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?
Well, the main work I do here is learn what others have experienced and think, and see how well I can explain things. You keep reminding how I need more practice, so I keep practicing Allister. See, it's your fault.

Well, the main work I do here is learn what others have experienced and think, and see how well I can explain things.

If it hasn't improved by now, it never will.

You keep reminding how I need more practice, so I keep practicing Allister. See, it's your fault.

I accept no responsibility for your incompetence.

I would like to modify my vote.


after closer inspection of jon's ideology thru his personal comments in very recent Bike Forums threads and quoted chapters from 'ec', about how to interact with motorists while on a bicycle, I have to strengthen my opinion of john:

john's not just a farce but a fraud. his methodology is largely 'stay out of the way' cycling for the conveinence of motorists. Us 21st century traffic cyclists are doing something a far cry different from john's version of how to ride.


crock done fermented and is now rotten.

Thats all very easy for you to say, Bek, but who is God?

"Surely you know, that God is Fred?"

"Surely you know, that God is Fred?"

Doh! of course. Perhaps many of us are minor deities, or perhaps prophets without even realising it. All of which begs the question is cycling monotheistic?

I see this is still going on.

my prediction is that it ain't gonna stop anytime soon

Let them argue. It's just going to go around in circles. But if they enjoy it, so be it. Excuse me, DEBATE.

i wonder if helmet head reported himself for starting a thread about the personality of a member? I'm not going to pass up a chance to discredit john's hypocritical ideology and his fradulent deception regarding traffic cycling.

I'm torn- john is not only a forum member but also a controversial and increasingly discredited public figure in bicycling advocacy. can we discuss his impact on bicycling without discussing his caustic personality, engineering prejudices or wild jumps in logic?

I present it will be nigh impossible to discuss the theories of the man without discussing his disreputable style of engagement and debate. Regarding this forum, john chooses to overlay his 'advocacy' message with so much caustic hyperbole it seems in blanket violation of the respectfulness guidelines.

john's personality is innubed in his ideology. and he IS a public figure, even a public topic (but waning!) in bicycling advocacy.

Mention of his 'engineering prejudices' are documented in the bicycling press. Can I say "john's prejudices affect his views of bicycling infrastructure?" I assert that it is not a personal attack.

I beleive discussions of him and his personality are fair game as john is a public figure that once affected bicycling advocacy in this country.

i wonder if helmet head reported himself for starting a thread about the personality of a member? I'm not going to pass up a chance to discredit john's hypocritical ideology and his fradulent deception regarding traffic cycling.

I'm torn- john is not only a forum member but also a controversial and increasingly discredited public figure in bicycling advocacy. can we discuss his impact on bicycling without discussing his caustic personality, engineering prejudices or wild jumps in logic?

I present it will be nigh impossible to discuss the theories of the man without discussing his disreputable style of engagement and debate. Regarding this forum, john chooses to overlay his 'advocacy' message with so much caustic hyperbole it seems in blanket violation of the respectfulness guidelines.

john's personality is innubed in his ideology. and he IS a public figure, even a public topic (but waning!) in bicycling advocacy.

Mention of his 'engineering prejudices' are documented in the bicycling press. Can I say "john's prejudices affect his views of bicycling infrastructure?" I assert that it is not a personal attack.

I beleive discussions of him and his personality are fair game as john is a public figure that once affected bicycling advocacy in this country.

I have always accepted that a person who chooses to become a public figure in any field has to also accept the responsibilities that go with being a leader. That means, for me, that I have to put up with the remarks of people such as Bekologist and his allies. My stature may also be waning, as Bekologist claims.

However, the rest of Bekologist's tirade is inaccurate. Bekologist takes particular aim at what he calls my "engineering prejudices". That phrase means that I have prejudices that are either contrary to engineering knowledge or, at the very least, are excessively intense opinions in a matter about which engineering opinion is unsettled. That's an unusual claim, under these circumstances, because I frequently state that my opinions are based on standard engineering knowledge and data. That claim that has never been disproved by showing that an opinion of mine is contradicted by standard engineering knowledge or that data that I use have been contradicted by better data. Bekologist has disparaged engineering in previous statements, and the sense that I received from those remarks is that he despises engineering because it provides conclusions that differ from his desires.

Bekologist and I differ over the effects of bike paths and bike lanes on cyclists making transportational trips. I assert that cyclists should operate as drivers of vehicles and that it would be best if society accepted that operational mode and implemented that policy both physically, as road designs, and socially, in the form of policies in law, education, enforcement, and such. Part of that position is that vehicular-cycling skills are absolutely necessary for safe operation, that bike lanes contradict the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles, and that bike paths have limited application because there are very few locations for transportationally useful bike paths. Bekologist asserts that bike lanes and bike paths make cycling so safe and so easy that the American bikeway-building program will persuade American motorists to switch a transportationally significant number of motoring trips to bicycle trips.

Standard traffic-engineering knowledge and standard car-bike collision statistics demonstrate that bike lanes cannot significantly reduce car-bike collisions. That conclusion has not been demonstrated to be false. Standard human-factors analysis of driving through standard traffic movements demonstrates that standard vehicular driving practices are better suited to drivers and vehicles than are the different movement patterns implied by the bike-lane stripe, and that the fact that the bike-lane stripe contradicts some movements means that it is more difficult to learn what to do. That analysis has not been demonstrated to be false. Indeed, even Bekologist claims that drivers ought to obey the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles rather than the rules implied by the bike-lane stripe.

The question of the comparative utility of bicycle and motor transportation is also rationally answerable. In walking cities, bicycle transportation has considerable advantages over motor transportation for many trips. In streetcar cities, bicycle transportation still has advantages for a considerable proportion of trips. In automotive cities, distances have increased so much, and society has adapted to motoring so well, that the proportion of trips for which bicycle transportation has advantages is rather small. The studies comparing the transportational patterns of cities of different types have not directly addressed bicycle transportation, but they are convincing as to the general patterns that would influence bicycle transportation.

In short, the desires of the bikeway-promoting bicycle advocates have never been supported by significant evidence. Yet they continue to advocate bikeways. Indeed, they have recognized as much by changing their arguments to the purely psychological, that bikeways are so popular that bikeway construction will produce the results that they desire. Bekologist claims that I am an ideologue with fraudulent and deceptive arguments because I claim that "Cyclists fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles." That's not an ideological claim, because it is supported by the weight of the evidence available, evidence that has not been proved false. Bekologist's claim, on the other hand, is ideological because he maintains it despite the fact that it is contradicted by the evidence, except, of course, of popularity. So the question becomes on of why so many people believe that bikeways make bicycle transportation so safe and easy, in the face of the contrary evidence. Consideration of both past bike-safety education and the characteristics and source of the American bikeway designs shows that these were produced to ease the conflicts when motorists overtook cyclists, and the importance of staying out of the way of same-direction motorists as the criterion for safe cycling became accepted through exaggerated fear of same-direction motor traffic. The technical name for a fear that is contrary to the evidence but that causes a person to take action contrary to his own interests is phobia. Fear of that nature both enabled motorists to gain acceptance for their bikeway designs that were intended to discriminate against cyclists and convinced anti-motorists that bikeways were absolutely necessary to reduce motoring.

So, the bikeway-promoting bicycle advocates such as Bekologist have been forced by the evidence to reframe their arguments in terms of psychological appeal, and when that is accurately described as being based on a phobic fear of same-direction motor traffic they become very upset and produce criticism, not of the facts and reasoning, but of my supposed nastiness. I say that I have tried to stay within the bounds of proper scientific discourse, but when it is obvious that an argument is based on a false ideology I have to say so. The fact that their criticisms of my position are based on claims of prejudicial ideology and other falsities speaks only to the foundation-less basis of their ideology.

not even close. the harrangue is innacurate and those chestnuts are tired and rotten, john- where do you come up with all that blather?

john's road advice to be a 'road sneak' and ambiguously ride the edges of narrow lanes so as not to inconveinence the motorists place john's ideology firmly in the camp of inferior road cycling- according to john, as far as i can tell.

john recognizes vehicular cyclists can ride vehicularily in bike lanes and on the shoulders. john concedes to the the vehicularity of well implemented bike lanes. john also concedes the value of off-road path networks with good connectivity in communities.

john's version of vehicular cycling is even MORE about being 'out of the way' for motorists than most contemporary traffic cyclists choose, MORE inferior than most bike lane advocates' position on road riding.

john describes traffic negotiation 'impossible' any time motorists are moving 15 mph faster than the bicyclist- so, for commuters moving 12 on 25mph roads with motorists moving 30 become impossible to ride except as a 'road sneak', on the edges of narrow lanes.

I see hypocracy and fraud.

cyclists fare best in communities where they are recognized as operators of human powered vehicles with unique operating characteristics and accomodated as such, not the fradulent witticism john prattles on with.

.... My stature may also be waning, as Bekologist claims.

However, the rest of Bekologist's tirade is inaccurate. Bekologist takes particular aim at what he calls my "engineering prejudices".

john, your stature IS waning, your 'theories' are largely discredited in the bicycling arena nowadays. Calling your ideology fraught with 'engineering prejudices' has been put into print in a bicycling magazine, john. its not just me that recognizes you are filled with prejudice!!

In reference to John's posting above:

Would you argue that psycological appeal is irrelevant?

Would you argue that a demarkation between traffic flows is always a bad thing?

IMO bike lanes often provide a convenient place to ride. I can certainly tell the difference in riding comfort between, for example, roads of 45 mph limit that have bike lanes, and those that do not. That is not to say that all roads require bike laning.
One might argue that the provision of bike lanes is a form of positive, rather than negative discrimination, since cycling is very a minority as a proportion of traffic. That motorists, on occasion, fail to negotiate cyclists correctly & safely is not directly, in my opinion, the fault of road design. Motorists often fail to negotiate freeway/motorway lanes appropriately, nobody suggests that they should be removed.

Ed

I have always accepted that a person who chooses to become a public figure in any field has to also accept the responsibilities that go with being a leader. That means, for me, that I have to put up with the remarks of people such as Bekologist and his allies. My stature may also be waning, as Bekologist claims.

However, the rest of Bekologist's tirade is inaccurate. Bekologist takes particular aim at what he calls my "engineering prejudices". That phrase means that I have prejudices that are either contrary to engineering knowledge or, at the very least, are excessively intense opinions in a matter about which engineering opinion is unsettled. That's an unusual claim, under these circumstances, because I frequently state that my opinions are based on standard engineering knowledge and data. That claim that has never been disproved by showing that an opinion of mine is contradicted by standard engineering knowledge or that data that I use have been contradicted by better data. Bekologist has disparaged engineering in previous statements, and the sense that I received from those remarks is that he despises engineering because it provides conclusions that differ from his desires.

Bekologist and I differ over the effects of bike paths and bike lanes on cyclists making transportational trips. I assert that cyclists should operate as drivers of vehicles and that it would be best if society accepted that operational mode and implemented that policy both physically, as road designs, and socially, in the form of policies in law, education, enforcement, and such. Part of that position is that vehicular-cycling skills are absolutely necessary for safe operation, that bike lanes contradict the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles, and that bike paths have limited application because there are very few locations for transportationally useful bike paths. Bekologist asserts that bike lanes and bike paths make cycling so safe and so easy that the American bikeway-building program will persuade American motorists to switch a transportationally significant number of motoring trips to bicycle trips.

Standard traffic-engineering knowledge and standard car-bike collision statistics demonstrate that bike lanes cannot significantly reduce car-bike collisions. That conclusion has not been demonstrated to be false. Standard human-factors analysis of driving through standard traffic movements demonstrates that standard vehicular driving practices are better suited to drivers and vehicles than are the different movement patterns implied by the bike-lane stripe, and that the fact that the bike-lane stripe contradicts some movements means that it is more difficult to learn what to do. That analysis has not been demonstrated to be false. Indeed, even Bekologist claims that drivers ought to obey the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles rather than the rules implied by the bike-lane stripe.

The question of the comparative utility of bicycle and motor transportation is also rationally answerable. In walking cities, bicycle transportation has considerable advantages over motor transportation for many trips. In streetcar cities, bicycle transportation still has advantages for a considerable proportion of trips. In automotive cities, distances have increased so much, and society has adapted to motoring so well, that the proportion of trips for which bicycle transportation has advantages is rather small. The studies comparing the transportational patterns of cities of different types have not directly addressed bicycle transportation, but they are convincing as to the general patterns that would influence bicycle transportation.

In short,the desires of the bikeway-promoting bicycle advocates have never been supported by significant evidence. Yet they continue to advocate bikeways. Indeed, they have recognized as much by changing their arguments to the purely psychological, that bikeways are so popular that bikeway construction will produce the results that they desire. Bekologist claims that I am an ideologue with fraudulent and deceptive arguments because I claim that "Cyclists fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles." That's not an ideological claim, because it is supported by the weight of the evidence available, evidence that has not been proved false. Bekologist's claim, on the other hand, is ideological because he maintains it despite the fact that it is contradicted by the evidence, except, of course, of popularity. So the question becomes on of why so many people believe that bikeways make bicycle transportation so safe and easy, in the face of the contrary evidence. Consideration of both past bike-safety education and the characteristics and source of the American bikeway designs shows that these were produced to ease the conflicts when motorists overtook cyclists, and the importance of staying out of the way of same-direction motorists as the criterion for safe cycling became accepted through exaggerated fear of same-direction motor traffic. The technical name for a fear that is contrary to the evidence but that causes a person to take action contrary to his own interests is phobia. Fear of that nature both enabled motorists to gain acceptance for their bikeway designs that were intended to discriminate against cyclists and convinced anti-motorists that bikeways were absolutely necessary to reduce motoring.

So, the bikeway-promoting bicycle advocates such as Bekologist have been forced by the evidence to reframe their arguments in terms of psychological appeal, and when that is accurately described as being based on a phobic fear of same-direction motor traffic they become very upset and produce criticism, not of the facts and reasoning, but of my supposed nastiness. I say that I have tried to stay within the bounds of proper scientific discourse, but when it is obvious that an argument is based on a false ideology I have to say so. The fact that their criticisms of my position are based on claims of prejudicial ideology and other falsities speaks only to the foundation-less basis of their ideology.


:roflmao:

The question of the comparative utility of bicycle and motor transportation is also rationally answerable. In walking cities, bicycle transportation has considerable advantages over motor transportation for many trips. ...

And since Baltimore is a walking city and bicycle transportation has considerable advantages over motor transportation yet promoting bicycling here is anti-motoring which is always a bad thing. Do I have that right?

not even close. the harrangue is innacurate and those chestnuts are tired and rotten, john- where do you come up with all that blather?

john's road advice to be a 'road sneak' and ambiguously ride the edges of narrow lanes so as not to inconveinence the motorists place john's ideology firmly in the camp of inferior road cycling- according to john, as far as i can tell.

john recognizes vehicular cyclists can ride vehicularily in bike lanes and on the shoulders. john concedes to the the vehicularity of well implemented bike lanes. john also concedes the value of off-road path networks with good connectivity in communities.

john's version of vehicular cycling is even MORE about being 'out of the way' for motorists than most contemporary traffic cyclists choose, MORE inferior than most bike lane advocates' position on road riding.

john describes traffic negotiation 'impossible' any time motorists are moving 15 mph faster than the bicyclist- so, for commuters moving 12 on 25mph roads with motorists moving 30 become impossible to ride except as a 'road sneak', on the edges of narrow lanes.

I see hypocracy and fraud.

Bekologist, you have not offered any substantive criticism of the statements that I made in my article, no demonstration that any of those statements is incorrect. Therefore, one should conclude that no such demonstration has been made, so that my statements stand.

You make much of my statement many years ago that lane-changing negotiation does not work when motorist speeds exceed cyclist's speed by 15 mph. That was based on my experience in fast motor traffic and using the head turn signal, when I received poor response, and was written as advice to cyclists, rather than as a documented study. I am quite ready to reconsider this based on other evidence. Others have stated that when using full arm signal response occurs from the motorists several cars back. OK, I'll accept that.

You criticize my cycling style because it is not calculated to inconvenience motorists. That certainly shows your attitude that cycling should inconvenience motorists. As far as I am concerned, cycling is a driving activity conducted with cooperation between all drivers as to safety and convenience. There is no need to deliberately inconvenience other drivers when neither safety nor one's own legitimate convenience is at stake.

You seem to think that my acceptance of reasonably safe and useful bicycle paths is some condemnation of vehicular cycling. It isn't, because it has nothing to do with vehicular cycling, which is a roadway activity according to the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles.

Your argument that because sometimes cycling inside a bicycle lane, or motoring outside a bicycle lane, conforms to the rules of the road, then all cycling inside a bicycle lane and all motoring outside a bicycle lane must conform to the rules of the road is a logical fallacy. This fallacy is commonly described as the black swan fallacy: that because observation of swans shows white birds, all swans must be white, while in fact there are black swans in other parts of the world.

And you choose to base your criticism of my competence upon your own statement that some person, in some publication, has written that I have engineering prejudices. In short, you ask us to believe in the accuracy of your evaluation of somebody else's statement about engineering competence? That's a bit more of a stretch than is justified by the quality of your previous demonstrations of engineering competence.

In reference to John's posting above:

Would you argue that psycological appeal is irrelevant?

Would you argue that a demarkation between traffic flows is always a bad thing?

IMO bike lanes often provide a convenient place to ride. I can certainly tell the difference in riding comfort between, for example, roads of 45 mph limit that have bike lanes, and those that do not. That is not to say that all roads require bike laning.
One might argue that the provision of bike lanes is a form of positive, rather than negative discrimination, since cycling is very a minority as a proportion of traffic. That motorists, on occasion, fail to negotiate cyclists correctly & safely is not directly, in my opinion, the fault of road design. Motorists often fail to negotiate freeway/motorway lanes appropriately, nobody suggests that they should be removed.

Ed

I take it that you ask me, at least, to answer some of your questions.

You ask: "Would you argue that psychological appeal is irrelevant?" Not at all; since psychological appeal is vital to the arguments of the anti-motoring bikeway advocates, it must be carefully examined. However, there are two very different criteria for evaluating psychological appeal: effectiveness and validity. To take an example, Hitler's speeches were very effective in motivating the German people, but they did so by being mostly lies with just a modicum of truth to generate credibility. The psychological appeal of bike lanes (and of bike paths in many ways) is based on a fear of same-direction motor traffic that is exaggerated far beyond what the facts warrant, combined with a greatly under-rated fear of crossing and turning traffic. Those are inaccurate. Furthermore, the psychological appeal was created to make motoring easier by frightening cyclists to the side of the road, or off it altogether. Therefore, in this case, the psychological appeal was generated by lies to serve the selfish interests of motorists.

You ask: "Would you argue that a demarkation between traffic flows is always a bad thing?" Not at all. Consider a stripe indicating the separation between traffic going straight and traffic making a turn, either to right or to left. That's good. But it is good because nobody is supposed to violate that line for any reason. Once one has driven into that lane, one is required by law to act as that lane commands. But the bike-lane stripe is not of that type. According to the rules of the road that all drivers should obey, sometimes a cyclist should be to its right, sometimes to its left; sometimes a motorist should be to its left, sometimes to its right. However, the impression created by the bike-lane stripe is different; that the cyclist belongs to the right of the stripe while the motorist belongs to the left of the stripe. It is this conflict between the rules of the road and the mental impression created by the stripe in which the harm and danger lie.

You offer the validity of the lane stripes on multi-lane roads as reasonably connected with the validity of bike-lane stripes, saying that no one says that the stripes designating lanes on multi-lane roads should be removed merely because sometimes motorists make unlawful lane changes. The comparison is not valid because the types of expected behavior are different. On a multi-lane roadway, nobody claims that you, Mr. Smith, belong in the #2 lane, while you, Mrs. White, belong in the #1 lane. Each driver has his equal choice of which lane to use, with some regard to speed positioning in some nations. However, the bike-lane stripe exercises a different function: it says to all that you, Mr. Motorist, must stay in your motoring lane, while you, Miss Cyclist, must stay in you bicycling lane, by virtue of being who you are.

You suggest that providing bike lanes could be considered discrimination against motorists in favor of cyclists. Well, that's unlikely; the majority does not discriminate against itself. Discrimination is when one side manages to arrange affairs so that those on the other side receive less than they would have had without such action. It would be most unlikely that those in the position of power would arrange things so that they get less than what they consider to be their fair share.

I'm wondering, why do you think it's possible to get acceptance of cyclists as legitimate road users, but not possible to get acceptance that it's ok for cyclists to leave the bikelane if they need to?

I'm wondering, why do you think it's possible to get acceptance of cyclists as legitimate road users, but not possible to get acceptance that it's ok for cyclists to leave the bikelane if they need to?

That is not the dichotomy that I envision. After decades of dealing with motorist selfishness, public indifference to the cycling issues, and the agenda-driven arguments of the anti-motoring bikeway promoters that are irrational and unsupported by facts or reason, I have concluded that facts and knowledge are most unlikely to prevail in the USA. I think that the most that American vehicular cyclists can expect is some return to the legal and social conditions before the bikeway program. That is, that the law requires that drivers obey the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles, but that American public opinion thinks otherwise for those drivers who are riding bicycles. The result was that most Americans then, as now, rode incompetently and unlawfully, with no effective public criticism, even public approval, while those of us who rode competently and lawfully were largely ignored, despite the two or three laws that restricted cyclists' right to obey the standard laws. That system was excused on the basis that cyclists were children without judgment and that keeping them close to the curb was necessary for their safety.

That was then. We now have the additional problem that bikeways are the physical announcement of that superstition applied to all cyclists and all motorists. To reach even an approach to reform from this degree of superstition requires that the apparently magic power of bike lanes be deflated to what it really is, nothing more than a complication to traffic operation, so that the supremacy of the rules of the road can be legally and politically reinstated for all drivers, even if the public opinion holds otherwise and most cyclists don't obey those rules.

:rolleyes: I'm glad I asked

That is not the dichotomy that I envision.

If you're not prepared to answer the question you were actually asked, don't bother to respond at all.

Bike facilities, for good or bad, are here to stay. You, as a cycling educator, have the following choices a) offer your experience in advising the best way to design them, and teach the public the safest way to use them, b) continue to whine about the 'anti-motorist' agenda or c) go away. Which do you think is best for cyclists?

I have concluded that facts and knowledge are most unlikely to prevail in the USA. I think that the most that American vehicular cyclists can expect is some return to the legal and social conditions before the bikeway program.

If that's seriously how you feel, then perhaps it's time for you to step back and let the people that still have a bit of optimism have a go.

Thanks for your response. Just to be clear, this discussion is one of bike lanes that are an integral part of the roadway. I am not a bike lane "zealot" but do appreciate these facilities in many places that they are in evidence. Certainly I do not think that lane striping should be removed. (I have argued against sidewalk paths and bike lanes with periodic raised dividers in the past).

I take it that you ask me, at least, to answer some of your questions.

You ask: "Would you argue that psychological appeal is irrelevant?" Not at all; since psychological appeal is vital to the arguments of the anti-motoring bikeway advocates, it must be carefully examined. However, there are two very different criteria for evaluating psychological appeal: effectiveness and validity. To take an example, Hitler's speeches were very effective in motivating the German people, but they did so by being mostly lies with just a modicum of truth to generate credibility. The psychological appeal of bike lanes (and of bike paths in many ways) is based on a fear of same-direction motor traffic that is exaggerated far beyond what the facts warrant, combined with a greatly under-rated fear of crossing and turning traffic. Those are inaccurate. Furthermore, the psychological appeal was created to make motoring easier by frightening cyclists to the side of the road, or off it altogether. Therefore, in this case, the psychological appeal was generated by lies to serve the selfish interests of motorists.

I really don't believe that bike lanes were designed with motorists in mind. I think cyclist safety was the goal. Now, perhaps there is a side benefit [sic] to motorists if accommodation is made for traffic with a lower capability for speed (mountain pass crawler lanes analogy). I do not regard that as a bad thing. Bike lanes are not perfect, but neither are other aspects of the roadway design. However, I note that most cyclists (that I see) using the roadway, will ride within a bike lane where it is provided. Are they frightened? Probably not.


You ask: "Would you argue that a demarkation between traffic flows is always a bad thing?" Not at all. Consider a stripe indicating the separation between traffic going straight and traffic making a turn, either to right or to left. That's good. But it is good because nobody is supposed to violate that line for any reason. Once one has driven into that lane, one is required by law to act as that lane commands. But the bike-lane stripe is not of that type. According to the rules of the road that all drivers should obey, sometimes a cyclist should be to its right, sometimes to its left; sometimes a motorist should be to its left, sometimes to its right. However, the impression created by the bike-lane stripe is different; that the cyclist belongs to the right of the stripe while the motorist belongs to the left of the stripe. It is this conflict between the rules of the road and the mental impression created by the stripe in which the harm and danger lie.

How does this violate the rules of the road when the operation of a vehicle in regard to these lanes is indicated clearly in the vehicle code (California). I have seen test sheets that include questions specifically asking where a motorist should enter the lane when making a right turn. Drivers are thus required by law to understand correct driving practice with regard to cyclists. Thus, our legitimate place on the road is established and supported.


You offer the validity of the lane stripes on multi-lane roads as reasonably connected with the validity of bike-lane stripes, saying that no one says that the stripes designating lanes on multi-lane roads should be removed merely because sometimes motorists make unlawful lane changes. The comparison is not valid because the types of expected behavior are different. On a multi-lane roadway, nobody claims that you, Mr. Smith, belong in the #2 lane, while you, Mrs. White, belong in the #1 lane. Each driver has his equal choice of which lane to use, with some regard to speed positioning in some nations. However, the bike-lane stripe exercises a different function: it says to all that you, Mr. Motorist, must stay in your motoring lane, while you, Miss Cyclist, must stay in you bicycling lane, by virtue of being who you are.

In all places I have ridden, none of the bike lanes are mandatory (though I understand that this may be the case in some situations/places). Hence I am free to treat the lanes of the roadway equally. The bike lane reserves space for the majority of its extent, though one has to accept that traffic will intersect it, just as it doees with any other lane - that is obvious.


You suggest that providing bike lanes could be considered discrimination against motorists in favor of cyclists. Well, that's unlikely; the majority does not discriminate against itself. Discrimination is when one side manages to arrange affairs so that those on the other side receive less than they would have had without such action. It would be most unlikely that those in the position of power would arrange things so that they get less than what they consider to be their fair share.

This point was not 100% serious, but simply put to counter the argument that roadway engineers seek deliberately to discriminate against cycles. I think they are trying to accommodate us, although their vision of how this can be achieved does not always tally with what is useful to a cyclist. Then again, we must recognise that cyclists are available in a wide variety of experience flavours - one man's meat is anothers poison etc.

I assert that (roadway) bike lanes are, at the very least, an important "marker" for cyclists presence in the traffic system. This rider also find them beneficial.

Ed

Thanks for your response. Just to be clear, this discussion is one of bike lanes that are an integral part of the roadway. I am not a bike lane "zealot" but do appreciate these facilities in many places that they are in evidence. Certainly I do not think that lane striping should be removed. (I have argued against sidewalk paths and bike lanes with periodic raised dividers in the past).

I really don't believe that bike lanes were designed with motorists in mind. I think cyclist safety was the goal. Now, perhaps there is a side benefit [sic] to motorists if accommodation is made for traffic with a lower capability for speed (mountain pass crawler lanes analogy). I do not regard that as a bad thing. Bike lanes are not perfect, but neither are other aspects of the roadway design. However, I note that most cyclists (that I see) using the roadway, will ride within a bike lane where it is provided. Are they frightened? Probably not.

some snipped

Ed

You state: "I really don't believe that bike lanes were designed with motorists in mind. I think cyclist safety was the goal." I could snarkily ask you where you obtained that information. But I won't, simply because there is no valid source for that information. I was there, prominently active in both of the California State government committees that produced the traffic laws and standard designs for bikeways that have since been adopted across America, breaking through the secrecy to find out what they were doing and why they were doing it, and finally forcing them out into the view of the cycling public. Those committees refused to accept advice about the prevalent hazards from the only persons among them with significant traffic-cycling experience. The only actions that those committees took was to push cyclists aside. They refused to take actions requested of them that were designed to mitigate the then recognized hazards of traffic cycling. Of course, the other committee members always talked cyclist safety, but the only kind of safety on which they were prepared to take action was shoving cyclists aside to protect them from same-direction motor traffic, as if that were by far the greatest cause of car-bike collisions that existed. They commissioned the first statistical study of car-bike collisions (done by an investigator with much experience in investigating aircraft accidents), expecting it to support their opinion. Then that study supported the advice that cyclists had been giving them and completely disproved their opinion: same-direction car-bike collisions were only 0.5% of the total. So they suppressed the study, because they were determined to go ahead shoving cyclists aside despite the scientific evidence that shoving cyclists aside could not reduce car-bike collisions.

There are two reasonable explanations for this behavior. One is that they were determined to shove cyclists aside for the convenience of motorists. The other is that they were so imbued with the cyclist-inferiority view that their minds could not accept the scientific facts that were presented. Neither is a justifiable excuse for what was done.

I really don't believe that bike lanes were designed with motorists in mind. I think cyclist safety was the goal.

Just to prove Godwin's Law here ya go! ;) The following is based upon translations of material provided by the Forschungdienst Fahrrad and credits mainly go to Volker Briese for the research . See pp 4 and onwards

http://www.cyclenetwork.org.uk/papers/0405galway.pdf

" Let us show the marvelling foreigners proof of
an up-and-coming Germany; a Germany where
the motorist has bicycle-free and safe access
not only to the autobahns but to all roads."

-- NAZI Olympics Propaganda 1936
http://galwaycycling.org/archive/info/vbriese_abstract.html

Thanks for your response. Just to be clear, this discussion is one of bike lanes that are an integral part of the roadway. I am not a bike lane "zealot" but do appreciate these facilities in many places that they are in evidence. Certainly I do not think that lane striping should be removed. (I have argued against sidewalk paths and bike lanes with periodic raised dividers in the past).

How does this violate the rules of the road when the operation of a vehicle in regard to these lanes is indicated clearly in the vehicle code (California). I have seen test sheets that include questions specifically asking where a motorist should enter the lane when making a right turn. Drivers are thus required by law to understand correct driving practice with regard to cyclists. Thus, our legitimate place on the road is established and supported.

In all places I have ridden, none of the bike lanes are mandatory (though I understand that this may be the case in some situations/places). Hence I am free to treat the lanes of the roadway equally. The bike lane reserves space for the majority of its extent, though one has to accept that traffic will intersect it, just as it doees with any other lane - that is obvious.

some snipped


Ed

This part of the discussion concerns the legal issues. You ask the rhetorical question: "How does this violate the rules of the road when the operation of a vehicle in regard to these lanes is indicated clearly in the vehicle code (California)." You fail to understand the significance of the wording that I always use: the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles. These are the rules that have been worked out through a century of use so that they provide a reasonable balance of safety and efficiency when used by human drivers of wheeled vehicles. They work. The traffic laws that apply specifically to cyclists alone, and to motorists with respect to bike lanes, exist only because they contradict the standard rules for drivers of vehicles. If they agreed, there would be no necessity for saying so; they exist only because of the desire to have different behavior for cyclists and around bike lanes. I put it to you that any system of road-user behavior or of roadway structure that requires operation contrary to the standard rules of the road has two great deficiencies. The first deficiency is that the behavior produced is likely to create conflicts. The second deficiency is that the requirements will not be understood by the general road-using public, simply because they contradict normal use.

Indeed, with respect to behavior around bike lanes, the situation has another layer of complexity. The bike-lane stripe implies to people that they should do what they think the stripe implies, that cyclists should be on the right of the stripe and motorists on the left of the stripe, for the safety of cyclists. But this behavior, while sometimes in accordance with the standard rules of the road, is sometimes in conflict with them. So having confused people with the bike-lane stripe, we then have to have special, not well understood, traffic laws to try to get people to operate in accordance with the rules of the road. Best, really, to not produce stripes that introduce all this unnecessary complication into driving in traffic.

The psychological appeal of bike lanes (and of bike paths in many ways) is based on a fear of same-direction motor traffic that is exaggerated far beyond what the facts warrant, combined with a greatly under-rated fear of crossing and turning traffic. Those are inaccurate. Furthermore, the psychological appeal was created to make motoring easier by frightening cyclists to the side of the road, or off it altogether. Therefore, in this case, the psychological appeal was generated by lies to serve the selfish interests of motorists.

And in a similar way the psychological appeal of riding on shoulders is based on a fear of same-direction motor traffic that is exaggerated far beyond what the facts warrant. Furthermore, the psychological appeal was created to make motoring easier by frightening cyclists to off the road altogether. Therefore, in this case, the psychological appeal was generated by lies to serve the selfish interests of motorists and the anti-anti-motoring crowd.

However, the impression created by the bike-lane stripe is different; that the cyclist belongs to the right of the stripe while the motorist belongs to the left of the stripe. It is this conflict between the rules of the road and the mental impression created by the stripe in which the harm and danger lie.

This is exaggerated far beyond what the facts warrant since no study has shown bike lanes more dangerous.

The comparison is not valid because the types of expected behavior are different. On a multi-lane roadway, nobody claims that you, Mr. Smith, belong in the #2 lane, while you, Mrs. White, belong in the #1 lane.

While only a few states still have the fast lane/slow lane law (I believe) the rule still exists in our culture and for motorists it is one component of road rage in that one driver accuses another of driving in the wrong lane.

You suggest that providing bike lanes could be considered discrimination against motorists in favor of cyclists. Well, that's unlikely; the majority does not discriminate against itself. Discrimination is when one side manages to arrange affairs so that those on the other side receive less than they would have had without such action. It would be most unlikely that those in the position of power would arrange things so that they get less than what they consider to be their fair share.

What a bunch of cyclist inferiority garbage. Who says motorist are in charge? At the end of the day it is the politicians that make decisions to get reelected. There are a lot of factors that go into these decisions but more and more accommodating cyclists is a cheep way to make the public happy and get reelected. I believe more and more for politicians it is coming down to a choice 1) Try and figure out how to shoe horn a $3 billion road project that might possibly maybe reduce congestion or 2) $300 million for a mass transit project that will help reduce congestion or 3) go for $3 million bike/ped project. The amount of money to "fix" our roadways via option 1 is increasingly becoming out of reach and the time frame from conception to driveability is longer then a 4 year term and people like to see stuff on the ground and not pie in the sky promises so options 2 and 3 are becoming increasingly popular.

Thanks for your response. Just to be clear, this discussion is one of bike lanes that are an integral part of the roadway. I am not a bike lane "zealot" but do appreciate these facilities in many places that they are in evidence. Certainly I do not think that lane striping should be removed. (I have argued against sidewalk paths and bike lanes with periodic raised dividers in the past).



This point was not 100% serious, but simply put to counter the argument that roadway engineers seek deliberately to discriminate against cycles. I think they are trying to accommodate us, although their vision of how this can be achieved does not always tally with what is useful to a cyclist. Then again, we must recognise that cyclists are available in a wide variety of experience flavours - one man's meat is anothers poison etc.

I assert that (roadway) bike lanes are, at the very least, an important "marker" for cyclists presence in the traffic system. This rider also find them beneficial.

Ed

The statement about engineers' desire is not quite accurate. The actions of those involved (not mainly civil engineers at all; they provide the structure, not the operating procedures) is severely limited by the applicable standards and funds available. Nowadays, these both make it very difficult to do otherwise than what was originally intended by the designers of the standards. Furthermore, it is the nature of engineers to accept standard designs as being fully justified unless the particular circumstances are so unusual that some new design must be produced. So, in bike lane affairs, they act in accordance with designs that were never justified by engineering work, but were produced for, shall we say, political reasons.

You also claim that bike-lane stripes are good for some cyclists even though they may be bad for others. I don't see any substantive benefit, while I see harm for those cyclists who are misled by the bike-lane stripe to either obey it when they should not and make unwise movements, or get involved in a car-bike collision because they think that cars won't enter the lane.

You also write: "I assert that (roadway) bike lanes are, at the very least, an important "marker" for cyclists presence in the traffic system." So what? You don't need a brass band; just ride your bicycle in the proper manner and your trip goes reasonably well. Sure, there are ignorant and prejudiced people around, but that's their problem, not yours, unless it comes to actual assault, in which case the stripe won't protect you but the law about assaults will, as well as any such law can. Don't feel inferior and vulnerable to feelings; accept that, if you are riding properly, you are doing the right thing while those who make noise are simply demonstrating their ignorance and prejudice.

Your argument that because sometimes cycling inside a bicycle lane, or motoring outside a bicycle lane, conforms to the rules of the road, then all cycling inside a bicycle lane and all motoring outside a bicycle lane must conform to the rules of the road is a logical fallacy. This fallacy is commonly described as the black swan fallacy: that because observation of swans shows white birds, all swans must be white, while in fact there are black swans in other parts of the world.

And there is another logical fallacy known as the '2-4-6' task which is a form of confirmation bias; people seek confirming but not falsifying evidence. While you have plenty of confirmations from personal observations and the use of deductive logic that suggests bike lanes should be more dangerous and are not intuitive in design the fact is there is falsifying evidence that shows that bike lane designs are not inherently more dangerous.

And in a similar way the psychological appeal of riding on shoulders is based on a fear of same-direction motor traffic that is exaggerated far beyond what the facts warrant. Furthermore, the psychological appeal was created to make motoring easier by frightening cyclists to off the road altogether. Therefore, in this case, the psychological appeal was generated by lies to serve the selfish interests of motorists and the anti-anti-motoring crowd.

snipped
.

You do try hard to work up a weak argument, don't you? The crucial difference is that bike lanes are created with the specific excuse of making cycling much safer. They have no other real argument, false though it is. Shoulders were not created for cyclists, but for motorists and the motoring public, as places of refuge and as items that preserved the edge of the roadway from erosion and other damage. The difference in intent makes all the difference in the world as to how people behave around them.

And in a similar way the psychological appeal of riding on shoulders is based on a fear of same-direction motor traffic that is exaggerated far beyond what the facts warrant. Furthermore, the psychological appeal was created to make motoring easier by frightening cyclists to off the road altogether. Therefore, in this case, the psychological appeal was generated by lies to serve the selfish interests of motorists and the anti-anti-motoring crowd.

Originally Posted by John Forester
"However, the impression created by the bike-lane stripe is different; that the cyclist belongs to the right of the stripe while the motorist belongs to the left of the stripe. It is this conflict between the rules of the road and the mental impression created by the stripe in which the harm and danger lie."

This is exaggerated far beyond what the facts warrant since no study has shown bike lanes more dangerous.


.

You are correct that no American study has shown that bike lanes increase the rate of car-bike collisions. However, look at the number of car-bike collisions reported as being associated with the bad cycling and motoring styles associated with bike lanes. Those are clear evidence that such collisions exist. One is entitled to assume that these are likely to be in addition to those that would normally occur. The proportion may be small, but if they could be eliminated by eliminating the bike-lane stripes, that would be good.

The crucial difference is that bike lanes are created with the specific excuse of making cycling much safer. They have no other real argument, false though it is. Shoulders were not created for cyclists, but for motorists and the motoring public, as places of refuge and as items that preserved the edge of the roadway from erosion and other damage. The difference in intent makes all the difference in the world as to how people behave around them.

Although they seem to come with other road improvements that probably make the road safer.

I am trying to remember the oral argument given for bike lanes at the last Washington Area Bicyclist Association meeting. The more that I think about it, I don't think any was given. That is, people just thought that bike lanes were a "thumbs up!" I will have to ask next time. But through personal conversations, factors other than safety were mentioned -- safety was an important consideration even though they could not prove that lanes themselves contributed to greater safety. Regardless, let's avoid the same cycle and realize that we have all read them before.

Personally, I doubt that the design-intent matters much in this instance. At least not with my first pass at the idea.

Originally Posted by John Forester
"The comparison is not valid because the types of expected behavior are different. On a multi-lane roadway, nobody claims that you, Mr. Smith, belong in the #2 lane, while you, Mrs. White, belong in the #1 lane."

While only a few states still have the fast lane/slow lane law (I believe) the rule still exists in our culture and for motorists it is one component of road rage in that one driver accuses another of driving in the wrong lane.



You are quoting exactly the superstition that motorists always travel faster than cyclists, one of the superstitions that are used to justify bike lanes, which, at least in the public mind, always place cyclists to the right of motorists.

snipped

Originally Posted by John Forester
"You suggest that providing bike lanes could be considered discrimination against motorists in favor of cyclists. Well, that's unlikely; the majority does not discriminate against itself. Discrimination is when one side manages to arrange affairs so that those on the other side receive less than they would have had without such action. It would be most unlikely that those in the position of power would arrange things so that they get less than what they consider to be their fair share."

What a bunch of cyclist inferiority garbage. Who says motorist are in charge? At the end of the day it is the politicians that make decisions to get reelected. There are a lot of factors that go into these decisions but more and more accommodating cyclists is a cheep way to make the public happy and get reelected. I believe more and more for politicians it is coming down to a choice 1) Try and figure out how to shoe horn a $3 billion road project that might possibly maybe reduce congestion or 2) $300 million for a mass transit project that will help reduce congestion or 3) go for $3 million bike/ped project. The amount of money to "fix" our roadways via option 1 is increasingly becoming out of reach and the time frame from conception to driveability is longer then a 4 year term and people like to see stuff on the ground and not pie in the sky promises so options 2 and 3 are becoming increasingly popular.

The discussion concerned dividing roadway space between cyclists and motorists. In that respect, motorists generally have the strongest say. You raise other issues entirely, as to the best expenditure of different amounts of funds for various kinds of transportation project, the wisdom of each choice being beyond the scope of this discussion. However, with respect to your evaluation of the bicycle and pedestrian project, ignoring the principle that they should never be mixed up in one project, your own evaluation is that this is cheap, quick, and showy. Not a responsible expenditure of public funds, that.

And there is another logical fallacy known as the '2-4-6' task which is a form of confirmation bias; people seek confirming but not falsifying evidence. While you have plenty of confirmations from personal observations and the use of deductive logic that suggests bike lanes should be more dangerous and are not intuitive in design the fact is there is falsifying evidence that shows that bike lane designs are not inherently more dangerous.


You assert that: "there is falsifying evidence that shows that bike lane designs are not inherently more dangerous."

What is that evidence?

Just to prove Godwin's Law here ya go! ;) The following is based upon translations of material provided by the Forschungdienst Fahrrad and credits mainly go to Volker Briese for the research . See pp 4 and onwards

http://www.cyclenetwork.org.uk/papers/0405galway.pdf

" Let us show the marvelling foreigners proof of
an up-and-coming Germany; a Germany where
the motorist has bicycle-free and safe access
not only to the autobahns but to all roads."

-- NAZI Olympics Propaganda 1936
http://galwaycycling.org/archive/info/vbriese_abstract.html

Ein volk, Ein Reich, Ein Bike!

... a bit of a stretch of the imagination by any standards. :rolleyes:

Instead of the original three choices, could JF be some kind of a gollum or gnome or something? I would vote for that.

One is entitled to assume that these are likely to be in addition to those that would normally occur. The proportion may be small, but if they could be eliminated by eliminating the bike-lane stripes, that would be good.
Well if we are going after small improvements I know something that can be done to reduce the small number of rear end collisions that we have. ;)

To John Forrester:

I am aware of the argument that bike lanes suggest a conflict with the rules of the road. But these rules are not necessarily the law and can change without mandate, if I understand correctly.

Regardless of arguments over the comfort/safety of bike lanes, to rid the world of bike lanes AND improve cycle safety would, I suggest, require :

1) Better attention to cycles by the operators of motorised (faster) vehicles.
2) Cyclists ride in a full lane, not allowing traffic to "squeeze" past, right hook etc.
3) Motorist acceptance of slow traffic.

Note that there are significant changes required in motorist attitude from what we are familiar with today - especially if you juxtapose 2 and 3 above.

Contrast this with today's situation. For example, the 35 mph road I need to ride to reach my dentist's surgery, and use as a route to work on occasion. Two lanes each direction, no cycle lane. Traffic barely holds below 40 mph, I can maintain between 21 and 24 mph on a good day. If I take the whole right lane in busy traffic (legally permitted) this is considered wholly antisocial behaviour, and I receive antisocial treatment in return. That is the status quo. Hence, I ride "as far right as practicable", paying careful attention to what is approaching from behind. In this case one of three things happens:

a) Vehicles change lanes to pass.
b) They straddle the lane marking to pass, offering me a little extra room,
c) They pass without changing lanes, leaving little room.

At merging intersections, I move leftward as appropriate to mitigate the chances of the hook from traffic entering or leaving the route - this may induce scorn from a few drivers, but that's a small issue.

As if by magic, further along this route, it turns into a 45mph expressway, with wide shoulders designated as bike lanes. Excepting intersections (places where cyclist must always be attentive) neither I or the other traffic bother each other, though I may have to overtake the occasional cyclist. This is a more comfortable situation. Admittedly, these bike lanes are close to what I would envisage as a best case example, but they are there, and riders like them.

Ed

Not a responsible expenditure of public funds, that.
What exactly is a responsible expenditure of funds? Lets make all transportation funds go to the promotion of motorized travel and forget extra width for cyclists and sidewalks to walk on (our stuff is cheep compared to sidewalks) and save $40 million a year, then lets take a billion dollars yearly from the education budget to transport kids around on a road network they can't use via buses. Is this a wise choice of spending money? Is this the best use of public funds for the public good?

There is a problem with compartmentalizing funding as it removes the big picture. In any given funding program the benefits as well as the society costs have to be considered. Besides school buses there are numerous other factors in transportation planning. Public funds need to be distributed in a fair manner and cyclists and pedestrians are (at least the last time I checked) a part of the public and deserve their fair share.

Ein volk, Ein Reich, Ein Bike!

More like "ein Volk, ein Reich, keine Bike"!


... a bit of a stretch of the imagination by any standards. :rolleyes:

Sometimes the imagination gets stretched by reality and its good for the imagination. In this case there's good documentary evidence to show that German bike paths were constructed specifically with the convenience of motorists in mind. Kind of interesting given your original speculation to the contrary.

More like "ein Volk, ein Reich, keine Bike"!.

Sehr gut! "Ein volk, Ein Reich, Kein Rad"

..though you perhaps missed my subtle humour in the one folk, one state and (only) one bike spoof. :)

Sometimes the imagination gets stretched by reality and its good for the imagination. In this case there's good documentary evidence to show that German bike paths were constructed specifically with the convenience of motorists in mind. Kind of interesting given your original speculation to the contrary.

And that may have been the case 70 years ago... Besides, we are at something of a stalemate now, since construction of off road bike paths would consume money that is not available and land that is becoming increasingly prized.

Oxford, UK has a segregated bike path, removed from the roadway, that provides a safe route in parallel with a dual carriageway "ring road" system. No-one in their right mind would ignore this in favour of the 70 mph road with merged intersections. Rarely am I in favour of such facilities, but this is a geniune good one that used to form part of my daily commute.

Ed

You assert that: "there is falsifying evidence that shows that bike lane designs are not inherently more dangerous."

What is that evidence?

Heavy sigh, bike lanes have not been shown to be more dangerous despite your assertion that they should be.

..though you perhaps missed my subtle humour in the one folk, one state and (only) one bike spoof. :)

Indeed I did miss that. I can merely plead that I'm a High-Functioning Stupid and these things often pass me by.

Oxford, UK has a segregated bike path, removed from the roadway, that provides a safe route in parallel with a dual carriageway "ring road" system. No-one in their right mind would ignore this in favour of the 70 mph road with merged intersections. Rarely am I in favour of such facilities, but this is a geniune good one that used to form part of my daily commute.

Sounds like something I might use myself.

You do try hard to work up a weak argument, don't you? ... The difference in intent makes all the difference in the world as to how people behave around them.
We both seem to have our fondness for weak arguments. All in a days entertainment here on BF I guess. The assertion that intent makes all the difference in the world is interesting as there is some validity to it and some that is not valid. Did the intent to find Weapons of Mass Destruction have any effect when the shift of the war went elsewhere? Did the intent to create parkways so the new fangled automobile could have a place to go without disrupting the peaceful and functional aspect of the city have any effect when both parkways and the automobile were found to have a functionality?

How we look at things over time changes, nothing stays static. But I will strongly assert that the superiority of the shoulder has nothing to do with intent but rather the fact that it serves more then one purpose makes it a desirable road component.

Originally Posted by John Forester
You assert that: "there is falsifying evidence that shows that bike lane designs are not inherently more dangerous."

What is that evidence?



Heavy sigh, bike lanes have not been shown to be more dangerous despite your assertion that they should be.

Heavy sigh indeed? Is it any wonder that conducting a reasonable discussion is a frustrating experience. You are wrong on two counts, logic and facts. First, the absence of evidence is not the evidence of an assertion. Second, you should read a bit more before sounding off. I have never held that bike-lane systems produce a much higher car-bike collision rate than do normal roads, as your assertion holds. My position has always been that bike-lane systems could produce no more than a minute reduction in car-bike collisions, because they protect against only a minute proportion of collisions that occur without them. However, we also have to consider the probable increase in collisions produced by the conflict between the standard rules of the road and the contrary actions that the bike-lane persuades people to make. On balance, I think it more probable that bike lanes probably slightly increase car-bike collision rates than decrease them. But it is undeniable that the increase, whatever it is, comes from the movements that violate the standard rules of the road.

I have written this time after time; there should be no ambiguity in the mind of anyone who reads much my material.

We both seem to have our fondness for weak arguments. All in a days entertainment here on BF I guess. The assertion that intent makes all the difference in the world is interesting as there is some validity to it and some that is not valid. Did the intent to find Weapons of Mass Destruction have any effect when the shift of the war went elsewhere? Did the intent to create parkways so the new fangled automobile could have a place to go without disrupting the peaceful and functional aspect of the city have any effect when both parkways and the automobile were found to have a functionality?

How we look at things over time changes, nothing stays static. But I will strongly assert that the superiority of the shoulder has nothing to do with intent but rather the fact that it serves more then one purpose makes it a desirable road component.

I suspect that you had not realized how apposite is your analogy between bike-lane designers and the Bush administration. Just as the WMD argument was the excuse for the desire to produce an Iraqi government of free-enterprise conservatives, so the cyclist safety argument was the cooked up excuse for allowing motorists to shove cyclists aside. However, here is the difference. There were no WMDs, but it has always been true that bikeways shove cyclists aside. That cannot be denied; they achieve the intent of their designers.

.Oxford, UK has a segregated bike path, removed from the roadway, that provides a safe route in parallel with a dual carriageway "ring road" system. No-one in their right mind would ignore this in favour of the 70 mph road with merged intersections. Rarely am I in favour of such facilities, but this is a geniune good one that used to form part of my daily commute.

Ed

A 70 mph ring road? With merged intersections? What are they? I suspect that that is much like a freeway. What is the speed of the traffic before entering and after leaving the ring? The value of a bike path in such circumstances really hinges on the way that its crossings with motor traffic are handled. They could be good, or bad, and you have provided no information about the important issues.

What exactly is a responsible expenditure of funds? Lets make all transportation funds go to the promotion of motorized travel and forget extra width for cyclists and sidewalks to walk on (our stuff is cheep compared to sidewalks) and save $40 million a year, then lets take a billion dollars yearly from the education budget to transport kids around on a road network they can't use via buses. Is this a wise choice of spending money? Is this the best use of public funds for the public good?

There is a problem with compartmentalizing funding as it removes the big picture. In any given funding program the benefits as well as the society costs have to be considered. Besides school buses there are numerous other factors in transportation planning. Public funds need to be distributed in a fair manner and cyclists and pedestrians are (at least the last time I checked) a part of the public and deserve their fair share.

You criticized my remark that "However, with respect to your evaluation of the bicycle and pedestrian project, ignoring the principle that they should never be mixed up in one project, your own evaluation is that this is cheap, quick, and showy. Not a responsible expenditure of public funds, that." Don't then change the subject to a general discussion of responsible division of funds. You evaluated it as cheap, quick, and showy, and I took you at your word.

Heavy sigh indeed? Is it any wonder that conducting a reasonable discussion is a frustrating experience. You are wrong on two counts, logic and facts. First, the absence of evidence is not the evidence of an assertion. Second, you should read a bit more before sounding off. I have never held that bike-lane systems produce a much higher car-bike collision rate than do normal roads, as your assertion holds. My position has always been that bike-lane systems could produce no more than a minute reduction in car-bike collisions, because they protect against only a minute proportion of collisions that occur without them. However, we also have to consider the probable increase in collisions produced by the conflict between the standard rules of the road and the contrary actions that the bike-lane persuades people to make. On balance, I think it more probable that bike lanes probably slightly increase car-bike collision rates than decrease them. But it is undeniable that the increase, whatever it is, comes from the movements that violate the standard rules of the road.

I have written this time after time; there should be no ambiguity in the mind of anyone who reads much my material.

Heavy sigh indeed, indeed.

To summarize we have the following assertions:

Because bike lanes have not been shown to increase accidents therefore they are safer.
Because bike lanes have not been shown to decrease accidents therefore they are dangerous.

Both are false both by logic and the facts. And nether of these have been my assertion, it is you who are wrong both logically and factually to conclude/imply that a bike lanes are more dangerous as in the statement that started this sub-thread:
It is this conflict between the rules of the road and the mental impression created by the stripe in which the harm and danger lie.

I will strongly assert that the "problem" with the bike lane stripe is for all practicable purposes is the same problem with cyclists using the roadway without a bike lane as the society ideal for cyclists is that they must stay to the far right (which creates a conflict with the rules of the road and the mental impression created by the wording of the laws that cyclists must stay right.) The cure for that latter is VC training and the cure for the former is ... VC training. The fear of bike lanes is like the fear a of a Communist invasion, maybe at one time it had validity but times have changed.

Even in the last reply you tried to push a more dangerous aspect of bike lanes. I will strongly assert that you need to take a step back and look at the big picture as it stands now days, as something has changed that was not the case when you were studying bike crashes and that is now days mid-block crashes are the leading location of cyclists fatalities not intersections. The right hook no longer has the top position that it once had. So even if your assertions are correct the odds are by preventing bike lanes you are saving some bike wheels from being tacoed by a slight increase in safety.