Is JF a god, demon or just a human?

[The Human Car]

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.
That's a fair comment but I will point out that you introduced the word "showy" which is your assertion and more derogatory then what I wanted to imply. All projects have to have at least a perceived benefit to society if not a practical benefit in order to be popular.

[WaltPoutine]

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

How does staying to the right create a conflict with the rules of the road? If you have adequate space to travel in a straight line and avoid debris/obstructions and are not positioning yourself to control an intersection and avoid a right-hook and are slower than other traffic then it's courteous to stay to the right. VC doesn't mean that you should arbitrarily remove yourself from the right-hand side of the road. On roads with higher speeds it's where you should be, just like any other slower vehicle. Or am I misunderstanding you? There's no conflict with speed positioning to the outside.

Bike lanes on the other hand specifically encourage overtaking on the inside. They also create the impression (with their solid line) that this is a lane which should not be left. They further create the impression that they are the sole place in which bicycles should travel. It's almost as though you'd never discussed this with motorists that don't cycle.

[The Human Car]

How does staying to the right create a conflict with the rules of the road? If you have adequate space to travel in a straight line and avoid debris/obstructions and are not positioning yourself to control an intersection and avoid a right-hook[/B] and are slower than other traffic then it's courteous to stay to the right. VC doesn't mean that you should arbitrarily remove yourself from the right-hand side of the road. On roads with higher speeds it's where you should be, just like any other slower vehicle. Or am I misunderstanding you? There's no conflict with speed positioning to the outside.

Bike lanes on the other hand specifically encourage overtaking on the inside. They also create the impression (with their solid line) that this is a lane which should not be left. They further create the impression that they are the sole place in which bicycles should travel. It's almost as though you'd never discussed this with motorists that don't cycle.

First let me say you introduced the word VC where it is not my intention to imply it should be inserted, sorry if I was not clear. So far it is my understanding that bike lanes or the lack of bike lanes do not cause any safety issues with the VC trained so the discussion of bike lane/no bike lane safety is confined to the non VC trained.

You answered your first question by what I have bolded as you are no longer on the far right when you are doing that. Basically the conflict of bike lanes comes at intersections and the conflict of the stay right laws comes at intersections.

Again riding to the far right (laws) also:
encourages overtaking on the inside (passing on the right, I am assuming)
create the impression that the right side of the roadway should not be left
create the impression that the far right is the sole place to ride

There is a reason why just about every bike safety info tells you not to do these things is because people do them till they learn better, it is not intuitive to the design of roadways or how laws are worded. No matter how you slice it people need to be taught and putting in bike lanes or not putting in bike lanes does not change that.

[WaltPoutine]

First let me say you introduced the word VC where it is not my intention to imply it should be inserted, sorry if I was not clear.

Sorry about that.

Again riding to the far right (laws) also:
encourages overtaking on the inside (passing on the right, I am assuming)

If I'm travelling as fast or faster than other traffic then shouldn't I be using the center of the lane(s) and overtaking just like any other vehicle? I rarely overtake on the inside ... the sole exception being long traffic jams coming up to signalized intersections. Otherwise I just wait in line like everyone else.

create the impression that the right side of the roadway should not be left

Speed positioning is normal for all vehicles. It's not specifically limited to bicycles. Slower vehicles /should/ be to the right to enable faster vehicles to proceed. Each vehicle driver needs to make a determination of their relative speed to the rest of the traffic and try to accommodate other road users as much as is compatible with their own safety and convenience. The presence of a bikelane stripe confuses the situation. It implies fixedness, constancy and the removal of judgement calls. In the visual vocabulary of the road solid white lanes are a cue that suggests that the option of leaving the lane laterally has been removed. So a bikelane merely adds confusion to the situation.

No matter how you slice it people need to be taught and putting in bike lanes or not putting in bike lanes does not change that.

I definitely agree with that. The problem is that the introduction of bikelanes make the teaching requirements for all road users much more complicated as they introduce a raft of new special cases, exceptions and caveats which apply only to the bicycle and not other vehicles. And also that this teaching is generally considered to be an afterthought instead of the primary focus. As you yourself pointed out it's only a fraction of federal money which is available for education programs (like the Safe Routes To School -- which I have never looked into incidentally).

[The Human Car]

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.

Yup, exactly the same but different. :rolleyes:

But you do introduce a good conundrum of what if the stated intent is not the same as the "real" unspoken intent. The first problem is how do we know what the "real" unspoken intent is. With Bush's War and the ever changing intent, it does lead one to believe that something else is up but my suspicions are different then yours in this so how does one prove the unspoken or the unpublicized truth? Quotes from the National Enquirer? This is a very gray area and highly suspect.

The next problem in proving a mass government conspiracy is showing what the parties will profit by engaging in this conspiracy. With Bush's War it's not a far stretch to speculate that oil profits and big bucks have a major part in it but where are the big bucks in shoving cyclists aside? None. Are cyclists that big of a problem that there is a mass government conspiracy? One can only wish we were that big of a problem to invoke a government conspiracy.

I'm sorry but in terms of bike safety all I see is a chaotic mess of ignorance. But if government conspiracies are necessary to explain the state of the roads, here's mine for pure entertainment purposes only. First the motive for profit, bigger cars are more profitable then smaller cars, the factors why people buy bigger cars is that they have a perception of increased safety (driver and occupants are less vulnerable in an accident.) So to motivate people to buy bigger cars the roads must be portrayed as not safe. To sell the big family car to protect the kids, the roads must be portrayed as unsafe for them to walk or bike.

So if you accept my theory that the unspoken agenda is to portray the roads as unsafe, then the fix is to make roads safe for all road users. Red light camera's, stronger speed limit enforcement that stresses the word limt in speed limit (do away with the 15mph grace.) Reduce all crashes not just for cyclists but for pedestrians and motor vehicles as well. The public roads need to be perceived as safe for all road users. Bike lanes are promoted IMHO to protect cyclists from crazy drivers who cannot control their vehicle to slow down or change lanes to pass safely, eliminate the crazy drivers who cannot control their vehicle and you eliminate the need for bike lanes. Again the acceptance that crazy drivers are the norm, the acceptance that our roads should be unsafe is a major problem and all the anti-bike lane rhetoric in the world is not going to change the real problem. Bike lanes are just a red herring to detract people from the real issue, that society accepts that the roads should be unsafe and accepts that crazy drivers who cannot control their vehicle are the norm.

On the more pragmatic side the more people that an issue can appeal to the more likely it can be addressed.

[The Human Car]

I definitely agree with that. The problem is that the introduction of bikelanes make the teaching requirements for all road users much more complicated as they introduce a raft of new special cases, exceptions and caveats which apply only to the bicycle and not other vehicles. And also that this teaching is generally considered to be an afterthought instead of the primary focus. As you yourself pointed out it's only a fraction of federal money which is available for education programs (like the Safe Routes To School -- which I have never looked into incidentally).

Walt,

First of nothing I have written has been an attempt to dissuade you from your current riding style. Your comments about how to ride properly have been appreciated.

As far as more complicated goes "ride as if the bike lane stripe is not there" pretty much covers it.

A small fraction of Federal money is still a whole lot of money. If you look at the amount of money they spend on advertising emergency awareness and no one is batting an eye at that spending. Our issues are at least as compiling if not more so then making sure people have batteries and spare watter. So the issue is should we be trying to make a more coherent effort to utilize the Federal money that is available or should we be fighting bike lanes?

I will also note the wording of Safe Routes to School does not say that any of the money has to be spent on infrastructure. And it is the first Federal Fund to require an educational component. It also requires no local matching funds (the Feds pay the whole bill.) We should be sweeping on this like bees to honey.

[Ed Holland]

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.

Very much like US freeways in urban areas, with two lanes each direction. Traffic enters at Roundabouts and lanes merging to and from the left side of the roadway. Crossings vary in quality from well designed transitions to a side roadway to places where sharing pedestrian facilities is the only option. In any case they are relatively few and far between. However, having tried both options, the bike path is vastly preferable to using this fast road (upon which it it not unusual to see cars travelling at 90 mph!). Since traffic slows at roundabouts I would typically transition to the road at one point on my route to make a right turn. This is a relatively easy and safe manouvre when one is accustomed to it.

Ed

[WaltPoutine]

Walt,

First of nothing I have written has been an attempt to dissuade you from your current riding style. Your comments about how to ride properly have been appreciated.

TheHumanCar, thanks for that. I haven't been under the impression that you directly are trying to dissuade me from something and I apologize if I've given the impression that I feel that. I understand that you believe that bikelanes are a good solution to a problem which you perceive to exist. I'm trying to understand whether the problem really exists and if so then what bikelanes do to help ameliorate it. So far I'm very unconvinced but I'm open to logical persuasion and have learnt a few things from your posts. Obviously this is an argument with a lot of background that involved neither of us and it's possible to get a bit too sucked into the flaming vortex and make assumptions about each other's beliefs, intentions etc.

Also I wouldn't want to set myself up as telling other people how to ride properly. At the moment I'm primarily interested in figuring out how to do that myself and how to improve any local situation in which I find myself. I'm always open to learning which is why I took the LAB classes although I had a suspicion that they covered a lot of things I'd worked out for myself. The most novel technique during them for me was the "quick stop" which I had never actually practiced properly. I also tend to a slightly more risky style than such training would recommend in situations where I judge the risk to me is worth it, usually in urban areas. So, just to clarify, if I sound like I'm preaching I'm not. I'm just strongly convinced based on my experiences with bike lanes that they do more harm than good.

As far as more complicated goes "ride as if the bike lane stripe is not there" pretty much covers it.

And in practice that is what I do and in practice I have had many verbal encounters with motorists who have explicitly referenced the presence of the bikelane as a reason as to why I should be positioned differently. It's much more rare that someone tells me to get on the sidewalk whether or not there's a bikelane in the vicinity.

You can't just pretend that a honking big visual clue like that is going to have no effect on road users.


So the issue is should we be trying to make a more coherent effort to utilize the Federal money that is available or should we be fighting bike lanes?

Guess what I'm going to say, you can imagine it without even reading the next sentence. We should be using the money on driver education: both drivers of bicycles and drivers of cars ... not using it to construct bike lanes which may do more harm than good. (When I say "we" I'm not in the USA, so substitute "you").

[John Forester]

Stuff about Bush's War snipped as out of subject scope, except as an example of misstated intent.

Are cyclists that big of a problem that there is a mass government conspiracy? One can only wish we were that big of a problem to invoke a government conspiracy.

I'm sorry but in terms of bike safety all I see is a chaotic mess of ignorance. But if government conspiracies are necessary to explain the state of the roads, here's mine for pure entertainment purposes only. First the motive for profit, bigger cars are more profitable then smaller cars, the factors why people buy bigger cars is that they have a perception of increased safety (driver and occupants are less vulnerable in an accident.) So to motivate people to buy bigger cars the roads must be portrayed as not safe. To sell the big family car to protect the kids, the roads must be portrayed as unsafe for them to walk or bike.

So if you accept my theory that the unspoken agenda is to portray the roads as unsafe, then the fix is to make roads safe for all road users. Red light camera's, stronger speed limit enforcement that stresses the word limt in speed limit (do away with the 15mph grace.) Reduce all crashes not just for cyclists but for pedestrians and motor vehicles as well. The public roads need to be perceived as safe for all road users. Bike lanes are promoted IMHO to protect cyclists from crazy drivers who cannot control their vehicle to slow down or change lanes to pass safely, eliminate the crazy drivers who cannot control their vehicle and you eliminate the need for bike lanes. Again the acceptance that crazy drivers are the norm, the acceptance that our roads should be unsafe is a major problem and all the anti-bike lane rhetoric in the world is not going to change the real problem. Bike lanes are just a red herring to detract people from the real issue, that society accepts that the roads should be unsafe and accepts that crazy drivers who cannot control their vehicle are the norm.

On the more pragmatic side the more people that an issue can appeal to the more likely it can be addressed.

I think that there is no conspiracy to portray the roads as generally unsafe. So far as I can see, neither the oil companies nor the American SUV manufacturers have adopted such a stance, and nobody else seems to have the incentive, except, of course, for the highway safety organizations.

I agree with you that governmental and societal bike-safety programs are a chaotic mess of ignorance. That is because they are based on shoving cyclists aside instead of on proper cyclist behavior. The motivation consists of two parts: motorist convenience and fear of same-direction motor traffic. You suggest, or state (?) that bike lanes are intended to protect cyclists from the very worst of motorists who cannot control their vehicles. It is obvious that bike-lane stripes have almost no effectiveness against that terror, and the car-bike collision statistics show that this is a very minor type of car-bike collision, particularly in urban areas in daylight. You also state "Bike lanes are just a red herring to detract [distract] people from the real issue, that society accepts that the roads should be unsafe and accepts that crazy drivers who cannot control their vehicle are the norm."

I do not agree with the assumption concerning public opinion about roads and traffic in that sentence. If that were so, we would never have developed the society that has developed, because motoring would be strongly limited by personal choice. When a person is starting out to drive to work or to the shops, we expect him to return safely afterwards. There is no expectation that that person is taking any significant risk.

It may be that you have been unduly influenced by concentrating on bicycle transportation affairs, or, again I say may, by anti-motoring feelings. In bicycle transportation affairs, American opinion for decades has grossly exaggerated both the danger of same-direction motor traffic and, correspondingly, the danger of actually riding in it, producing the statements of Pucher and his ilk that vehicular cycling requires supreme skill, courage, and physical power.

I agree with you that better behavior should be sought, for both motorists and cyclists. Stiffer motoring examinations and stricter enforcement of good laws would assist. And, with respect to car-bike collisions, more equitable adjudication removed from the false opinion that cycling is so dangerous that the cyclist gets what he deserves. However, the greatest improvement as far as cyclists are concerned would be an increase in the proportion of cyclists who operate competently and lawfully, in accordance with the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles. I think that you agree about these, although perhaps not about the relative importances of the various parts.

It is my opinion that the long-standing governmental program for bicycle transportation runs counter to what ought to be done, because it is both based on a selfishly false but popular superstition about traffic operation and because it introduces more difficulties into understanding how traffic should operate. Operating in traffic should be as simple and clear as it is possible to make it; introducing unnecessary complications and difficulties is counterproductive.

[John Forester]

Very much like US freeways in urban areas, with two lanes each direction. Traffic enters at Roundabouts and lanes merging to and from the left side of the roadway. Crossings vary in quality from well designed transitions to a side roadway to places where sharing pedestrian facilities is the only option. In any case they are relatively few and far between. However, having tried both options, the bike path is vastly preferable to using this fast road (upon which it it not unusual to see cars travelling at 90 mph!). Since traffic slows at roundabouts I would typically transition to the road at one point on my route to make a right turn. This is a relatively easy and safe manouvre when one is accustomed to it.

Ed

The difficulty for cyclists about roundabouts is the crossing of the entering and leaving traffic. I have cycled easily through many British urban roundabouts, even Swindon's seven linked roundabouts, with no trouble, by going round in the motoring manner. The entry is like any left turn onto a major road, leaving is like any left turn from a major road, while going past most exits is like moving past an intersection [junction] where much left-turning traffic is likely and one should never get on the left-hand side of it, but take the lane or the next lane line over. I have also driven at high speed, though being chastised by drivers of even faster cars [Jags and Mercedes], through the roundabouts on roads such as M1 (if I recall the number correctly, running north from London to Newcastle). Your description of the roundabouts of the Oxford ring road appears to be more like M1 than the typical urban roundabout.

The difficulty with a sidepath around a roundabout is that it must cross the side roads. Considering the traffic speeds that you describe, and the probably difficult sight lines, I think that a side path that crossed the side roads close to the roundabout would present great difficulties and hazards. If it were sufficiently distant that the side road has become a normal side road, then the difficulties are just normal. Or, as in the case of the typical freeway, a grade separated side path solves that problem. Whether or not conditions and design in Oxford would allow that is unknown to me.

[Allister]

The difficulty for cyclists about roundabouts is the crossing of the entering and leaving traffic. I have cycled easily through many British urban roundabouts, even Swindon's seven linked roundabouts, with no trouble, by going round in the motoring manner.

Yep. I always take the lane in roundabouts. I have a couple on my commute, on the non-bikelaned part of it. Motorists trying to overtake in the roundabout can be a right pain, especially when I'm turning right.

The difficulty with a sidepath around a roundabout is that it must cross the side roads. Considering the traffic speeds that you describe, and the probably difficult sight lines, I think that a side path that crossed the side roads close to the roundabout would present great difficulties and hazards. If it were sufficiently distant that the side road has become a normal side road, then the difficulties are just normal. Or, as in the case of the typical freeway, a grade separated side path solves that problem. Whether or not conditions and design in Oxford would allow that is unknown to me.

I've seen some implementations of that in Europe that are probably as good as it gets for those types of facilities. They require people entering the roundabout to give way to cyclists as they would anyone, and connect up already existing bike paths. In most cases, though, imo, no treatment is better than something with roundabouts. Just take the lane.

[The Human Car]

I agree with you that governmental and societal bike-safety programs are a chaotic mess of ignorance. That is because they are based on shoving cyclists aside instead of on proper cyclist behavior.

My observations I see different POV coming from the government for example MDOT's driver's manual:
A bicycle should be operated as close to the right side of the road as possible.
And MDOT publishes the Safe Bicycling in Maryland (by Wordspace Press) where it makes an introduction into taking the lane. MDOT also just released this safe cycling video (http://www.onelesscar.org/resources_safe.php) and very little is said about shoving cyclists to the side. I point this out because not all of Government is set on shoving cyclists aside, it's chaotic.

I will also point out that there are bike clubs promoting shoving cyclists aside as in this Hug the Line video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=guYD8g_ee7k)

It's a chaotic mess everywhere.

You suggest, or state (?) that bike lanes are intended to protect cyclists from the very worst of motorists who cannot control their vehicles....

I guess I was not clear on that point. [No bike lanes were involved in writing this paragraph] You use the term "fear of same-direction motor traffic" and the fear of getting hit from behind is one thing and it's another when it comes from drivers. How I hear that expressed by motorists is "What if I didn't see you in time and hit you?" "Did you see me with enough time to react safely?" "Yes, but what if..." to me boils down to a over concern of drivers not being able to control their vehicles.

You also state "Bike lanes are just a red herring to detract [distract] people from the real issue, that society accepts that the roads should be unsafe and accepts that crazy drivers who cannot control their vehicle are the norm."

I do not agree with the assumption concerning public opinion about roads and traffic in that sentence. If that were so, we would never have developed the society that has developed, because motoring would be strongly limited by personal choice. When a person is starting out to drive to work or to the shops, we expect him to return safely afterwards. There is no expectation that that person is taking any significant risk.

But what is a significant risk? Is being in a fender bender a significant risk? No. Is traveling 91mph on a 65mph road while wearing a seatbelt a significant risk? Not according to NJ Gov Jon Corzine (http://www.crashprevention.org/index/news/issue/22#237) Any accident you can walk away from is a good accident and a acceptable risk. The bigger car you drive the lower the perceived risk of injury in an accident. The lower the perceived risk the higher the 85 percentile (http://www.dma.org/~ganotedp/85th.htm) moves up and eventually leaving walking and bicycling as the most dangerous form of travel.

Facts:

The speed limit used to be the limit, then a 5mph grace zone was introduced and we are now have a generally accepted 15mph grace zone. (the 85 percentile moving up)
More big cars are being sold
Average gas millage going down


What's the motivation for the American public buying bigger cars, it could be to keep the risk of driving at acceptable levels.

As I said, this little theory is for entertainment purposes only.

It may be that you have been unduly influenced by concentrating on bicycle transportation affairs, or, again I say may, by anti-motoring feelings.

We all have our faults don't we?

I agree with you that better behavior should be sought, for both motorists and cyclists. Stiffer motoring examinations and stricter enforcement of good laws would assist. And, with respect to car-bike collisions, more equitable adjudication removed from the false opinion that cycling is so dangerous that the cyclist gets what he deserves. However, the greatest improvement as far as cyclists are concerned would be an increase in the proportion of cyclists who operate competently and lawfully, in accordance with the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles. I think that you agree about these, although perhaps not about the relative importances of the various parts.

Well that is a bit hard to disagree with.

[The Human Car]

I understand that you believe that bikelanes are a good solution to a problem which you perceive to exist. I'm trying to understand whether the problem really exists and if so then what bikelanes do to help ameliorate it. So far I'm very unconvinced but I'm open to logical persuasion and have learnt a few things from your posts. Obviously this is an argument with a lot of background that involved neither of us and it's possible to get a bit too sucked into the flaming vortex and make assumptions about each other's beliefs, intentions etc.

Ah, the old problem if you're not against something you must be for it. At first glance it seems very logical to put something on a beam balance to see if it does more harm than good and if the scale tips somewhat in the harm direction then fight it. The problem with that as I see it, is that kind of negative advocacy is a dime a dozen and it is absolutely the most ineffective kind of advocacy out there especially if you don't have large numbers.

So far from my experience working with bike lane advocates they are very supportive of education and other issues. So because I am not spinning my wheels opposing their efforts they are supportive of my efforts and things are happening. That is to say, by stressing the positive and workable solutions things can change. For me the bike lane advocates help establish a need and a cost to fix that need. So comparatively education comes in with a lot of bang for the buck so bike lane advocacy helps IMHO.

I will speculate that things go south when you have bike lane advocates who are willing to say something is better then nothing and have total disregard to engineering standards. In a lot of ways I think Baltimore is very lucky in that it hired a consulting firm (Toole Design) to do it "right" and they helped formulate our bike master plan (which has everything but the kitchen sink in it) and our bike network (which has other options besides bike lanes such as sharrows (and so far I think sharrows are pretty cool.)) I think the fact that they stressed a high engineering standard has helped a lot.

We have a bike lane (technically it is just a curb lane) that DOT put in without consulting us or the Bike Master plan and one part is seriously mucked up. Because of the standards established by the Bike Master plan we can get it fixed (next resurfacing) and has helped to create more awareness that bike lanes are NOT easy and any fool can do them, they require a trained engineering expertise. There is discussion going on at the state level that with bike/ped funding there is going to be required training that goes along with the funds, that should be helpful.

As far as my personal preference for facilities I think I would describe myself as an extra width advocate with a preference for a stripe in urban settings. I like stripes because it is very clear to the driver if I am on one side they can pass without changing lanes and if I am on the other side they have to pass changing lanes. As far as calling that extra width a bike lane I do have some reservations, there is advantages to leaving that space undefined but I also see some advantages to havening dedicated space for cyclists so I would like to see facilities mixed up a bit without an over stress on one type.

If you are keeping a score card other things of interest I do believe that extra width (could also be termed bike facilities) increases the number of cyclists and that there is safety in numbers (starting above a certain threshold.)

[ChipSeal]

It is my opinion that the long-standing governmental program for bicycle transportation runs counter to what ought to be done, because it is both based on a selfishly false but popular superstition about traffic operation and because it introduces more difficulties into understanding how traffic should operate. Operating in traffic should be as simple and clear as it is possible to make it; introducing unnecessary complications and difficulties is counterproductive.

A good contemporary example of this very thing can be found in Portland. (The one on the west coast!)

In an attempt to make the city "bike friendly", they have painted bike lanes all across the city, and state law made them mandatory to use. The state also legislated that bicycles in bike lane have ROW over all other vehicles.

Tragically, the very rules meant to protect cyclists injured and killed them. What to do? Change the laws to conform with generally accepted highway engineering principals? (Prohibit turns across bike lanes that have ROW.) NO! Add even more conflicting rules to further complicate the situation! :rolleyes:

Here is the latest part of the story:

http://bikeportland.org/2008/03/10/bike-box-billboards-bus-ads-debut/#more-6885

I would draw your attention to the comment section, and to the apparently sincere and logical questions of how a cyclist should use such a facility. With a moments thought I am sure you can see other issues that make bike boxes a major complication to any intersection.

This is a clear demonstration of Mr. Forester's point.

[Ed Holland]

So, a section of black asphalt and a section of red asphalt are enjoying a quiet pint in the Angel and Greyhound. Just as they are discussing the day's traffic, a section of angry looking green tarmac walks in, and the black tarmac panics and hides under the table.

"Get down Red, for goodness sake, dont let him see us"

"Why not, Black - he's one of us, surely just had a bad day, that's all"

"Oh no he's not, Red" Said the black asphalt,


"He's a...........






Wait for it............................










"Psyclepath!"





Ayethankyou! :)

[rando]

:roflmao:He'll be here all week!

[ChipSeal]

Is Mr Holland's post allowed under forum guidelines? ;)

I suspect that joke will bomb at the water cooler at work!

[Ed Holland]

^ Which is why I saved it for here ;)

[Allister]

Tragically, the very rules meant to protect cyclists injured and killed them.

Yep, and 'icy conditions cause accidents' too.

[LittleBigMan]

"He's a..........."Psyclepath!"

Ayethankyou! :)
:D

I've already learned my lesson, Ed, as soon as I mention the word, "bicycle," people start looking around for an exit...

;)

[Ed Holland]

I've already learned my lesson, Ed, as soon as I mention the word, "bicycle," people start looking around for an exit...



So true. :)