, as I know, that most of your beliefs are no more than that, beliefs held with faith without credible support. All the arguments that you have advanced are based on irrelevancies and appear to have credibility only to those who already have faith in the power of bikeways. The safety argument has been long disproved on the basis of collision statistics. The orderliness has been disproved by the analysis of the traffic complications produced by bike lanes and side paths. Both of the safety and the orderliness problems have had to be handled by stringent traffic controls that manage to make operations safer by introducing much delay. And the bike-lane stripe improves motorist's vision? I suppose that that is in the same league as Pucher's conclusion that the presence of the bike-lane stripe aids elderly cyclists to better see the motor vehicle that endangers them.

I can't help it that you are driven by ideological beliefs that prevent you from understanding the facts that are known. If, indeed, you had some knowledge of what you are arguing, then the arguments would have more substance, although probably rather more limited in subject.

[Rollfast]

How DID such a question even end up staying here when it sounds pretty shaky at first glance?

[Psycle_chic]

You seem to be missing the fact that in this forum, we often debate topics. Debating would be useless if either side decided to simply "accept others [and their beliefs] as who they are." When you are debating with someone who has a different opinion than you, a good debater will challenge the other side as to why they believe what they believe. If you want to have meaningful beliefs, you should have some good evidence to back up those beliefs and should be able to clearly state that evdience when challenged on your beliefs. From what I've read in this forum, the pro-BLers have plenty of beliefs but very little to back them up aside from biased studies, that even with their bias, often show that facilities cause more injuries than they prevent. The helmet topic is another great one for seeing beliefs (that helmets can save so many lives) with little to no substance to back them up.



Considering others' point of view is a good thing to do. But, before you go adopting/accepting their point of view, don't you think you ought to question why they have that perspective, especially when their perspective can ultimately affect you? If you truly want to increase your knowledge on a subject, blind acceptance of statements of belief will seriously hinder that goal.

Thank you Joejack, you've made some very good points here. I believe in questioning things because I am always one who wants to learnm improve myself and expand my knowledge. :)

And of course, I agree with you also that if someone backs their statements up with evidence, then it's a bonus. ;)

[-=£em in Pa=-]

If you truly want to increase your knowledge on a subject, blind acceptance of statements of belief will seriously hinder that goal.


I can't help it that you are driven by ideological beliefs that prevent you from understanding the facts that are known. If, indeed, you had some knowledge of what you are arguing, then the arguments would have more substance, although probably rather more limited in subject.

:roflmao:

The irony is........nevermind.........:rolleyes:

:roflmao:
Too easy.........

[Bekologist]

yep. john's a farce.

his denial is abundantly apparant. only denial could cause a so-called, self-styled 'transportation engineer' to be so stalwartly ignorant of bonifide results and increases in bicyclist safety and modal share thru communities' social programs and infrastructure improvements to enhance bicycling.

john's insistence in his childish cycling methods, including traffic negotiation at 15mph speed differentials declared as 'impossible' and riding 'road sneak' by ambiguously splitting lanes to not slow the drivers down seems a bit subpar.

communities that are ACTIVELY INSTALLING AND CONSTANTLY IMPROVING bicycling infrastructure that recognizes bicyclists as human powered vehicles are the ones that consistently have higher modal share of bicyclists. john likens it all away as 'coincidences' and tries to pretend transportation patterns that predate the automobile continued without social manipulation to encourage greater bike use and bicyclist safety.


what? he calls himself a transportation engineer?

what kind of malarky is that? That's like calling yourself an 'electrician' but only having knowledge of oil lamps.

where's the 'john's a farce' option, helmet head???

[joejack951]

And of course, I agree with you also that if someone backs their statements up with evidence, then it's a bonus. ;)

Well, I wouldn't consider it a bonus. It's a necessity if you want to have a meaningful debate. Otherwise, you end up with both sides stating their beliefs and then there is nothing else to say. How are you to convince others who might not share your beliefs to adopt them? Well, I guess you could craft a belief that sounds very appealing on the surface and hope that no one really digs deep into the details of it.

[derath]

Well, I wouldn't consider it a bonus. It's a necessity if you want to have a meaningful debate. Otherwise, you end up with both sides stating their beliefs and then there is nothing else to say. How are you to convince others who might not share your beliefs to adopt them? Well, I guess you could craft a belief that sounds very appealing on the surface and hope that no one really digs deep into the details of it.

You mean like both sides of every debate in the VC subforum?

[Allister]

Can we please put this ridiculous claim to rest now?

It was an off the cuff coment in a different part of the forum, that would've passed easily enough into obscurity on it's own. You're the one making moronic polls about it, Serge.

[randya]

hey, chill out dude, I like Serge's moronic polls!

:D

[Allister]

hey, chill out dude, I like Serge's moronic polls!

:D

Doesn't everyone? Still, starting this poll and then whining that people should put it to rest is mind bogglingly hypocritical and arrogant, even by Serge's already exceptional standards.

[Bekologist]

is helmet head harassing john, deamonizing him or attempting to beatify him?

What gives? showcasing head's obsessive nature? some kind of VC inner circle hazing? ;)

[The Human Car]

What I think is even funner is given HH's often claimed "choosing his words carefully" I really have to wounder about the sanity of the question or half the respondents. Do we really acknowledge their is a god of bicycling that would benefit us if we prayed to him, or a demon with supernatural powers that we have no power to fight against? There's just so many ways to take the results of this poll and spin it any way you want but some how the poll results is proof that JF is human, even though half the respondents think he is anything but human. :rolleyes:

Maybe this is just proof that the VC inner circle does not know how to perform or interpret any sort of stat at all.

[Rollfast]

I see. I know a few blogs that have more interesting action than bike lanes, but I'm ignoring them because sleep and work are valued over typing today.

Have fun with all that. My bike's being painted.

[Ed Holland]

And that's your opinion and that's great. But anti-blers don't simply state the opposite. We provide detailed explanations for why we believe bike lanes cause more harm than good, explanations that are ignored, and then the pro-bl position is simply asserted, without basis, as you just did again, just two posts after one of those detailed anti-bl presentations.

Well I read the quotation, in fact. So....

What about Bus lanes? They surely fall under the non vehicular tag because they discriminate based on vehicle type. Hence the argument over vehicularity is pointless.


I have lived in at least two places, on different sides of the Atlantic, in which cycling is a popular pursuit AND a common mode of transport. I don't see any riders going out of their way to avoid a bike lane where it is provided (unless they are riding on the sidewalk...). Nor do I see dangerous situations arising due to the presence of bike lanes. The pro/anti BL thing has become an irrelevant argument to the everyday rider.

Ed

[Helmet Head]

Well I read the quotation, in fact. So....

What about Bus lanes? They surely fall under the non vehicular tag because they discriminate based on vehicle type. Hence the argument over vehicularity is pointless.


I have lived in at least two places, on different sides of the Atlantic, in which cycling is a popular pursuit AND a common mode of transport. I don't see any riders going out of their way to avoid a bike lane where it is provided (unless they are riding on the sidewalk...). Nor do I see dangerous situations arising due to the presence of bike lanes. The pro/anti BL thing has become an irrelevant argument to the everyday rider.

Ed
Since I started paying close attention to this stuff I haven't been to a place with bus lanes. The main issue is with respect to other traffic crossing the bus lane. With HOV lanes it's not an issue because other traffic does not drive in or cross HOV lanes. Does other traffic cross bus lanes? How is ROW handled? Are buses routed to go straight in bus lanes that are to the right of other traffic lanes from which right turns are allowed?

I lived and cycled for decades completely oblivious to the fact that the pro/anti BL thing was going on. I don't think it has become irrelevant to the everyday rider; I think it has yet to become relevant to the everyday rider. Admittedly, it may never become relevant to the everyday rider, but I think it needs to become relevant to the activist first, and not only relevant, but understood that bike lanes encourage behavior of both cyclists and motorists that is contrary to the rules of the road, and contrary to the concept of cyclists having equal rights on the road.

[John Forester]

Well I read the quotation, in fact. So....

What about Bus lanes? They surely fall under the non vehicular tag because they discriminate based on vehicle type. Hence the argument over vehicularity is pointless.


I have lived in at least two places, on different sides of the Atlantic, in which cycling is a popular pursuit AND a common mode of transport. I don't see any riders going out of their way to avoid a bike lane where it is provided (unless they are riding on the sidewalk...). Nor do I see dangerous situations arising due to the presence of bike lanes. The pro/anti BL thing has become an irrelevant argument to the everyday rider.

Ed

The argument about bus lanes is nothing more than semantic nonsense produced by using the same word for two very different situation. Who is discriminated against by bus lanes? Car-driving motorists, of course. And if they did not like this discrimination, they have the political power to remove is. Who benefits? The bus company and its riders benefit from better service. And, note carefully, the bus company would object strenuously if its buses were confined to the bus lane, and so would the bus riders. The motorists accept the loss of use of their lane because they think that the benefits of better bus service outweigh the lost of use of that lane. And it isn't too much of a loss, because bus lanes in city streets exist only where there is much bus traffic, so that car-drivers would not make much use of it in any case.

So, Ed, you say that you have never seen a cyclist avoiding the use of a bike lane, nor have you seen any dangerous situations created by bike lanes. Ed, have you seen a cyclist preparing properly for a left turn by leaving the bike lane in plenty of time to properly and safely prepare? Ed, have you seen a cyclist overtaking a right-turning motorists by going outside the lane? Have you ever seen a cyclist properly choosing his lateral position when that proper position is not inside the lane? Ed, have you ever seen a cyclist riding in a bike lane up alongside a motor vehicle that might turn right? Ed, have you ever seen a motorist making a sudden right turn across a bike lane rather than first safely merging into that lane to avoid causing a right-hook collision? Ed, have you ever seen a cyclist hurrying across traffic to make a left turn because he stayed in the bike lane too long? I suspect that you have seen some or most of these.

[randya]

The motorists accept the loss of use of their lane because they think that the benefits of better bus service outweigh the lost of use of that lane.

:roflmao:

99% of motorists couldn't give a crap about the benefits of better bus service, they just don't want the bus in front of them, slowing them down.

or maybe all the bus operators have bus driver inferiority complex.

:roflmao:

[John Forester]

:roflmao:

99% of motorists couldn't give a crap about the benefits of better bus service, they just don't want the bus in front of them, slowing them down.

or maybe all the bus operators have bus driver inferiority complex.

:roflmao:

As always, your lack of knowledge of how traffic operates kills your thoughts.

[randya]

As always, your lack of knowledge of how traffic operates kills your thoughts.

let me ride down the double yellow line and think about it for a while. :rolleyes:

No John, I think you're the one that doesn't have a clue as to how traffic operates these days. :)

Busses and bikes occupy much of the same space on the roadway and have to interact frequently. busses pull in and out of stops and a decent cyclist will find him or herself playing leap-frog with the busses. Other motorists dislike having the slow, bulky, stop-and-go busses in their way, the same way they dislike bicyclists in their way, and the motorists will pull all sorts of squirrelly moves around busses, too, in a shared lane situation.

if you thought my statement and analogy was absurd it just points to the absurdity of your mythology of the bicyclist inferiority complex. the busses definitely are bigger though. In Paris there are a lot of shared bus/bike lanes, but in PDX they typically keep them separate and bikes used to be completely banned from the bus mall downtown, which was actually a great car-free route to ride.

[Bekologist]

john's a farce. playing road sneak so as not to slow the motorists down?

Who's really got the inferiority complex?

[Ed Holland]

So, Ed, you say that you have never seen a cyclist avoiding the use of a bike lane, nor have you seen any dangerous situations created by bike lanes.

...Hard to know if they are avoiding the lane - I never thought to ask.


Ed, have you seen a cyclist preparing properly for a left turn by leaving the bike lane in plenty of time to properly and safely prepare?

Of course I have, most days - it is part of my daily commuting journey. This has nothing to do with bike lanes.


Ed, have you seen a cyclist overtaking a right-turning motorists by going outside the lane? Have you ever seen a cyclist properly choosing his lateral position when that proper position is not inside the lane?

Proper? You mean riding somewhere outside the bike lane for convenience or safety? Certainly. Cars change lanes for the same reason. Cyclists are not chained to the bike lane.


Ed, have you ever seen a cyclist riding in a bike lane up alongside a motor vehicle that might turn right?

Yes and I have seen the same situation without the presence of a bike lane. No difference. It is essential for the cyclist to be vigilant in such situations.


Ed, have you ever seen a motorist making a sudden right turn across a bike lane rather than first safely merging into that lane to avoid causing a right-hook collision?

Yes, and I have observed the similar situations without the presence of a bike lane. This is just thoughtless behaviour on the part of the motorist, not a reason to indict the bike lane


Ed, have you ever seen a cyclist hurrying across traffic to make a left turn because he stayed in the bike lane too long?

Yes I have done it myself but... wait for it... with and without the bike lane. Sometimes it is hard to judge the best time to make one's manouver. It happens to motorists too.

None of what you argue above is, in my experience, a unique consequence of bike lanes. No-one asserts that these facilities offer a 100% motor traffic free environment for the cyclist, or that they permit the cyclist to be void of road sense and remain safe. They do not offer assistance at intersections but were not designed to address this. With experience and confidence, a cyclist can use many intersections as effectively as other vehicles.

What they can provide is a means for different traffic types to operate expediantly within its capability. There are truck lanes on the freeway on mountain passes... same difference

The danger is not created by the lane

Ed

[Ed Holland]

Oh and I thought Eric Clapton was god. Did I miss something?

[KrisPistofferson]

I voted god. I have it on good authority Forester sprang from the forehead of Ron Paul then arose from the sea on the halfshell of a kraken.

[Allister]

None of what you argue above is, in my experience, a unique consequence of bike lanes. No-one asserts that these facilities offer a 100% motor traffic free environment for the cyclist, or that they permit the cyclist to be void of road sense and remain safe. They do not offer assistance at intersections but were not designed to address this. With experience and confidence, a cyclist can use many intersections as effectively as other vehicles.


That's just far to sensible for Forester, Ed. He'll never be able to follow a line of reasoning like that. The VC fear of bikelanes is immune to reason.

[Thirstyman]

I have absolutely no idea who JF is that you refer to. Seriously.

[Ed Holland]

That's just far to sensible for Forester, Ed. He'll never be able to follow a line of reasoning like that. The VC fear of bikelanes is immune to reason.

I'm well aware of that Allister ;)

[Ed Holland]

I have absolutely no idea who JF is that you refer to. Seriously.

You lucky b8stard :D

[Helmet Head]

.
None of what you argue above is, in my experience, a unique consequence of bike lanes. No-one asserts that these facilities offer a 100% motor traffic free environment for the cyclist, or that they permit the cyclist to be void of road sense and remain safe. They do not offer assistance at intersections but were not designed to address this. With experience and confidence, a cyclist can use many intersections as effectively as other vehicles.

What they can provide is a means for different traffic types to operate expediantly within its capability. There are truck lanes on the freeway on mountain passes... same difference

The danger is not created by the lane

Same difference??? :eek: Mountain pass freeway truck lanes end before the approach to any place where traffic in the inner lanes might need to cross them. Why do you ignore this? If bike lanes did that, there would be no debate about them also. This is not only true at approaches to all intersections (except where there is a right only lane and a discontinuous bike lane to the left of it - the non-vehicular discontinuity creating its own hazards), but also at midblock junctions with driveways, alleys and commercial entrances (where many crashes occur). And the threat is not only from right hooks from overtaking traffic (which would be the only potential conflict for truck traffic in truck only lanes on freeway mountain passes, but is still enough to keep them from designating such lanes where other traffic may cross them), but also from left crosses and right crosses from oncoming and cross traffic.

Not only do bike lanes not offer assistance at intersections, they provide hindrances in that they channel through bicycle traffic in space that is to the right of right turning traffic.

[randya]

Mountain pass freeway truck lanes end before the approach to any place where traffic in the inner lanes might need to cross them. If bike lanes did that, there would be no debate about them also.

you disingenuous fool. You know very well that it's not just about the intersections.

And if it is, all the bike lanes I saw in California ended before the intersection, so what exactly are you prattling on about?

:roflmao:

[Ed Holland]

Not only do bike lanes not offer assistance at intersections, they provide hindrances in that they channel through bicycle traffic in space that is to the right of right turning traffic.

But any cyclist with a hint of common sense spots this quickly and learns how to negotiate intersections on their own. That is not a reason to say that the majority of the bike lane is unhelpful to the cyclist or the traffic system.

In fact, at some light controlled intersections, bike lanes in the UK permit cyclists in an area the full width of the roadway ahead of other traffic. This is a very helpful design feature, where otherwise, a long line of cyclists & traffic would accumulate in tight circumstances side by side during the red light, ready for chaos when everyone sets off.

Ed

[Helmet Head]

you disingenuous fool.
That's a personal attack and I don't appreciate it. Why you think it's acceptable to talk to other people this way is beyond me.


You know very well that it's not just about the intersections.
When a regular like you says something like this it's really astonishing to me.

Of course it is just about intersections. Where have you been? Well, almost. If they all ended the way mountain pass trucks lanes do - well before reaching any place where they need to be crossed - the only issues that would be left are debris and my inadvertent drift theory which only addresses (very rare) overtaking collisions. I, for one, would not care enough to bother opposing them for those relatively minor reasons if that were the case.


And if it is, all the bike lanes I saw in California ended before the intersection, so what exactly are you prattling on about?

:roflmao:
Again. This is astonishing. I assume what you mean by "end before the intersection" is "end at the intersection" because they, like other lane lines, don't extend into the intersection. But that's hardly ending before the intersection. If bike lanes were designed like freeway mountain pass truck lanes they would end at least 100 (if not 200+) feet before not only any intersection, but also before any midblock junction with an alley, driveway or commercial entrances. Those are all points of cross traffic conflict too.

There is a reason they don't paint slow truck lanes on surface streets - too many intersections with places that would require other traffic to cross the truck lanes. The same reasoning applies to bike lanes, but they paint them anyway. And many cyclists support them anyway.

[deputyjones]

I explained why I'm asking in the OP. Why are you asking as if that explanation is not provided? Did you read the OP? Can you read?

Some things never change. Glad to see everyone else on BF but HH has a reading comprehension problem. :D

[Helmet Head]

But any cyclist with a hint of common sense spots this quickly and learns how to negotiate intersections on their own. That is not a reason to say that the majority of the bike lane is unhelpful to the cyclist or the traffic system.

In fact, at some light controlled intersections, bike lanes in the UK permit cyclists in an area the full width of the roadway ahead of other traffic. This is a very helpful design feature, where otherwise, a long line of cyclists & traffic would accumulate in tight circumstances side by side during the red light, ready for chaos when everyone sets off.

Ed
If the percentage of cyclists who learns how to "negotiate intersections on their own" is more than 10%, I would be very, very surprised. And I'm not talking about morons... I'm talking about UC students and club cyclists too. Most cyclists stay in the bike lane all the way up to the intersection, and it wouldn't occur to them to look back and make sure they're not about to get right hooked.

[Helmet Head]

Some things never change.
Glad to see you're back, DJ. Safe and healthy, I hope. And good stories?

[deputyjones]

Glad to see you're back, DJ. Safe and healthy, I hope. And good stories?

thanks HH. Safe and healthy and fat. I need to ride some more :o

Planning on being back on the bike commute within a couple of weeks. It has been a terrible winter here. Keep up the good fight HH.

[Allister]

If bike lanes were designed like freeway mountain pass truck lanes they would end at least 100 (if not 200+) feet before not only any intersection, but also before any midblock junction with an alley, driveway or commercial entrances. Those are all points of cross traffic conflict too.

OH THE HORROR! Cars might cross the bikelane! How will anyone ever manage to survive that?!

Grow some goddamn balls, man.

[Allister]

That's a personal attack and I don't appreciate it. Why you think it's acceptable to talk to other people this way is beyond me..

Just report it to the mods, like you always do, Serge. I'm sure they'd love to hear from you yet again.

[Ed Holland]

If the percentage of cyclists who learns how to "negotiate intersections on their own" is more than 10%, I would be very, very surprised. And I'm not talking about morons... I'm talking about UC students and club cyclists too. Most cyclists stay in the bike lane all the way up to the intersection, and it wouldn't occur to them to look back and make sure they're not about to get right hooked.

Inexperienced cyclists might be just as likely to stay in a position that risks right hook incidents were there no bike lane. Moreover the person suffering a hook is not at fault here - that is down to lack of care/attention by the person making the hook.

I'm unable to provide a percentage, but I'd say most riders learn to negotiate intersections.

Everyone has the potential to apply prior experience in order to anticipate. If not then you've got to deal with the learning capacity of a whelk.

Ed

[Helmet Head]

Inexperienced cyclists might be just as likely to stay in a position that risks right hook incidents were there no bike lane.
Perhaps so, but in a society where bike lanes reinforce the notion that that's where bicyclists should be at intersections with bike lanes, it makes it less likely for cyclists to learn to go elsewhere at intersections without bike lanes.

I mean, if you accept the bike lane guidance as being legitimate, why should that same guidance not apply at an intersection without a bike lane?


Moreover the person suffering a hook is not at fault here - that is down to lack of care/attention by the person making the hook.
Absolutely, but that doesn't make the pain of injury or loss of life any easier to take.


I'm unable to provide a percentage, but I'd say most riders learn to negotiate intersections.

You're saying more than 50% learn to scan back to look for potential right hook conflicts and move out of the margin space at intersections? Not in any place I've ever been.


Everyone has the potential to apply prior experience in order to anticipate. If not then you've got to deal with the learning capacity of a whelk.

Learning exclusively through experience is not very effective in traffic cycling. It's not very effective in motoring either, which is why we don't just hand the 15 year old the keys and suggest they give it a go.

One of the problems with relying solely on experience is some of the most dangerous situations are relatively rare. A good example of that is dooring. You can probably get away with riding in door zones for weeks, months, or maybe even years without getting hit. Then, one day a door suddenly opens, you flinch to avoid it by swerving in front of a passing bus that crushes you to death. What did you learn from that experience? Avoiding right hooks and other potential hazards is like that too, which is why we have websites like bicyclesafe.com, pamphlets like "StreetSmarts", books like Effective Cycling, Cyclecraft and Urban Cycling (or whatever the title of the new edition is), and courses from LAB, CAN-BIKE and whatever the British organization is. But most cyclists rely solely on experience, and that's a big reason we have about 800 U.S. cyclist deaths per year, and many thousands of serious injuries.

Experience alone is usually good enough, but all too often it isn't. The trouble is any given cyclist doesn't know if he's the one whose going to need more than just what he got from experience to avoid being a cycling statistic. So the prudent thing to do is encourage folks to learn this stuff, and bike lanes inhibit that.

[Ed Holland]

But how many cyclists actually take the time to read a book on the subject? Very few. Drivers only read the Highway code / Vehicle code because knowledge of this is required as part of a mandated test.

We're largely stuck with cyclists that get on a bike first, and then think about how to use the roadway second. I was lucky, my father taught me the cycling basics of road use through practical supervision, and I'll do the same for my son when the time is right. Many others never get this opportunity.

There is the internet, and wonderful places like Bikeforums should be able to offer help. A few "stickies" in A&S regarding common dangerous situations and good basic riding practices would be far more productive than these stalemate discussions of traffic theory.

Ed

[Helmet Head]

But how many cyclists actually take the time to read a book on the subject? Very few. Drivers only read the Highway code / Vehicle code because knowledge of this is required as part of a mandated test.

We're largely stuck with cyclists that get on a bike first, and then think about how to use the roadway second. I was lucky, my father taught me the cycling basics of road use through practical supervision, and I'll do the same for my son when the time is right. Many others never get this opportunity.

There is the internet, and wonderful places like Bikeforums should be able to offer help. A few "stickies" in A&S regarding common dangerous situations and good basic riding practices would be far more productive than these stalemate discussions of traffic theory.

Ed
People are mostly sheep. They ride the way they ride because that's the way others ride.
They don't wear helmets because others don't wear helmets. So we work on long laborious explanations about the need for helmets, lobby bike shops, write magazine articles, etc. Early adopters adopt first, by definition. Then there is the second and third wave. Eventually some magic threshold is met where enough people are doing it that it begins to catch on and take on a life of its own. That's what we need to achieve with vehicular cycling. I was into cycling for decades before I even heard about. It's arguably still in the early adopter phase. I'm hopeful that new training materials will help spread the information. Whether we're still decades or only a few years from reaching the magic threshold, I don't know, but I see no reason to not keep working towards it. And I see my work here, as counter-productive as it may sometimes be, as early adopter work. Really, I'm trying to recruit early adopter recruiters.

The terminology and associated concepts are far from being known in the cycling mainstream, where "bike lane" and "bike path" are still often used interchangeably, few bike stores carry Effective Cycling or even Hurst's book, and conventional wisdom is that motorists make most of the mistakes that cause cyclist deaths and injuries, which are mostly unavoidable by cyclists. That's what we're up against.

[Allister]

People are mostly sheep. They ride the way they ride because that's the way others ride.


Not everyone shares such a low opinion of people, Serge. I pity anyone that ends up with you as a cycling instructor.

[Allister]

I see my work here, as counter-productive as it may sometimes be, as early adopter work. Really, I'm trying to recruit early adopter recruiters.


And aren't we all glad that you see BF as your personal soapbox. :rolleyes:

The fact that you think of what you do here as 'your work' is utterly hilarious to me.

Here's a clue, since you seem to be short on supply - nothing will change as a result of any online forum discussion. Ever. After all these years of your 'work' all that's changed is a new subforum was created to keep your blathering away from normal conversation. At what point do you realise that there is no 'low hanging fruit' here and move on to somewhere that has it in abundance - like all those 'childish' cyclists I keep hearing about?

[Helmet Head]

Not everyone shares such a low opinion of people, HH. I pity anyone that ends up with you as a cycling instructor.
There are probably good survival benefits for following the lead of others.
After all, doing research is costly. It's often cheaper to assume the research others have done is valid and follow course.

I don't think the "sheep" analogy is a negative one. I certainly don't think any less of humans for being "sheep" in this sense. I take it as a given, a hurdle to be overcome if you feel the status quo or common sense needs to change, which is what I believe to be the case with traffic cycling.

[Helmet Head]

so you're a helmet nazi, too?!?!? Why am I not surprised?

:eek:
Jeez, must you misread everything? I was just using that as an example of how helmets, for better or for worse, came to be adopted within the cycling community.