Are you happier without bike facilities?

[buzzman]

I really can't wait to see Helmut in the news under a car tire or something. I think I'll visit him in the hospital and ask how that superior method of cycling and huge-head made him more visible to traffic, or if he was too busy jerking it to ideas of being an advocate that he ran a red light.

I'll also bring flowers or a cool video to watch.

I wish this fate on no fellow cyclist- even in jest.

No matter whether they agree with me about where, how or what to ride my hope is that HH, and all others, ride a million more miles with nary a scratch be it on bike facilities or proudly taking the lane on a high-speed arterial.

I would hope this is one thing we could all agree on.

[The Human Car]

I wish this fate on no fellow cyclist- even in jest.

No matter whether they agree with me about where, how or what to ride my hope is that HH, and all others, ride a million more miles with nary a scratch be it on bike facilities or proudly taking the lane on a high-speed arterial.

I would hope this is one thing we could all agree on.

:beer:

[chipcom]

Chip he wrote (in the paragraph following the one you bolded): " I plan my rides around safe routes that include well marked bike lanes." If that does not imply that "'well marked bike lanes' make routes safer" then I misunderstood and apologize. Did I?

All I can suggest is to reply to what folks actually write, not what you think they are implying. Indeed, perhaps you could have asked, "are you implying that well marked bike lanes make routes safer?" rather than making an assumption based upon your own insecurities. Communication 101 again.

[Bekologist]

I wish this fate on no fellow cyclist- even in jest.

No matter whether they agree with me about where, how or what to ride my hope is that HH, and all others, ride a million more miles with nary a scratch be it on bike facilities or proudly taking the lane on a high-speed arterial.

I would hope this is one thing we could all agree on.

Hear, hear. Leave wishing ill will on us to the motorists.

One's riding happiness should not rely on facilites, but well implemented bike lanes and other bike facilities are a pleasure to ride. A variety of engineering enhancements and social policies that encourage bicycling are conclusively proven to make communities more bicyclist 'friendly' with correspondingly greater numbers of bicyclists, lower accident rates for bicyclists, greater cognizance of bikes on road, etc.

With well implemented bike facilities, communities see greater numbers of bicyclists by both men and women across all age groups and socioeconomic spectrums.


Well implemented bike facilities encourage bicycling in communities and work best as part of a multi-tiered approach to encourage cycling thru a variety of 'carrot & stick' policies.

There's no reason to think communities in America cannot improve conditions for all bicyclists with better implemented and supported bike facilities and social programs. In fact, many of them already are, and they are using bike lanes, paths, signage and other engineering enhancements and social inducements that every day encourage bicycling.

BWUAHHAHHAHHAA.

[Allister]

I wish this fate on no fellow cyclist- even in jest.

No matter whether they agree with me about where, how or what to ride my hope is that HH, and all others, ride a million more miles with nary a scratch be it on bike facilities or proudly taking the lane on a high-speed arterial.

I would hope this is one thing we could all agree on.

Indeed, although I can't help thinking a crash or two (preferably not too serious) might knock him off his high horse.

[genec]

Part of the majority of who?

I cycle a lot, all over various parts of the world, and I plan my routes based on places I want to ride to and see across the province, in the next town, in another country, etc., etc., or on specific distances I want to cover. Whether these routes are "safe" or not is a very low factor on the decision to ride there.

If I limited myself to "safe" routes and/or bicycle paths/lanes/etc., I'd never go anywhere!

I'm quite happy without cycling-specific stuff, and I know I'm not the only one.

And Machaka, do you represent the majority of cyclists out there, or are you rather unique in your pursuit of your chosen activity...

I doubt for instance that the folks I see commuting by bike on the sidewalks locally have their own web page touting their cycling activities...

In fact I doubt the majority of cyclists even know Bike Forums exists.

[randya]

In fact I doubt the majority of cyclists even know Bike Forums exists.

they're not cyclists, they're just bicycle users.


:eek:

;)

[Helmet Head]

All I can suggest is to reply to what folks actually write, not what you think they are implying. Indeed, perhaps you could have asked, "are you implying that well marked bike lanes make routes safer?" rather than making an assumption based upon your own insecurities. Communication 101 again.
Well, I didn't do exactly that, but almost. In the first sentence of my first post to this thread (post #2), I wrote: "You're part of the majority that believes 'well marked bike lanes' make routes safer."
I concluded that from this sentence in the OP: " I plan my rides around safe routes that include well marked bike lanes. "

The OP immediately replied to me, in #3, and apparently felt no need to correct this interpretation, which if he had objected would have been trivial to do.

It's not reasonable to expect every single fairly obvious implication to be clarified before it is assumed to be true. It is inevitable that assumptions will be made, and these should be corrected when they're wrong.

[Helmet Head]

Chip he wrote (in the paragraph following the one you bolded): " I plan my rides around safe routes that include well marked bike lanes." If that does not imply that "'well marked bike lanes' make routes safer" then I misunderstood and apologize. Did I?

Actually the logical progression goes like this:

If safe routes include well marked bike lanes then well marked bike lanes can be included in safe routes.

You interpreted this with your convoluted logic to imply:

If safe routes include well marked bike lanes then well marked bike lanes make routes safer.


Oh, please. If he didn't believe the marked bike lanes had something to do with making the safe routes safe, then why would he write: "I plan my rides around safe routes that include well marked bike lanes."

Especially when you consider the context, including this sentence: "I think that bike lanes, signs, signals, etc. are very important and can only help improve the safety and convenience of riding. "

By this "convoluted logic" I concluded, "You're part of the majority that believes 'well marked bike lanes' make routes safer."
This is also probably why he didn't object when I wrote that.

I'm not saying it was a fully supported conclusion, but it was hardly a huge leap, and he was right there to correct it if it was wrong.


Only someone who tends to hyperbolic interpretations and leaps of logic would see the OP's statement as implying what you concluded.

Implying that a fellow forum member "tends to hyperbolic interpretations and leaps of logic" is in violation of the following forum guidelines (http://www.bikeforums.net/faq.php?faq=forum_guidelines):

Intelligence. "We’re a community with quality standards and expect our members will make a sincere effort to contribute their thoughts on interesting subjects in a meaningful and respectful manner."

Respectfulness. "We expect our member to show respect for others. Respecting their person, their views, their time and their opinions, and their belief systems ... even if you disagree with them."

Harassment "Harassment occurs when a member insults, attacks, and denigrates another member at any time. We have zero tolerance for taking an argument about a any topic to a personal level. For instance, the use of terms such as "idiot, moron, stupid" and other derogatory terms constitutes harassment. The idea is to make this a pleasant environment to discuss cycling, not a schoolyard, or name-calling and rock-throwing festival. Repeated critical and sharply negative posts toward a forum member can also constitute harassment."

TO ALL:
I realize the moderators don't enforce these guidelines very much, but I request that you abide by them none-the-less. Likewise, if any of you feel I'm violating any of the guidelines, or doing anything else to diminish the quality of this forum, please let me know.

In the mean time, if you agree with me that the forum would be improved if these guidelines were followed and enforced better, please let other members and the moderators know. Let's all do our part to make this "a pleasant environment to discuss cycling", shall we?

Thanks.

[Brian Ratliff]

^^^
Wow. Just... wow.

HH, you've dished your share of "Implying that a fellow forum member 'tends to hyperbolic interpretations and leaps of logic'" that you shouldn't really be the one to call another out on it. John F. is another who does the exact same thing. If you can't take it, don't dish it.

[bearacuda]

I realize the moderators don't enforce these guidelines very much, but I request that you abide by them none-the-less. Likewise, if any of you feel I'm violating any of the guidelines, or doing anything else to diminish the quality of this forum, please let me know.

In the mean time, if you agree with me that the forum would be improved if these guidelines were followed and enforced better, please let other members and the moderators know. Let's all do our part to make this "a pleasant environment to discuss cycling", shall we?

Physician, heal thyself.

"This forum could be so much better if you would take the discussions seriously. That means focusing on the underlying issues and ideas seriously and discussing the reasons you agree or disagree, rather than childishly finding excuses to make fun of others."

[Helmet Head]

^^^
Wow. Just... wow.

HH, you've dished your share of "Implying that a fellow forum member 'tends to hyperbolic interpretations and leaps of logic'" that you shouldn't really be the one to call another out on it. John F. is another who does the exact same thing. If you can't take it, don't dish it.
Hi Brian! Long time no hear!

I try to limit my criticisms to particular instances of such behavior rather than making generalizations about the person (which is what I believe is "taking it to a personal level" and violating the guidelines), but I realize I've slipped in the past. I'm trying, and have been trying for some time, to correct that. It's one thing to point out that someone used a leap of logic in some particular instance, and quite another to make a broad general statement about that person having a tendency to do that. The former is a statement about a particular act, and arguably constructive criticism conducive to a healthy forum; the former is a critical statement about the person, and thus taking it to a personal level, and is insulting (not to mention totally unnecessary).

If I'm not mistaken, JF has improved in this regard lately as well. But I'm encouraging anyone and everyone to abide by the guidelines, to remind each other when we slip, and report those, including JF and me, who refuse to comply.
Here's to making this a pleasant place to discuss cycling, something I hope we can all achieve together. :beer:

[Brian Ratliff]

I'm still around. No comments recently because there haven't been any new ideas recently to comment on. It's to the point that the ideas are so canned than I only need to skim the posts lightly to understand what the latest flair-up is all about.

[cuda2k]

I would like to remind everyone that it is not appropriate to make personal attacks against other forum members. Keep your replies about the topic, not your personal opinions of an individual. Thank you.

[Bekologist]

HEY!

Helmet head asked the forum to let him know if he was diminishing the quality of this forum, and I agree with him!! and a mod removes my comment?? Hello???? they should remove ALL the chatter, including head's lil tantrum about a word as innocuous as hyperbole.

I find his attempts to police the forum over Buzzman's use of a rhetorical device to be an insult of MY sensibilities! How insulting!!!!!

Using the word "hyperbole" or its' varients is a violation of forum guidelines? WHAT????

PLEAZE....

MODS?????

[StrangeWill]

See Helmut found the moderator report function, so now he can say insane ****, then start reporting replies, he's even been kind enough to send out PMs to people he likes to piss off the most, it's awesome when someone learns a little more about how the internet works, mainly in flamebaiting.

Frankly, he causes way more **** here than he'll ever help.

[Helmet Head]

HEY!

Helmet head asked the forum to let him know if he was diminishing the quality of this forum, and I agree with him!! and a mod removes my comment?? Hello???? they should remove ALL the chatter, including head's lil tantrum about a word as innocuous as hyperbole.

I find his attempts to police the forum over a rhetorical device to be an insult of MY sensibilities! How insulting!!!!!

Using the word "hyperbole" or it's varients is a violation of forum guidelines? PLEAZE....

MODS?????

You make a good point Beck, and there are fine lines and gray areas at play. But I think there is good basis for the guidelines, including this, from the harassment guideline:The idea is to make this a pleasant environment to discuss cycling, not a schoolyard, or name-calling and rock-throwing festival. Repeated critical and sharply negative posts toward a forum member can also constitute harassment.The post that I reported and was deleted (thank you cuda2k) was a critical and sharply negative post towards a forum member (me), and it was not an isolated anomaly. Rhetoric it was, but rhetoric that is comprised of "critical and sharply negative" comments "towards a forum member" are clearly in violation of the guidelines and, I believe, for very good reason.

It is too much to ask each other to abide by the guidelines, please?

If you have constructive criticism, I, for one, would welcome it, if it is conveyed in accordance with the guidelines, which basically means sucking it up and figuring out how to convey it respectfully, which I know is not always easy to do. Trust me.

[randya]

I must not be trying hard enough, I haven't received any PMs from either Serge or the mods yet...

:eek:

;)

[cuda2k]

If HH asked that specifically, I didn't see it. My apologies. It's hard to draw a line around here where things step over the line. Sometimes the line is a little squiggly. Such is life.

[StrangeWill]

Though of course I hope HH realizes this means war, and that he's going to need to follow the rules to the DOT or I'm making sweet clickly love to the report button.

[cuda2k]

Though of course I hope HH realizes this means war, and that he's going to need to follow the rules to the DOT or I'm making sweet clickly love to the report button.

Please for the love of my (along with all the other moderator's and admin's) sanity will everyone have a little common sense when using the report button. This forum is full of debate about a topic that many people have very strong opinions on. If all was daises and sunshine not much would get done in Advocacy. Though the thought of "making sweet clicky love to the report button" made me laugh.

[chipcom]

Sometimes my winky is a little squiggly. Such is life.

I feel for ya bro. :eek:

[StrangeWill]

I wish this fate on no fellow cyclist- even in jest.

No matter whether they agree with me about where, how or what to ride my hope is that HH, and all others, ride a million more miles with nary a scratch be it on bike facilities or proudly taking the lane on a high-speed arterial.

I would hope this is one thing we could all agree on.
It's not in jest, and it's not wishing, it's simply an observation that people generally with the greatest self-righteous attitude are probably going to be the ones swept off their ass through the air. Not to mention it seems like nothing but tasting some pavement is going to change his mind about his method of cycling being impenetrable by vehicles.

Sometimes battling ignorance is messy, sure I wish people could learn without bad things happening to them, but at the same time you realize how we're not really far away from animals in that aspect.
Please for the love of my (along with all the other moderator's and admin's) sanity will everyone have a little common sense when using the report button. This forum is full of debate about a topic that many people have very strong opinions on. If all was daises and sunshine not much would get done in Advocacy. Though the thought of "making sweet clicky love to the report button" made me laugh.
I dunno he's already started it, we'll see how quickly he stops this wonderful idea he thinks he had once all his posts go disappearing, or the mods just say "enough" and disable the feature.

I've been around to see a lot of this kind of stuff go down before, I'm surprised the mods didn't jump on his ****, mainly with the "you cause this to yourself, stop causing trouble and you'll stop getting it", I mean this attitude is coming from the guy that turns every story in A&S into some kind of safety flamefest.


Basically: There is a lapse in Helmet's understanding as to how the internet and moderation works. I don't think the mods here have had to deal with this kind of poster yet, nor this method of activity. Typically large forums either tell the member to stop causing problems, put UP with the **** he receives for starting problems, or he's getting kicked off the forums.

You can't kick someone then run behind a cop when he tries to beat the crap out of you.

[noisebeam]

I plan my rides around safe routes that include well marked bike lanes. Since I've retired I concede that my strategy may not be helpful for commuters ...

What about errands? Does every destination have a route that includes BLs? BLs go to your house?

[Helmet Head]

Though of course I hope HH realizes this means war, and that he's going to need to follow the rules to the DOT or I'm making sweet clickly love to the report button.
I don't think of it is as war, to the contrary. The purpose of complying with rules is to induce peace, not war. The rules in this case are the forum guidelines, and if I slip, by all means report me.

But, for the sake of the moderators, and to comply with the guidelines (treating fellow members with respect), I would ask that you first try to resolve any issues directly with me (or whoever the poster is of whatever post you feel is out of compliance).

And, for the record, I did not ask simply to be told if someone thinks I'm diminishing the quality of this forum. What I wrote was:


if any of you feel I'm violating any of the guidelines, or doing anything else to diminish the quality of this forum, please let me know.

Specifically, please let me (not everyone, thus please use PM) know if I'm doing anything to diminish the quality of this forum, and, of course, what it is you think I'm doing. After trying that, if you're not satisfied, then, yes, please get the others and ultimately the mods (if forum guidelines are violated) involved.

[Machka]

And Machaka, do you represent the majority of cyclists out there, or are you rather unique in your pursuit of your chosen activity...

I doubt for instance that the folks I see commuting by bike on the sidewalks locally have their own web page touting their cycling activities...

In fact I doubt the majority of cyclists even know Bike Forums exists.


Definitely not unique ... there are thousands of long distance cyclists out there, and thousands of cycle-tourists out there. :) Many have their own websites, and many post on blogs and other websites such as this one:

http://www.crazyguyonabike.com/

We're out there riding our events, from centuries to the RAAM, on roads without cycling facilities. We're training for our events on roads without cycling facilities. And we're touring the world on roads without cycling facilities. Yeah, there may be cycling facilities available now and then ... occasionally we may come across a stretch of road with a bike lane or something ... and that's nice, but it's not necessary. We can still ride just fine without those things.

Personally, in cities, I like it when they've got wider roads ... or at least when the curb lane is a couple feet wider than "normal". And in the country, I like it when the roads have shoulders. These things can make cycling a little bit more pleasant, while also being beneficial to vehicular traffic.

[randya]

I don't think of it is as war, to the contrary. The purpose of complying with rules is to induce peace, not war. The rules in this case are the forum guidelines, and if I slip, by all means report me.

But, for the sake of the moderators, and to comply with the guidelines (treating fellow members with respect), I would ask that you first try to resolve any issues directly with me (or whoever the poster is of whatever post you feel is out of compliance).

And, for the record, I did not ask simply to be told if someone thinks I'm diminishing the quality of this forum. What I wrote was:


if any of you feel I'm violating any of the guidelines, or doing anything else to diminish the quality of this forum, please let me know.

Specifically, please let me (not everyone, thus please use PM) know if I'm doing anything to diminish the quality of this forum, and, of course, what it is you think I'm doing. After trying that, if you're not satisfied, then, yes, please get the others and ultimately the mods (if forum guidelines are violated) involved.

show some humility, dude, you're a total f***ing hypocrite when it comes to the forum guidelines. The only reason there is even a separate VC subforum is because you were completely disrupting almost every thread in A&S with your VC BS before this subforum was created especially for you. You're lucky you weren't permanently banned years ago, I really don't see what your contribution is around here - besides your oversized ego - that the mods were so kind as to let you stay.

[Bekologist]

actually, machka, the correct statements would be

1000's of [insert machka's indentifying qualifiers] are training, etc on roads with and without bike facilities.

Additionally, if you ask long distance cyclists, they would largely agree with the statement "well implemented bike facilities are a pleasure to ride."

some of the fleches and populaires and big rando rides in and out of Seattle use a big MUP as a path back to the city's core, helping riders bypass 20 miles of congested city streets, and the SIR group would likely UNANIMOUSLY endorse the use of an MUP as part of a sanctioned Rando event to 'add a pleasant interlude' of riding

[Machka]

actually, machka, the correct statements would be

1000's of [insert machka's indentifying qualifiers] are training, etc on roads with and without bike facilities.

Additionally, if you ask long distance cyclists, they would largely agree with the statement "well implemented bike facilities are a pleasure to ride."

some of the fleches and populaires and big rando rides in and out of Seattle use a big MUP as a path back to the city's core, helping riders bypass 20 miles of congested city streets, and the SIR group would likely UNANIMOUSLY endorse the use of an MUP as part of a sanctioned Rando event to 'add a pleasant interlude' of riding

Sometimes "well implemented" (whatever that means) bicycle facilities can be a pleasure to ride. Take the towpaths along the canals in France, for example. They were actually good! The first decent bicycle paths I've ever ridden!

However, sometimes I (and others) deliberately avoid bicycle facilities ... and doing so can cause problems in the minds of motorists who think we should use the bicycle facilities rather than the road.

As an example, on my recent tour in Australia, on one particular day, we were riding next to a rail trail ... a gravel path built for cyclists on an old railway track. Whoever created it went to a lot of trouble with it, and it looked fairly well maintained, so someone must think it is "well implemented" (and it is a good idea). But because we were on loaded touring bicycles with relatively narrow tires, and because we were completing our February century that day and needed to keep up the pace, we had no intention of using that path. It wasn't suitable for us. Nevertheless, three times that day it was suggested, by motorists, that we use the path. I got the impression that at least two of the people making that suggestion were annoyed that we were on the road ... where we had every right to be.

Another example would be in Belgium. They've built bicycle paths right next to the roads there, separated by a bit of a curb ... and they expect cyclists to use those paths, and become rather annoyed when they don't. However, we avoided using those paths whenever possible because, although the Belgium people might think they were "well implemented", they were made the same way sidewalks are (in blocks) and weren't well maintained so the ride was very bumpy (the sidewalk blocks had shifted a bit), and we were dodging all sorts of debris. Again, we had every right to be on the road, but because there was a bicycle facility right next to the road, the motorist were agressive toward us when we exercised that right.

In both cases, we would have been happier without the existing bicycle facilities.

[Helmet Head]

show some humility, dude, you're a total f***ing hypocrite when it comes to the forum guidelines. The only reason there is even a separate VC subforum is because you were completely disrupting almost every thread in A&S with your VC BS before this subforum was created especially for you. You're lucky you weren't permanently banned years ago, I really don't see what your contribution is around here - besides your oversized ego - that the mods were so kind as to let you stay.
For the record, I was never even warned by any mods about any of my allegedly disruptive behavior in A&S prior to the creation of the VC subforum. Here, by the way, is the disruption guideline:


Posts which intend to disrupt the topic of conversation or steer the topic away from the focus of the forum and related news. Disruption can include harassment, multiple user profiles, multiple posting of the same post and posting completely off topic messages.
None of my posts were intended "to disrupt the topic of conversation or steer the topic away from the focus of the forum and related news." You and a few others may have considered my posts speculating about causes and promoting anti-crash habits and techniques accordingly in threads about cyclist deaths to be "completely off topic messages", but others disagreed (and pardon me for seeking to save the lives we still have with us). This question was so controversial we even had a poll about whether it was appropriate to post in that manner in such threads, and the majority (67 out of 114) agreed with me. Link (http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=228712). But those who disagreed caused enough of a ruckus when they didn't get their way that the mods decided to create a VC subforum.

This kind of personal attack and dredging up of the past is not only wrong and totally uncalled for, but in blatant violation of the guidelines, disruptive, disrespectful, insulting and not conducive to a pleasant place to discuss bicycling. Please stop. Enough already.

[Allister]

show some humility, dude, you're a total f***ing hypocrite when it comes to the forum guidelines. The only reason there is even a separate VC subforum is because you were completely disrupting almost every thread in A&S with your VC BS before this subforum was created especially for you. You're lucky you weren't permanently banned years ago, I really don't see what your contribution is around here - besides your oversized ego - that the mods were so kind as to let you stay.

Agreed 110%.

The only way, imo, Serge can possibly improve the quality of these fora would be to leave and never return.

Yes he doesn't breach any of the guidelines, but that's just a sign of a proficient troll, not necessarily a model member. And when he start reporting posts of others that have breached none of the guidelines, you can comfortably take any of his pleas for proper forum behaviour with a grain of salt.

Serge, if you want this to be a pleasant environment, the onus is entirely on you. Stop being a bombastic, pig-headed, longwinded, dogma-spewing jackanape (in a polite way, of course), and we'll stop replying in a way that you so soundly deserve. Failing that, p!iss off. No-one will miss you if you leave.

I can't help chuckling at the parallels here to your cycling advice, where you claim that a cyclist, by his/her actions alone can determine the safety and comfort of their ride, but when it comes to the way you post here, it's all everyone else's fault when there's conflict. :rolleyes:

[Allister]

This kind of personal attack and dredging up of the past is not only wrong and totally uncalled for, but in blatant violation of the guidelines, disruptive, disrespectful, insulting and not conducive to a pleasant place to discuss bicycling. Please stop. Enough already.

:cry::cry:

Poor baby. Go for a ride, Serge, if you remember how (after all it's terribly complicated)

[genec]

Definitely not unique ... there are thousands of long distance cyclists out there, and thousands of cycle-tourists out there. :) Many have their own websites, and many post on blogs and other websites such as this one:

http://www.crazyguyonabike.com/

We're out there riding our events, from centuries to the RAAM, on roads without cycling facilities. We're training for our events on roads without cycling facilities. And we're touring the world on roads without cycling facilities. Yeah, there may be cycling facilities available now and then ... occasionally we may come across a stretch of road with a bike lane or something ... and that's nice, but it's not necessary. We can still ride just fine without those things.

Personally, in cities, I like it when they've got wider roads ... or at least when the curb lane is a couple feet wider than "normal". And in the country, I like it when the roads have shoulders. These things can make cycling a little bit more pleasant, while also being beneficial to vehicular traffic.

But there are millions and millions of bikes out there... Those that ride on a regular basis are somewhat unique, and those "thousands of long distance cyclists" are very unique in the overall scheme of things...

Whereas I may see perhaps 20 cyclists on a single day, I may only see one "tourist" in the period of a couple months...

No Machaka, you do not in any way imaginable represent "most cyclists," and are therefore quite unique.

You do probably well represent a "touring cyclist."

[Bekologist]

bombastic posting response after response about ones' superiority of riding technique is most assuredly detracting and disrespectful of others' points of view, violates the spirit of the 'respectfulness' guidelines, is correspondingly 'disruptive' and in violation of multiple forum guidelines, head.

[randya]

...we even had a poll about whether it was appropriate to post in that manner in such threads, and the majority (67 out of 114) agreed with me.

We didn't have a poll, Serge, you had a poll. This (http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=3062252&postcount=49) about sums up the situation.

:rolleyes:

[Helmet Head]

We didn't have a poll, Serge, you had a poll. This (http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=3062252&postcount=49) about sums up the situation.

:rolleyes:
And I agree with Chipcom's comments.

The difference of opinion is about whether my comments constitute appropriate discussion of cyclist safety in relation to the crash in question, which I know they always do, or whether it's about promoting political agendas, which I know they were not. But I can understand why Chipcom, you and others might see it that way, because you seem to see everything I do as promoting what you see as my political agenda.

My agenda is to promote cyclist safety through the promotion of traffic cycling best practices. One way I do that is point out how these best practices may have helped a cyclist avoid a given tragic fate if he had adopted certain practices, assuming that certain reported facts and certain assumed facts based on speculation are true. There was controversy about whether that was appropriate, and that's what the poll was about.

[chipcom]

And I agree with Chipcom's comments.

The difference of opinion is about whether my comments constitute appropriate discussion of cyclist safety in relation to the crash in question, which I know they always do, or whether it's about promoting political agendas, which I know they were not. But I can understand why Chipcom, you and others might see it that way, because you seem to see everything I do as promoting what you see as my political agenda.

My agenda is to promote cyclist safety through the promotion of my opinion of traffic cycling best practices that fit within my political ideology. One way I do that is blame the cyclist for any accidents they may have. There was controversy about whether that was appropriate, and that's what the poll was about.

Well, since I have been dragged into this, I fixed a few things for you.

[CommuterRun]

At different times in the last two weeks two cyclists have been left hooked while riding in bike lanes in Tallahassee. The first was hospitalized with critical injuries and later died. The second was transported to the hospital with non-life threatening injuries.

Someone show some statistical data showing bike lanes make cycling safer.

Let me save some time here. You can't. They don't. The de facto purpose of bike lanes is for the convenience of motorists by moving cyclists out of their way.

The VC Forum wasn't created for HH. It was created for his detractors. This thread makes an excellent example of that.

[Bekologist]

sounds like the fault lies in the motorists and not the bike lanes - isn't it illegal to cross traffic when it isn't clear to do so?

The bonifide purpose of bike facilities, as part of well implemented bike infrastructure and social inducements for bicycling, is to increase bicycling in communities and increase bicyclist's safety. proven in communities around the world, commuter run.

are you happier without bike specific facilities? I think the vast majority of bicyclists of sound mind would concur that well implemented bike infrastructure is a pleasure to ride.

[CommuterRun]

In the first case the motorist reportedly claimed to have not seen the cyclist. A more conspicuous road position may have mitigated this crash.

In the second this claim was not reported.

Either way, unless someone can show something that proves bike lanes make cycling safer, I'm sticking with; in both these cases the bike lane positioned the cyclists far enough off to the side to be out of the effective sight lines of the motorists. In other words: The bike lanes positioned the cyclists where the motorists would not effectively notice them.

[randya]

you really shouldn't make the presence of bike lanes an excuse for motorist inattention to their surroundings, it's completely inappropriate

[Bekologist]

yeah, and they could have been in the same road position without the bike lanes, so what of it?

[randya]

exactly, cyclists are usually required by law to operate in the margins of the roadway, whether a bike lane is present or not, motorists should be trained to look for them there.

[StrangeWill]

I take back about the mods not handling this, HH CCed everyone he's been PMing a reply from a mod, I'm glad to see that they aren't just playing into the "I'm a victim".

Though I do hope HH comes back with a little less head-butting action, he's quite welcome them.

[starkmojo]

show some humility, dude, you're a total f***ing hypocrite when it comes to the forum guidelines. The only reason there is even a separate VC subforum is because you were completely disrupting almost every thread in A&S with your VC BS before this subforum was created especially for you. You're lucky you weren't permanently banned years ago, I really don't see what your contribution is around here - besides your oversized ego - that the mods were so kind as to let you stay.


wow Randya you need to quit holding back- you need to say how you really feel.

;)

[CommuterRun]

you really shouldn't make the presence of bike lanes an excuse for motorist inattention to their surroundings, it's completely inappropriate

But it is completely appropriate to consider all contributers to a crash. In at least one of these cases the bike lane positioned the cyclist too far to the right for them to be conspicuous to the motorist. So, while the bike lanes didn't cause the wrecks, they directly contributed to the possibility of them happening.

Bottom line: Bike lanes do not make cycling safer. The assertion that they do is false. In fact, the opposite may be true.

[genec]

At different times in the last two weeks two cyclists have been left hooked while riding in bike lanes in Tallahassee. The first was hospitalized with critical injuries and later died. The second was transported to the hospital with non-life threatening injuries.

Someone show some statistical data showing bike lanes make cycling safer.

Let me save some time here. You can't. They don't. The de facto purpose of bike lanes is for the convenience of motorists by moving cyclists out of their way.

The VC Forum wasn't created for HH. It was created for his detractors. This thread makes an excellent example of that.

Show me that those cyclists riding in the same exact location would have not been hit if that simple stripe was removed... show me that the left turning motorist would have seen them any more if that stripe was removed.

While indeed bike lanes are created primarily for motorists... their intention is to divide the road into an orderly manner to help smooth the flow of traffic... just as the line down the middle helps divide the road in to two equal parts for order.

Bike lanes do not cause accidents, motorists that ignore their responsibilities cause accidents... just look at the other 45,000 motorists killed each year by motorists as an example.

[randya]

But it is completely appropriate to consider all contributers to a crash. In at least one of these cases the bike lane positioned the cyclist too far to the right for them to be conspicuous to the motorist.

that is where the law generally requires bicyclists to operate, regardless of the presence of a bike lane stripe or not.

Improper use of lanes; exceptions; penalty. (1) A person commits the offense of improper use of lanes by a bicycle if the person is operating a bicycle on a roadway at less than the normal speed of traffic using the roadway at that time and place under the existing conditions and the person does not ride as close as practicable to the right curb or edge of the roadway.
(2) A person is not in violation of the offense under this section if the person is not operating a bicycle as close as practicable to the right curb or edge of the roadway under any of the following circumstances:
(a) When overtaking and passing another bicycle or vehicle that is proceeding in the same direction.
(b) When preparing to execute a left turn.
(c) When reasonably necessary to avoid hazardous conditions including, but not limited to, fixed or moving objects, parked or moving vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians, animals, surface hazards or other conditions that make continued operation along the right curb or edge unsafe or to avoid unsafe operation in a lane on the roadway that is too narrow for a bicycle and vehicle to travel safely side by side. Nothing in this paragraph excuses the operator of a bicycle from the requirements under ORS 811.425 or from the penalties for failure to comply with those requirements.
(d) When operating within a city as near as practicable to the left curb or edge of a roadway that is designated to allow traffic to move in only one direction along the roadway. A bicycle that is operated under this paragraph is subject to the same requirements and exceptions when operating along the left curb or edge as are applicable when a bicycle is operating along the right curb or edge of the roadway.
(e) When operating a bicycle alongside not more than one other bicycle as long as the bicycles are both being operated within a single lane and in a manner that does not impede the normal and reasonable movement of traffic.
(f) When operating on a bicycle lane or bicycle path.
(3) The offense described in this section, improper use of lanes by a bicycle, is a Class D traffic violation. [1983 c.338 §701; 1985 c.16 §339]

[CommuterRun]

Umm, besides the fact that this did not happen in Oregon, making ORS irrelevant, the "I didn't see him" excuse puts the first cyclist further to the right than is practicable.

Show me that those cyclists riding in the same exact location would have not been hit if that simple stripe was removed... show me that the left turning motorist would have seen them any more if that stripe was removed.

I asked first. The point is that the cyclists were too far to the right. In that road position without a bike lane the same circumstances would have produced the same results. In both these cases they were in that road position because they were in the nice "safe" bike lane.

These are just two examples of only one reason how bike lanes provide a false sense of security for cyclists.

[genec]

Umm, besides the fact that this did not happen in Oregon, making ORS irrelevant, the "I didn't see him" excuse puts the first cyclist further to the right than is practicable.



I asked first. The point is that the cyclists were too far to the right. In that road position without a bike lane the same circumstances would have produced the same results. In both these cases they were in that road position because they were in the nice "safe" bike lane.


Or the laws of the state, reinforced by annoying motorists, caused the cyclists to ride to the far right... still no point in blaming BL for the actions of motorists that simply don't bother to look.

Do you blame the center line if a motorist gets into a head on collision?

Do you blame the red light if a motorist runs it and hits someone?