Are you happier without bike facilities?

[noisebeam]

You don't think they're doing both? Do you think cyclists are so stupid as to accept sub-standard facilities without a fight, or at least a lengthy complaint? You're pointing your finger at the wrong people.

Locally the bike lane advocates in the strongest positions push for bike lanes even when the are minimal or even sub-standard. They would much rather have door zone bike lanes than none at all. Seven lane (three lanes each way, one center turn lane) arterials are being turned into 5 lane arterials with added on street parking and a bike lane squeezed between the parking and outside lane. This is considered a great success. Bike lanes that meet AASTHO 4' minimum width are added to 45mph arterials, but in places (mostly in the 20' just after intersections) are squeezed into 3' of space. Also considered a success as 90% of the bike lane meets AASTHO and that was a compromise that was considered acceptable as it resulted in a bike lane where before there was none.

Al

[MarkS]

Dotted lines don't do the required job. The problem with bike lanes is that they contradict the rules of the road. The problem with bike-lane advocacy is that it contradicts the principle of the rules of the road. There is no political way to get only good bike lanes as long as bike-lane advocacy is based on superstition, and if it were not based on superstition there would be very few bike lanes. When you advocate unreason, you necessarily produce unreasonable results. There is no way to correct that problem.
And you'll never get a unified front as long as you insist on calling people with a different point of view "superstitious".

I actually ride the roads, and I know that when I have a bike lane (or any lane strip) I'm at least one foot to two feet further from traffic. Its not superstition. Its reality that I see every day. Why don't you come down to National City and ride Harbor Drive (South, not North). The road is terrible, but if you don't get over, the vehicles will whiz by you just a foot away.

Over the course of Summer 2007 I got to try Olympic Parkway, Otay Lakes, and other East-bound roads with and without bike lanes. It wasn't superstition -- it was observation -- that people coming up behind me did not want to give adequate clearance. But perhaps you consider it superstitious to worry about 50mph traffic whizzing less than 18 inches away.

You've already expressed disdain for getting "more butts on bikes". I don't know anyone who advocates for a cause that doesn't want more people to participate in that cause.

[invisiblehand]

You've already expressed disdain for getting "more butts on bikes". I don't know anyone who advocates for a cause that doesn't want more people to participate in that cause.

Hmmm ... I doubt that John objects to more people cycling. If I understand correctly, his objections are that the popular methods for attracting cyclists are unproven and that facilities mislead new riders into thinking that they are safer than empirically/theoretically suggested.

It also just occurred to me that I may be misinterpreting your use of disdain. If so, my apologies.

[ChipSeal]

And you'll never get a unified front as long as you insist on calling people with a different point of view "superstitious".

That is not fair to JF. He is using the term he has coined to reference the concept of people's out-sized fear of the risk of overtaking traffic. Because of the idea's seemingly imperviousness to reason and data, it may be accurately descriptive. You err if you think it is a word used, especially in this context, to demean people.

I actually ride the roads, and I know that when I have a bike lane (or any lane strip) I'm at least one foot to two feet further from traffic. Its not superstition. Its reality that I see every day. Why don't you come down to National City and ride Harbor Drive (South, not North). The road is terrible, but if you don't get over, the vehicles will whiz by you just a foot away.

Over the course of Summer 2007 I got to try Olympic Parkway, Otay Lakes, and other East-bound roads with and without bike lanes. It wasn't superstition -- it was observation -- that people coming up behind me did not want to give adequate clearance. But perhaps you consider it superstitious to worry about 50mph traffic whizzing less than 18 inches away.


If you are continually getting buzzed, you need to move laterally further out into the lane. The greater the speed differential, the imperative this is.

When you move left, you become more conspicuous, and you are less likely to be overlooked. Motorist will not deliberately run someone down if they are not in a impaired state. View the video found at this link to see how it works in practice:
http://www.cyclistview.com/ITC-Intro/slide10.htm

I practice this nearly daily on streets with a PSL of 45 MPH or greater, and I have lived to tell you about it! :p I get buzzed only once in thousands of safe passes. If you are directly in motorists path, they either give you plenty of room when they pass you at 50 MPH, (because they change lanes) or they will pass you with plenty of room at a slow speed. (Because they had to wait for a gap in traffic to overtake you in the next lane.) It plays itself out without fuss and in an orderly and rather elegant way.

[genec]

That is not fair to JF. He is using the term he has coined to reference the concept of people's out-sized fear of the risk of overtaking traffic. Because of the idea's seemingly imperviousness to reason and data, it may be accurately descriptive. You err if you think it is a word used, especially in this context, to demean people.




If you are continually getting buzzed, you need to move laterally further out into the lane. The greater the speed differential, the imperative this is.

When you move left, you become more conspicuous, and you are less likely to be overlooked. Motorist will not deliberately run someone down if they are not in a impaired state. View the video found at this link to see how it works in practice:
http://www.cyclistview.com/ITC-Intro/slide10.htm

I practice this nearly daily on streets with a PSL of 45 MPH or greater, and I have lived to tell you about it! :p I get buzzed only once in thousands of safe passes. If you are directly in motorists path, they either give you plenty of room when they pass you at 50 MPH, (because they change lanes) or they will pass you with plenty of room at a slow speed. (Because they had to wait for a gap in traffic to overtake you in the next lane.) It plays itself out without fuss and in an orderly and rather elegant way.

Gee, when I do the exact same thing on roads with PSL of only 35 MPH, I can count on being tailgated, honked at and yelled at...

But hey, if that is your idea of a good time...

I have even had motorists behind me yell while the passenger in the car in the immediate lane to my left joined in the fun and yelled right in my ear. No, indeed, they did not hit me. (oh joy.)

[Ed Holland]

If you are continually getting buzzed, you need to move laterally further out into the lane. The greater the speed differential, the imperative this is.



This can work, however, it is not the behaviour that an inexperienced cyclist will adopt. It takes confidence and experience to know how to ride in situations like this. Not to mention the will power to gain that experience and keep cycling before the initial fears subside.

These are good reasons why cycle advocacy and riding technique advocacy struggles

Incidentally, I ride daily and still get "buzzed" on occasion Should I blame me or the impatient motorist who passed me on a blind curve last evening?

Ed

[The Human Car]

You are wrong, genec. Either you don't understand, or you are deliberately pretending that you don't. The VC principles are not based on the traffic laws, but on the physical and human-factors realities that are expressed in the principles of the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles and in the traffic laws which are legislators' best effort at expressing the physical principles.

When dealing with the human-factor, we look at what is intuitive in the design of the physical and both bike lanes and roads without bike lanes have their non-intuitive components. Both introduce a certain amount of complexity on how to deal with situations safely. The question that seems to be raised is do bike lanes introduces a more complex system.

Well lets first look at another mode of transportation, walking. Which has a system rules and one could argue that using stairs is more intuitive, safe and follows the basic principles of walking then introducing the complexity of an elevator and that the very design of the elevator is in violation of the basic principles of walking. The increased complexity of the elevator increases safety concerns of what if the elevator breaks down. One could in theory launch a anti-elevator campaign using the same logic as the anti-bike lane crowd but such a campaign would be silly, why? Because elevators have not been shown to be more hazardous then stairs, because the increased complexity is still well within human-nature to deal with.

The whole premise of anti-bike lanes rests on blowing the lack of safety out of proportion as well as the amount of complexity that is introduced and neither is of any significant value. Driving a bike or car is complex thing. Some can argue that ether roundabouts or intersections are more dangerous, more complex and/or less intuitive but the fact is each in their proper place can work well and nether has a complexity that is outside a drivers capacity to handle. Calling a difference in complexity not following the rules of the road for drivers is extremely unfair as any VC can safely handle the vehicular nature of a bike lane. If bike lanes were truly not following the rules of the road for drivers then they would be presenting significant problems to the VC crowd, which they do not.

[The Human Car]

That is not fair to JF. He is using the term he has coined to reference the concept of people's out-sized fear of the risk of overtaking traffic. Because of the idea's seemingly imperviousness to reason and data, it may be accurately descriptive. You err if you think it is a word used, especially in this context, to demean people.

I'm sorry but JF's knee jerk reaction to call any bike lane advocate superstitious is flat out rude and uncalled for as it attacks the persons reasons for wanting bike lanes even though the person has not expressed those reasons. My reasons for wanting (more accurately not against) bike lanes is the exact same reason why JF wants WOLs and shoulders. JF's use of the word superstitious is name calling plain and simple. Because if there was an error in facts or beliefs he should point out the specifics of the error and engage in a logical discourse but instead he choses to insult.

[John Forester]

When dealing with the human-factor, we look at what is intuitive in the design of the physical and both bike lanes and roads without bike lanes have their non-intuitive components. Both introduce a certain amount of complexity on how to deal with situations safely. The question that seems to be raised is do bike lanes introduces a more complex system.

Well lets first look at another mode of transportation, walking. Which has a system rules and one could argue that using stairs is more intuitive, safe and follows the basic principles of walking then introducing the complexity of an elevator and that the very design of the elevator is in violation of the basic principles of walking. The increased complexity of the elevator increases safety concerns of what if the elevator breaks down. One could in theory launch a anti-elevator campaign using the same logic as the anti-bike lane crowd but such a campaign would be silly, why? Because elevators have not been shown to be more hazardous then stairs, because the increased complexity is still well within human-nature to deal with.

The whole premise of anti-bike lanes rests on blowing the lack of safety out of proportion as well as the amount of complexity that is introduced and neither is of any significant value. Driving a bike or car is complex thing. Some can argue that ether roundabouts or intersections are more dangerous, more complex and/or less intuitive but the fact is each in their proper place can work well and nether has a complexity that is outside a drivers capacity to handle. Calling a difference in complexity not following the rules of the road for drivers is extremely unfair as any VC can safely handle the vehicular nature of a bike lane. If bike lanes were truly not following the rules of the road for drivers then they would be presenting significant problems to the VC crowd, which they do not.

I find it difficult to consider the malarkey in your post without expressing strong disdain.

The attempt to compare bike lanes with elevators is just plain absurd. Elevators make possible high rise buildings, which could never operate commercially without them. The issue of complexity is irrelevant in their case.

Furthermore, no part of roadway traffic operation depends on intuition. If intuition were a significant part of traffic operation, we would never have had need to formalize the rules of the road and we would not need any driver training.

You make the following argument regarding complexity: "Some can argue that ether roundabouts or intersections are more dangerous, more complex and/or less intuitive but the fact is each in their proper place can work well and nether has a complexity that is outside a drivers capacity to handle." The issue of complexity is largely irrelevant because driving through both facilities requires obeying the same rules. Indeed, the roundabout is less complex than the typical intersection, because it is merely a succession of right-side-only T intersections branching off a protected arterial. No driver has to choose between two sets of conflicting rules.

You argue that bike lanes are fine because well-trained vehicular cyclists have the skill to know when to disobey the impression produced by the bike lane. Here is your argument: "Calling a difference in complexity not following the rules of the road for drivers is extremely unfair as any VC can safely handle the vehicular nature of a bike lane. If bike lanes were truly not following the rules of the road for drivers then they would be presenting significant problems to the VC crowd, which they do not."

That argument is more illogical malarkey. Claiming that the operating instructions produced in drivers' minds by the bike-lane stripe agree with the rules of the road, when simultaneously arguing that vehicular cyclists have to disobey those instructions, is clear proof that bike-lane stripes contradict the rules of the road.

Now, consider where your own argument has led you. You have just demonstrated that bike lanes are suited only for use by well-trained vehicular cyclists, and are unsuitable for both typical cyclists and all motorists (with the possible exception of those motorists who are also well-trained vehicular cyclists,.

This is just another example of the intellectual quagmire that is bikeway advocacy. Such illogicality can appeal only on the basis of the coarsest superstition, or, for motorists, of their supposed convenience.

[John Forester]

I'm sorry but JF's knee jerk reaction to call any bike lane advocate superstitious is flat out rude and uncalled for as it attacks the persons reasons for wanting bike lanes even though the person has not expressed those reasons. My reasons for wanting (more accurately not against) bike lanes is the exact same reason why JF wants WOLs and shoulders. JF's use of the word superstitious is name calling plain and simple. Because if there was an error in facts or beliefs he should point out the specifics of the error and engage in a logical discourse but instead he choses to insult.

Calling bikeway advocacy superstitious nonsense is an accurate description. Its accuracy has been demonstrated, time after time, by the failure of bikeway advocates to advance evidence that bikeways produce any significant benefit to cyclists making transportational trips over and above that provided by using the roads in accordance with the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles. Bike-lane stripes have never been shown to produce a significant reduction in the car-bike collision rate, while analysis shows that the greatest effect can only be minor, and is probably countered by the increase in collisions produced by contradicting the rules of the road. Bike-lane stripes have never been shown to make safe cycling easier, to require a lower level of cyclist skill; indeed, the most cursory analysis shows that they make safe cycling harder to understand. Bike lanes have never been shown to make bicycle transportation more convenient; indeed, they cannot because they are integral parts of the existing road system. Bike paths have been shown to make bicycle transportation more convenient in only a very few instances, compared to the existing road system.

The fact that bikeway advocates continue to advance illogical arguments for bikeways, despite the facts stated above, is pretty clear evidence of the accuracy of this discussion. It is very clear that their arguments must be based on some kind of irrational mental state, ideology, superstition or what-have-you. It is not necessary to specifically describe the form of that irrational mental state, just state the unequivocal evidence that some such state is the most likely explanation for the facts.

[genec]

Come to my town. Give me a call. I will have you meet the dozens of people who VC changed their life last year.

Or you could just keep talking and not listening. : )

gosmsgo... you are so funny... I have been riding for well over 30 years... have done several long distance tours, have taken road 1 and road 2... and while VC does work, it fails at higher speeds and we are never going to see any sort of uptake of cycling as long as we keep telling people... "just get out there and ride with the cars... "

Cycling will always remain a marginalized activity for a unique few in the US under those terms.

VC has not "changed my life" as much as seeing what well designed facilities can do.

I see and use vehicular cycling as a "coping mechanism" in a very "auto oriented" society.

I happen to believe that the US can do a far far better job of dealing positively with cyclists and encouraging cycling as an alternate means of transportation that ultimately can help clean the air, improve general fitness, and reduce our addiction to oil.

[genec]

You are wrong, genec. Either you don't understand, or you are deliberately pretending that you don't. The VC principles are not based on the traffic laws, but on the physical and human-factors realities that are expressed in the principles of the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles and in the traffic laws which are legislators' best effort at expressing the physical principles. You, genec, are expressing the view that, in the physical sphere, if a legislature passed a law that G = 1000 cm/sec/sec the universe would comply. Just as, apparently a true account, some rural legislature in the American heartland passed a statute that the ratio between the diameter and the circumference of a circle was 3.0.

We in the VC field know only too well what happens when legislatures enact bicycle traffic statutes that contradict the real physical principles of traffic operation: trouble, that's what.

And you John Forester expect that when legislation proclaims that cyclists have rights to the road, that motorists will gain that knowledge by osmosis, and will then very willingly slow down from 50-60MPH to 8MPH "to share the road."

[ChipSeal]

This can work, however, it is not the behavior that an inexperienced cyclist will adopt. It takes confidence and experience to know how to ride in situations like this. Not to mention the will power to gain that experience and keep cycling before the initial fears subside.

These are good reasons why cycle advocacy and riding technique advocacy struggles

Perhaps the inexperienced should seek out those with confidence so that they can overcome their trepidation. Bicycle clubs can be more than simply a social outlet. I make offers to ride with all sorts of folks. As more cyclists take up best practices, the example made will make "taking the lane" more common.

Statistically, I am safer in traffic on my bicycle, than in my bathtub at home. But the popular perception is that cycling anywhere is inherent risky behavior. Why do you suppose that is? Do you suppose that bike helmet campaigns, ghost bikes and agitation for bikes to be separated from traffic play a part in that?

Incidentally, I ride daily and still get "buzzed" on occasion Should I blame me or the impatient motorist who passed me on a blind curve last evening?

If you caused that driver to pass you on that curve, then yes, it would be your fault. Did you make the decision to pass there or did he?

[Script]

The fact that bikeway advocates continue to advance illogical arguments for bikeways, despite the facts stated above, is pretty clear evidence of the accuracy of this discussion. It is very clear that their arguments must be based on some kind of irrational mental state, ideology, superstition or what-have-you. It is not necessary to specifically describe the form of that irrational mental state, just state the unequivocal evidence that some such state is the most likely explanation for the facts.

The above is really helpful when trying to reach some kind of consensus about how to improve and invite more bicycling.:(

Is it not possible to find some common ground? If not, it's pretty much a guarantee that we can continue to stand firm on either side and nothing will change. Bad bikeways will be built. Cyclists will continue to be 'afraid' to ride on the roads 'owned' by the motorists. And BF will continue to provide a forum to waste time claiming that 'My way is the only way!'.

I'm an advocate of progress. In some instances, that may mean WOL's and in some, bikeways.

Anybody out there willing to try compromise?

:beer:

[ChipSeal]

Gee, when I do the exact same thing on roads with PSL of only 35 MPH, I can count on being tailgated, honked at and yelled at...

But hey, if that is your idea of a good time...

Sure, but are you being buzzed? :D

My experience is different than yours.

But hey, you are welcome to cower in the gutter...

[maddyfish]

To the original question, yes I am happy without bike lanes. I have no troubles riding anywhere. Have ridden all over the country, including places with bike lanes, I just ignore them, and have no troubles.

[ChipSeal]

BF will continue to provide a forum to waste time claiming that 'My way is the only way!'.

I'm an advocate of progress. In some instances, that may mean WOL's and in some, bikeways.

Anybody out there willing to try compromise?


Progress, even if it is counter productive to cycling and cycling safety? That wouldn't be compromise, it would be capitulation!

Very few here are advocating all or nothing. For example, bike paths (MUP) have almost no objections from folks like me. Even JF just a few posts up pointed to places he had no objection to bike lanes. There is compromise everywhere you look. ;)

[Ed Holland]

Perhaps the inexperienced should seek out those with confidence so that they can overcome their trepidation. Bicycle clubs can be more than simply a social outlet. I make offers to ride with all sorts of folks. As more cyclists take up best practices, the example made will make "taking the lane" more common.

Statistically, I am safer in traffic on my bicycle, than in my bathtub at home. But the popular perception is that cycling anywhere is inherent risky behavior. Why do you suppose that is? Do you suppose that bike helmet campaigns, ghost bikes and agitation for bikes to be separated from traffic play a part in that? ]

Bicycle clubs - great, but what about the average Jane or Joe in the street (pardon the pun) who just wants to use a bike to get around. Perhaps some are disuaded very easily by a few near misses (or worse) with traffic. I feel they are unlikely to seek out practical help with riding technique. sporting/Hobby/recreational cyclists are a different story perhaps.

Take Oxford (UK) as an example. Lots of students, easiest, often quickest way to travel is by bicycle. Nobody teaches them how to ride, and a good proportion never seek the basic info on bike use e.g. requirements for lights after dark, hand signals etc. Some are "vehicularly conscious" but still choose to ride within marked bike lanes, or an edge biased position, allowing cars to pass where safe.


If you caused that driver to pass you on that curve, then yes, it would be your fault. Did you make the decision to pass there or did he?

That was a rhetorical question :), but since you placed the ball in my court, how could I possibly "cause" a driver to cross the double yellow line AND squeeze past the cyclist on a blind bend, when a safe straight section for passing lay moments beyond. Very firmly the drivers responsibility to pass safely and considerately - and a failure on both counts.

Ed

[Ed Holland]

Anybody out there willing to try compromise?

:beer:


:beer: yes!

What I have been trying to do in recent posts is get behind the reasoning for how a cyclist learns their individual "road method" based on experience and practice. I think individual is the key word here, since everyone adapts to riding differently - we see differing behaviour between drivers after all. This is the root of much disagreement.

Even if VC could be distilled perfectly into an idealised way to operate a bicycle, few would be confident enough to ride using some of the techniques described on these forums before gaining some level of experience. Cars CAN BE intimidating to cycists, to a greater or lesser degree.

Ed

[John Forester]

The above is really helpful when trying to reach some kind of consensus about how to improve and invite more bicycling.:(

Is it not possible to find some common ground? If not, it's pretty much a guarantee that we can continue to stand firm on either side and nothing will change. Bad bikeways will be built. Cyclists will continue to be 'afraid' to ride on the roads 'owned' by the motorists. And BF will continue to provide a forum to waste time claiming that 'My way is the only way!'.

I'm an advocate of progress. In some instances, that may mean WOL's and in some, bikeways.

Anybody out there willing to try compromise?

:beer:

What compromise would you suggest? Compromise between what and what? I have stated, accurately I think, that there are facts and reason on the vehicular-cycling side and only superstition on the side of the bikeway advocates.

First, consider compromises in general, rather than this specific one. Compromises are accommodations to different points of view; they do not change facts that are in those views. The facts remain that facts and reason are on the vehicular-cycling side while only superstition is on the side of the bikeway advocates.

A compromise has been suggested by Dan Gutierrez that has my support. The end result of the compromise, of course, must have two sides. The operational side is to be that all cyclists be allowed to operate according to the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles, without the bicyclist only restrictions that now apply to the side-of-the-road, to bike lanes, and to side paths. Equally for motorists; they must be allowed to cross or enter bike lanes whenever required by the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles. The facilities side of the compromise is that bike lanes be permitted in accordance with guiding standards such as AASHTO's Guide for Bicycle Facilities.

To achieve this compromise, both bicyclist sides must work together to persuade the motorists and others who control traffic law. Motorists and others who control traffic law will not be persuaded to this compromise unless (and maybe this won't be sufficient) they are forced to recognize that there is no scientific basis for bike-lane stripes or side paths, that in many aspects they contradict the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles, and that the only basis for them is "popular desire" or "popular superstition". Once it is recognized that there is no scientific or engineering basis for bike-lane stripes or side paths, then there is justification for repealing the traffic laws that require cyclists to use them, even when that is contrary to the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles. I repeat, in my judgment repeal of the restrictive laws will be impossible just so long as legislators believe that bike-lane stripes make cycling safer, and they will continue to believe this superstition as long as they can. and can be persuaded otherwise only when the bicycle activists themselves declare that there is no safety justification for bike-lane stripes.

There you are, the compromise laid out. To accomplish the desired end, the bicycle activists have to not only admit, but to proclaim, that their supposed safety justifications for bike-lane stripes have no basis beyond superstition, but they can say that that same public superstition might result in a considerable increase in bicycle transportation if bikeways are built.

Bicycle activists get their bikeways, while lawful, competent cyclists get legitimization of vehicular cycling.

[The Human Car]

Furthermore, no part of roadway traffic operation depends on intuition. If intuition were a significant part of traffic operation, we would never have had need to formalize the rules of the road and we would not need any driver training.

And you call yourself an engineer? We can design things like commuters so their use is intuitive with a graphical interface or we could design them with just a command line prompt and give them an instructional manual as thick as Effective Cycling. Good engineering is about the safe use being intuitive in the design. While intuitive designs can only go so far, they are very much a part of the roadway. The whole MUTCD is about making the roadway as intuitive as possible.

The issue of complexity is largely irrelevant because driving through both facilities requires obeying the same rules. Indeed, the roundabout is less complex than the typical intersection, because it is merely a succession of right-side-only T intersections branching off a protected arterial. No driver has to choose between two sets of conflicting rules.

And you forgot to mention that roundabouts have fewer potential conflict points then intersections. Forgive me if I have your position wrong but I though part of your arguments against bike lanes was the increased complexity and the increased potential conflict points. If increased complexity and conflicts points are "bad." then we should be against intersections as well as bike lanes. Ah, but it is argued that intersections and shoulders do not violate the rules of the road so they are ok. But in trying to articulate how a bike lane violates the rules of the road and a shoulder does not, you conveniently jump tracks avoid saying anything about the rules of the road in your arguments.

That argument is more illogical malarkey. Claiming that the operating instructions produced in drivers' minds by the bike-lane stripe agree with the rules of the road, when simultaneously arguing that vehicular cyclists have to disobey [disobey is John's assertion not mine] those instructions, is clear proof that bike-lane stripes contradict the rules of the road.

Situation 1) I'm riding on the right of a WOL and am approaching an intersection. Using destination positioning I do not want to be to the right so I signal and merge with thru traffic.

Situation 2) I'm riding in a bike lane and am approaching an intersection. Using destination positioning I do not want to be to the right so I signal and merge with thru traffic.

How am I contradicting/disobeying the rules of the road in the second case just because a extra travel (bike) lane is involved? I'll even assert that if you want to nitpick that WOL's are in violation of the rules of the road by allowing two vehicles to share the same lane. I'll strongly assert that the principle of allowing two vehicles to share the same lane is largely responsible for right-hook crashes being dominant in the first place.

You use a lot of abstract words but no real life examples, that is fundamental to illogical malarkey.

Now, consider where your own argument has led you. You have just demonstrated that bike lanes and roadways without bike lanes are suited only for use by well-trained vehicular cyclists, and are unsuitable for both typical cyclists and all motorists (with the possible exception of those motorists who are also well-trained vehicular cyclists,.

This is just another example of the intellectual quagmire that is bikeway VC advocacy. Such illogicality can appeal only on the basis of the coarsest superstition, or, for motorists, of their supposed convenience.

Thanks John for summing things up so nicely.

[genec]

Sure, but are you being buzzed? :D

My experience is different than yours.

But hey, you are welcome to cower in the gutter...

I stay as far from the gutter as I can... probably haven't ridden in one since the 5th grade... back in the '60s. Would be awful difficult to do the tours I have done while riding in the gutter... especially touring Baja, as they generally don't have gutters, or curbs, or bike lanes, or even center stripes.



Yeah our experience is different, but only because I take note of how our general society does treat cyclists.

I know a few "strict" VC cyclists and it is amazing how their responses tend to boil down to "oh just ignore the honking... " Even Forester has mentioned that... while ignoring that the honking is symptom of a larger problem.

[genec]

If you caused that driver to pass you on that curve, then yes, it would be your fault. Did you make the decision to pass there or did he?



LOL... if I had the power to control motorists in that manner... there is a lot more I would do with it than simply ride a bike. :D

[Ed Holland]

LOL... if I had the power to control motorists in that manner... there is a lot more I would do with it than simply ride a bike. :D

Would that be Vehicular Psychicling?

:D

[The Human Car]

A compromise has been suggested by Dan Gutierrez that has my support. The end result of the compromise, of course, must have two sides. The operational side is to be that all cyclists be allowed to operate according to the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles, without the bicyclist only restrictions that now apply to the side-of-the-road, to bike lanes, and to side paths. Equally for motorists; they must be allowed to cross or enter bike lanes whenever required by the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles. The facilities side of the compromise is that bike lanes be permitted in accordance with guiding standards such as AASHTO's Guide for Bicycle Facilities.

Let me get this straight, under your distorted view of the world, the bikeway advocates are advocating for bike lanes that violate AASHTO standards and have somehow universally got into law that motorists are no longer required to be to the right most portion of the roadway when making a right hand turn.

Talk about illogical malarkey. :rolleyes:

[genec]

What compromise would you suggest? Compromise between what and what? I have stated, accurately I think, that there are facts and reason on the vehicular-cycling side and only superstition on the side of the bikeway advocates.

First, consider compromises in general, rather than this specific one. Compromises are accommodations to different points of view; they do not change facts that are in those views. The facts remain that facts and reason are on the vehicular-cycling side while only superstition is on the side of the bikeway advocates.

A compromise has been suggested by Dan Gutierrez that has my support. The end result of the compromise, of course, must have two sides. The operational side is to be that all cyclists be allowed to operate according to the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles, without the bicyclist only restrictions that now apply to the side-of-the-road, to bike lanes, and to side paths. Equally for motorists; they must be allowed to cross or enter bike lanes whenever required by the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles. The facilities side of the compromise is that bike lanes be permitted in accordance with guiding standards such as AASHTO's Guide for Bicycle Facilities.

To achieve this compromise, both bicyclist sides must work together to persuade the motorists and others who control traffic law. Motorists and others who control traffic law will not be persuaded to this compromise unless (and maybe this won't be sufficient) they are forced to recognize that there is no scientific basis for bike-lane stripes or side paths, that in many aspects they contradict the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles, and that the only basis for them is "popular desire" or "popular superstition". Once it is recognized that there is no scientific or engineering basis for bike-lane stripes or side paths, then there is justification for repealing the traffic laws that require cyclists to use them, even when that is contrary to the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles. I repeat, in my judgment repeal of the restrictive laws will be impossible just so long as legislators believe that bike-lane stripes make cycling safer, and they will continue to believe this superstition as long as they can. and can be persuaded otherwise only when the bicycle activists themselves declare that there is no safety justification for bike-lane stripes.

There you are, the compromise laid out. To accomplish the desired end, the bicycle activists have to not only admit, but to proclaim, that their supposed safety justifications for bike-lane stripes have no basis beyond superstition, but they can say that that same public superstition might result in a considerable increase in bicycle transportation if bikeways are built.

Bicycle activists get their bikeways, while lawful, competent cyclists get legitimization of vehicular cycling.

Good compromise... I like it.

But in the end you only addressed the responsibilities of the cyclists... yet in an earlier paragraph you included motorists ("Motorists and others who control traffic law")... so you need to add them to the bottom line too, and get them to "go along."

I am as willing to "get rid of the stripes and sidepaths" the moment that motorists are willing to agree that I don't have to ride to the side and can use any lane, at any speed, as equally as they.

In fact I'll go you one further... I say let's get ride of all the speed limit signs and other signs and all the road stripes, stop lights and stop signs and everyone should just act in a safe responsible manner. Does that sound reasonable? I'm all for it.

[Script]

What compromise would you suggest? Compromise between what and what? I have stated, accurately I think, that there are facts and reason on the vehicular-cycling side and only superstition on the side of the bikeway advocates.

First, consider compromises in general, rather than this specific one. Compromises are accommodations to different points of view; they do not change facts that are in those views. The facts remain that facts and reason are on the vehicular-cycling side while only superstition is on the side of the bikeway advocates.

A compromise has been suggested by Dan Gutierrez that has my support. The end result of the compromise, of course, must have two sides. The operational side is to be that all cyclists be allowed to operate according to the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles, without the bicyclist only restrictions that now apply to the side-of-the-road, to bike lanes, and to side paths. Equally for motorists; they must be allowed to cross or enter bike lanes whenever required by the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles. The facilities side of the compromise is that bike lanes be permitted in accordance with guiding standards such as AASHTO's Guide for Bicycle Facilities.

To achieve this compromise, both bicyclist sides must work together to persuade the motorists and others who control traffic law. Motorists and others who control traffic law will not be persuaded to this compromise unless (and maybe this won't be sufficient) they are forced to recognize that there is no scientific basis for bike-lane stripes or side paths, that in many aspects they contradict the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles, and that the only basis for them is "popular desire" or "popular superstition". Once it is recognized that there is no scientific or engineering basis for bike-lane stripes or side paths, then there is justification for repealing the traffic laws that require cyclists to use them, even when that is contrary to the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles. I repeat, in my judgment repeal of the restrictive laws will be impossible just so long as legislators believe that bike-lane stripes make cycling safer, and they will continue to believe this superstition as long as they can. and can be persuaded otherwise only when the bicycle activists themselves declare that there is no safety justification for bike-lane stripes.

There you are, the compromise laid out. To accomplish the desired end, the bicycle activists have to not only admit, but to proclaim, that their supposed safety justifications for bike-lane stripes have no basis beyond superstition, but they can say that that same public superstition might result in a considerable increase in bicycle transportation if bikeways are built.

Bicycle activists get their bikeways, while lawful, competent cyclists get legitimization of vehicular cycling.

Great! :)

You are the inspiration for why so many decide to advocate bikeways even if they only marginally think they are of value. :rolleyes:

Have you even considered that most people like to be treated with some respect for their beliefs. you may think they are illogical 'superstitions'..but they don't.

The arrogance with which you demean, what I believe to be, the majority of cyclists who think there is some balance between the need for bikeways and open road cycling is unbelievable.

Just to speak for myself....bikeways can be of value regardless of what you perceive as a confirmation of the 'conspiracy'. Conversely, I know that there are circumstances where they may not make sense. But that is not owing to some grand plan by 'them' to get bicycles off the road. It has to do with engineering, topography, traffic density, speed limits, corridor useage, etc.

I do not intend to inflame. :) It just would be nice to see a little flexibility.

Nothing is more true than TINOBWAY. :D

[Script]

In fact I'll go you one further... I say let's get ride of all the speed limit signs and other signs and all the road stripes, stop lights and stop signs and everyone should just act in a safe responsible manner. Does that sound reasonable? I'm all for it.

Okey Dokey. :D

I've always dreamed of opening an auto body repair shop.:rolleyes:

[Script]

:beer: yes!

What I have been trying to do in recent posts is get behind the reasoning for how a cyclist learns their individual "road method" based on experience and practice. I think individual is the key word here, since everyone adapts to riding differently - we see differing behaviour between drivers after all. This is the root of much disagreement.

Even if VC could be distilled perfectly into an idealised way to operate a bicycle, few would be confident enough to ride using some of the techniques described on these forums before gaining some level of experience. Cars CAN BE intimidating to cycists, to a greater or lesser degree.

Ed

Agree completely.

The challenge remains...how to get some kind of consensus within the cycling community and then advance. We appear to spend a lot of time and energy proclaiming our positions while the world just keeps turning. This is a lot like politics. Let's you and him(her) fight. While thats going on, I'll just do whatever suits.:D

I've been riding for a long time, posting for a short. My riding style never required bikeways. But there have been many occasions when I've enjoyed having them. As I said in some earlier post, even to the point of planning rides by them. (That applies part of the year I spend where there are many)

When there are none, that's okay. Doesn't really change the basic way I ride. Done a lot of miles in a lot of places for a lot of years and have not had a serious incident.

Should I say thanks to VC advocates, or bikeways advocates? ;)

[John Forester]

Good compromise... I like it.

But in the end you only addressed the responsibilities of the cyclists... yet in an earlier paragraph you included motorists ("Motorists and others who control traffic law")... so you need to add them to the bottom line too, and get them to "go along."

I am as willing to "get rid of the stripes and sidepaths" the moment that motorists are willing to agree that I don't have to ride to the side and can use any lane, at any speed, as equally as they.

In fact I'll go you one further... I say let's get ride of all the speed limit signs and other signs and all the road stripes, stop lights and stop signs and everyone should just act in a safe responsible manner. Does that sound reasonable? I'm all for it.

I think that your comment that I have failed to bring the motorists into it, failed to get them to "go along", is incorrect. They have an explicit part in the compromise, in that they, who have the major part in controlling traffic law, have to explicitly renounce the laws restricting cyclists on the spurious ground of safety. They do so by getting those restrictive anti-cyclist laws, which they created for their own interest, repealed. Nothing could be more convincing than that.

I disapprove of your suggestion for turning streets into woohnerven. That is just lowering both cyclists and motorists to the level of pedestrians, to the disadvantage of everybody, recreating the chaos that was the incentive for the creation of the first formal traffic code.

[John Forester]

Great! :)

You are the inspiration for why so many decide to advocate bikeways even if they only marginally think they are of value. :rolleyes:

Have you even considered that most people like to be treated with some respect for their beliefs. you may think they are illogical 'superstitions'..but they don't.

The arrogance with which you demean, what I believe to be, the majority of cyclists who think there is some balance between the need for bikeways and open road cycling is unbelievable.

Just to speak for myself....bikeways can be of value regardless of what you perceive as a confirmation of the 'conspiracy'. Conversely, I know that there are circumstances where they may not make sense. But that is not owing to some grand plan by 'them' to get bicycles off the road. It has to do with engineering, topography, traffic density, speed limits, corridor useage, etc.

I do not intend to inflame. :) It just would be nice to see a little flexibility.

Nothing is more true than TINOBWAY. :D

Please, this is a technical discussion, not one of aesthetic values or emotional beliefs. If people make repeated claims for which they never produce supporting evidence, it is appropriate to designate those beliefs as superstition that should not be granted credence in the discussion. We have to maintain some level of technical evidence in order to be able to make any progress at all. If that pains those who make claims without being able to support those claims, that's just too bad, because that is the normal standard for technical discussion.

I make the same point regarding your belief about the intent of the designers of the bikeway standards. They designed the bikeway standards to push cyclists aside, and to do nothing else. Their original designs were much more dangerous than the final result; we cyclists forced them to discard the original designs because they were so dangerous that the governments that built them would be exposed to obvious personal injury liabilities. In fact, the only modifications that we managed to get made were of that nature, removing items that were so obviously dangerous that juries would find against the government.

However, this was not a conspiracy. Conspiracies are hidden because they cannot stand the light of day. All of this went on, after the original designs by UCLA, right out in public with news coverage by the cycling press. The bikeway standard designers managed to do what they did because they were carrying out the superstitious belief by motorists and the public, and the orders of politicians, that same-direction motor traffic is the greatest danger to cyclists. That superstition had no supporting evidence at the start of the design effort, and it was thoroughly disproved by the first Cross study half-way through the design program.

The appropriate analogy might be for a ship design program that, halfway through, was confronted with undoubted evidence that the ship could displace water equal to only 2% of its mass. Despite having such evidence before them, the designers continued without change.

Later detailed implementation of those design standards does involve the characteristics that you mention, but that doesn't change the design intent of the program as a whole and what it actually does. It shoves cyclists aside; can't you see that?

[genec]

I think that your comment that I have failed to bring the motorists into it, failed to get them to "go along", is incorrect. They have an explicit part in the compromise, in that they, who have the major part in controlling traffic law, have to explicitly renounce the laws restricting cyclists on the spurious ground of safety. They do so by getting those restrictive anti-cyclist laws, which they created for their own interest, repealed. Nothing could be more convincing than that.

Yes, but does this really get the motorists to give us true equality? I don't mind being handed the keys to the kingdom as long as the dragon truly stays at bay. :D






I disapprove of your suggestion for turning streets into woohnerven. That is just lowering both cyclists and motorists to the level of pedestrians, to the disadvantage of everybody, recreating the chaos that was the incentive for the creation of the first formal traffic code.

OK, I don't want this to get mixed up with your first "proposal..." this is a totally different tack... for academic discussion.

Hmmm... so adding more formal code to take care of the situation as it exists now is simply not workable? Seems to me that we have added so much code to deal with everything from speed to ped crossing, what is wrong with more code to deal with cyclists... which is the situation we have now. Why is the "line" of "too much traffic code" being drawn at bike lanes? Seems to me we can complicate the rules as much as we want... as long as we make the rules well known.

[WaltPoutine]

And you call yourself an engineer? We can design things like commuters so their use is intuitive with a graphical interface or we could design them with just a command line prompt

Bad, unsupported analogy genec. Neither the CLI nor GUIs are intuitive. Both make large assumptions about the user plonked in front of them and those proficient with one can be remarkably unproductive with the other without training in their specific semiotics. They each have their appropriate domain in which they provide an optimal interface for the task at hand but are remarkably inappropriate for other tasks. Try administering a server solely with GUIs and for all but the most trivial tasks you'll be damn inefficient due to the lack of scripting. Conversely I wouldn't want to draw a picture on the command line (although it's possible with some horrible old markup languages.)

Neal Stephenson's famous essay _In The Beginning Was The Command Line_ [1] suggests that such thinking is because: "We want GUIs largely because they are convenient and because they are easy-- or at least the GUI makes it seem that way Of course, nothing is really easy and simple, and putting a nice interface on top of it does not change that fact. A car controlled through a GUI would be easier to drive than one controlled through pedals and steering wheel, but it would be incredibly dangerous.
By using GUIs all the time we have insensibly bought into a premise that few people would have accepted if it were presented to them bluntly: namely, that hard things can be made easy, and complicated things simple, by putting the right interface on them."

Ironically it seems that this is somewhat parallel to the thinking about bike facilities which sees them as a way to pander to the unrealistic fear of some people who don't currently bicycle and may never do so: cover up the basic responsibilities and rules, tell them that it's scary and difficult and then give something that is actually inappropriate in many situations. All this contortion on the hope that they might start cycling even though cycling is presented as a childish, difficult and scary exercise in American popular culture.

We can start chipping away at the "scary" bit by not playing it up and creating a distorted perception of risk.

1. http://artlung.com/smorgasborg/C_R_Y_P_T_O_N_O_M_I_C_O_N.shtml

[The Human Car]

Bad, unsupported analogy genec. Neither the CLI nor GUIs are intuitive. Both make large assumptions about the user plonked in front of them and those proficient with one can be remarkably unproductive with the other without training in their specific semiotics. They each have their appropriate domain in which they provide an optimal interface for the task at hand but are remarkably inappropriate for other tasks. Try administering a server solely with GUIs and for all but the most trivial tasks you'll be damn inefficient due to the lack of scripting. Conversely I wouldn't want to draw a picture on the command line (although it's possible with some horrible old markup languages.)

Neal Stephenson's famous essay _In The Beginning Was The Command Line_ [1] suggests that such thinking is because: "We want GUIs largely because they are convenient and because they are easy-- or at least the GUI makes it seem that way Of course, nothing is really easy and simple, and putting a nice interface on top of it does not change that fact. A car controlled through a GUI would be easier to drive than one controlled through pedals and steering wheel, but it would be incredibly dangerous.
By using GUIs all the time we have insensibly bought into a premise that few people would have accepted if it were presented to them bluntly: namely, that hard things can be made easy, and complicated things simple, by putting the right interface on them."

Ironically it seems that this is somewhat parallel to the thinking about bike facilities which sees them as a way to pander to the unrealistic fear of some people who don't currently bicycle and may never do so: cover up the basic responsibilities and rules, tell them that it's scary and difficult and then give something that is actually inappropriate in many situations. All this contortion on the hope that they might start cycling even though cycling is presented as a childish, difficult and scary exercise in American popular culture.

We can start chipping away at the "scary" bit by not playing it up and creating a distorted perception of risk.

1. http://artlung.com/smorgasborg/C_R_Y_P_T_O_N_O_M_I_C_O_N.shtml

Very valid point, the engineer is challenged to make the interface to be appropriate for the task at hand to make it as intuitive and as functional as possible without the user having to consult the manual every time. My point is and still remains that (good) engineering is very much about designs that are intuitive.

[The Human Car]

An after thought on Walt's post. What if for a particular task it makes no difference if it is CLI or GUI. What's the argument for picking one or the other? Perhaps if marketing comes in and says we think we can sell more if its a GUI. Would that be reason to fight tooth and nail to have the task as a CLI? And what if marketing was wrong and sales did not increase? Is that proof that the CLI was better? No it's just proof that there is really no difference between the two UIs.

All I am saying is I see no functional difference of roadways with bike lane and roadways without bike lanes.

[John Forester]

Yes, but does this really get the motorists to give us true equality? I don't mind being handed the keys to the kingdom as long as the dragon truly stays at bay. :D






OK, I don't want this to get mixed up with your first "proposal..." this is a totally different tack... for academic discussion.

Hmmm... so adding more formal code to take care of the situation as it exists now is simply not workable? Seems to me that we have added so much code to deal with everything from speed to ped crossing, what is wrong with more code to deal with cyclists... which is the situation we have now. Why is the "line" of "too much traffic code" being drawn at bike lanes? Seems to me we can complicate the rules as much as we want... as long as we make the rules well known.

As long as cyclists have to obey only the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles, which is what we are asking the motorists to help us enact because it will never be enacted without their consent, they have granted us legal equality without question. That statement of equality will not extinguish discrimination by individual motorists, but it will remove the societal permission for such discrimination, and, over time, will reduce it to a socially unacceptable practice.

As for additional code, whether this is computer code or legal code, your argument does not agree with reality. The human mind when operating in the driving mode does not operate either like a computer nor as a legal analyst. It operates according to general principles that it understands. The driver who yields to another as the principles require, or the driver who accepts that he has the right of way because the principles give it to him, are not using words, whether words compiled in C++ or in the California Vehicle Code. Only beginners do that, and that is one reason why beginners make so many mistakes. The typical driver obeys the principles. The trouble with bike-lane stripes is that they introduce a new principle that contradicts, or sometimes contradicts, or sometimes agrees with, the standard principles. It is no wonder that people get confused, and confused drivers make mistakes that too often lead to collisions.

How many more silly arguments are going to be floated before the bikeway promoters give up?

[Script]

Please, this is a technical discussion, not one of aesthetic values or emotional beliefs. If people make repeated claims for which they never produce supporting evidence, it is appropriate to designate those beliefs as superstition that should not be granted credence in the discussion. We have to maintain some level of technical evidence in order to be able to make any progress at all. If that pains those who make claims without being able to support those claims, that's just too bad, because that is the normal standard for technical discussion.


Good to know.:rolleyes:

So, given your expertise and technical skill, why is there a continuing movement for bikeways?

You demonstrate the prototypical frailty of the technocrat. "Let's dismiss the opinions and feelings of the 'commoners' since they are obviously wrong." Instead, you just keep on insisting that you are right and will prevail.

If there was any value in dismissing emotional beliefs, this would be a different world. Not better, but surely different.

Keep it up! :D

[Bekologist]

john's rationale for crashes- occuring because motorists 'get confused' about bike lanes is far off the mark! Isn't JOHN'S entire argument itself built on his OWN superstitions he continually reiterates?

what groundless superstitions.

[WaltPoutine]

Good to know.:rolleyes:

So, given your expertise and technical skill, why is there a continuing movement for bikeways?

Because there are radical, utopian, wannabe-technocrats that ignore reality in favour of their idee fixe: that motorists are crazed, hostile, non-humans intent on massacring cyclists and that the fix to this is to paint a confusing stripe on the road. These zealots dismiss all logical argument and evidence and continue pounding away on this same idea even when thirty years of following it has produced none of what they claimed would follow and many thousands of miles of what even they admit are dangerous facilities.

If there was any value in dismissing emotional beliefs, this would be a different world. Not better, but surely different.

Yeah. :headswivelsroundandexplodesduetopostersinanityandotherchildishstuff:

Much better to pander to "emotional beliefs" even if the result is to harm all of us.

[-=£em in Pa=-]

How many more silly arguments are going to be floated before the bikeway promoters give up?

I would suppose as many as you continue to post.........

I do often wonder why we dignify this nonsense by replying to it for pages.

[WaltPoutine]

An after thought on Walt's post. What if for a particular task it makes no difference if it is CLI or GUI. What's the argument for picking one or the other?.

I can't think of any which are not more suited to one or the other, but just for the sake of argument if I accept the premise then the result is fairly clear. GUIs in general impose a much higher cost in terms of code complexity. I think that this analogy is pretty dead and useless though.

[The Human Car]

As for additional code, whether this is computer code or legal code, your argument does not agree with reality. The human mind when operating in the driving mode does not operate either like a computer nor as a legal analyst. It operates according to general principles that it understands. The driver who yields to another as the principles require, or the driver who accepts that he has the right of way because the principles give it to him, are not using words, whether words compiled in C++ or in the California Vehicle Code. Only beginners do that, and that is one reason why beginners make so many mistakes. The typical driver obeys the principles. The trouble with bike-lane stripes is that they introduce a new principle that contradicts, or sometimes contradicts, or sometimes agrees with, the standard principles. It is no wonder that people get confused, and confused drivers make mistakes that too often lead to collisions.

How many more silly arguments are going to be floated before the bikeway promoters give up?

THC's basic principles:
Reality can be proven.
Arguments that rely on pontifications, exaggerations and abstractions are highly suspect of being just superstitions.

Despite how many principles you pontificate the reality is bike lanes do not increase accidents. You can try all you want to make up some fantasy world where bike lanes might, maybe, possibly be something different but it comes down to it is you that are selling silly arguments that are full of superstitions.

I don't even know where to begin in answering the above, there is an implication that over "coding" who has the right-of-way is bad especially if you are a beginning driver. What has led traffic engineers to "over "code right-of-way, because studies have shown that it works. Your proof has nothing to do with the coding of the roadways it is just a statement about the problem of beginning drivers applied to something it should not be applied to. And worst of all what are you implying as the remedy? Removal of roadway codes that clarify right-of-way? There is some serious disconnects of logic going on here. Show me case A where beginning driver does better and case B where beginning driver does worse because of road coding and I'll listen but till then you are just making things up.

I will ask this again since it has not been answered:
Situation 1) I'm riding on the right of a WOL and am approaching an intersection. Using destination positioning I do not want to be to the right so I signal and merge with thru traffic.

Situation 2) I'm riding in a bike lane and am approaching an intersection. Using destination positioning I do not want to be to the right so I signal and merge with thru traffic.

How am I contradicting/disobeying the rules of the road in the second case just because a extra travel (bike) lane is involved?

[genec]

Bad, unsupported analogy genec. Neither the CLI nor GUIs are intuitive.

Not me Walt. I have my own opinion about computers and it is not a nice one.

But I did not introduce that analogy, nor discuss anything about computers... you need to go back and read again.

[genec]

As long as cyclists have to obey only the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles, which is what we are asking the motorists to help us enact because it will never be enacted without their consent, they have granted us legal equality without question. That statement of equality will not extinguish discrimination by individual motorists, but it will remove the societal permission for such discrimination, and, over time, will reduce it to a socially unacceptable practice.

As for additional code, whether this is computer code or legal code, your argument does not agree with reality. The human mind when operating in the driving mode does not operate either like a computer nor as a legal analyst. It operates according to general principles that it understands. The driver who yields to another as the principles require, or the driver who accepts that he has the right of way because the principles give it to him, are not using words, whether words compiled in C++ or in the California Vehicle Code. Only beginners do that, and that is one reason why beginners make so many mistakes. The typical driver obeys the principles. The trouble with bike-lane stripes is that they introduce a new principle that contradicts, or sometimes contradicts, or sometimes agrees with, the standard principles. It is no wonder that people get confused, and confused drivers make mistakes that too often lead to collisions.

How many more silly arguments are going to be floated before the bikeway promoters give up?

Both you and Walt have me confused with someone else... I have NOT offered any analogy regarding driving and computing, nor one dealing with computer code. I don't write C++ or anything similar.

Go back and please read again.

I simply suggested that the traffic law that has already been enacted is complex... and asked why not add more rules... what real difference does it make, and why does the "line" for no more laws have to end at bike lanes. It seems to me that we can add all the laws we want... as long as we make the motorist aware of them.

[WaltPoutine]

Both you and Walt have me confused with someone else... I have NOT offered any analogy regarding driving and computing, nor one dealing with computer code. I don't write C++ or anything similar.

Go back and please read again.

I'm sorry Genec, I mixed you up with Barry "TheHumanCar". Apologies to both of you and for the resulting confusion.

[John Forester]

Both you and Walt have me confused with someone else... I have NOT offered any analogy regarding driving and computing, nor one dealing with computer code. I don't write C++ or anything similar.

Go back and please read again.

I simply suggested that the traffic law that has already been enacted is complex... and asked why not add more rules... what real difference does it make, and why does the "line" for no more laws have to end at bike lanes. It seems to me that we can add all the laws we want... as long as we make the motorist aware of them.

I was referring to your own words: "Hmmm... so adding more formal code to take care of the situation as it exists now is simply not workable? Seems to me that we have added so much code to deal with everything from speed to ped crossing, what is wrong with more code to deal with cyclists... which is the situation we have now. Why is the "line" of "too much traffic code" being drawn at bike lanes? Seems to me we can complicate the rules as much as we want... as long as we make the rules well known." My reply to those said that drivers do not operate either as writers of C++ or as legal analysts, but follow the principles of driving. My reply simply allows for either sense in which you used the word code.

I think that any person familiar with operating instructions for procedures performed by the general public knows that the procedures need to be as simple as possible and that they should not contain conflicting instructions. Don't create more complexity than necessary, and don't built conflicts into the instructions. If you debate that, you are going contrary to the recognized principles in the field.

[John Forester]

THC's basic principles:
Reality can be proven.
Arguments that rely on pontifications, exaggerations and abstractions are highly suspect of being just superstitions.

Despite how many principles you pontificate the reality is bike lanes do not increase accidents. You can try all you want to make up some fantasy world where bike lanes might, maybe, possibly be something different but it comes down to it is you that are selling silly arguments that are full of superstitions.

I don't even know where to begin in answering the above, there is an implication that over "coding" who has the right-of-way is bad especially if you are a beginning driver. What has led traffic engineers to "over "code right-of-way, because studies have shown that it works. Your proof has nothing to do with the coding of the roadways it is just a statement about the problem of beginning drivers applied to something it should not be applied to. And worst of all what are you implying as the remedy? Removal of roadway codes that clarify right-of-way? There is some serious disconnects of logic going on here. Show me case A where beginning driver does better and case B where beginning driver does worse because of road coding and I'll listen but till then you are just making things up.

I will ask this again since it has not been answered:

"This again" refers to the following:
"Situation 1) I'm riding on the right of a WOL and am approaching an intersection. Using destination positioning I do not want to be to the right so I signal and merge with thru traffic.

Situation 2) I'm riding in a bike lane and am approaching an intersection. Using destination positioning I do not want to be to the right so I signal and merge with thru traffic.

How am I contradicting/disobeying the rules of the road in the second case just because a extra travel (bike) lane is involved?"

I do not know why you either don't understand what has been written several times in these discussions, or pretend you don't understand for reasons of your own.

I have written time and again that well-informed vehicular cyclists familiar with this controversy know when to stay in a bike lane and when to leave it. As I have written time and again, obey the rules of the road no matter what the bike-lan stripe appears to tell you. But well-informed vehicular cyclists do not cause the problems. The problems are caused by motorists, who really care little about devoting attention to the intricacies of bike-lane stripes, and by the general bicycling public, who, for whatever reasons, exercise almost no traffic skill when cycling. These people believe that bike-lane stripes make cycling safe by keeping cyclists to the right of the stripe and keeping motorists to the left of the stripe. And how can one blame them, when the public support for the government's bikeway program is generated by playing on this superstition? The contradiction is between what the bike-lane stripe tells the public and the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles.

Many of you participants keep saying that the general bicycle-riding public will never accept vehicular cycling. But you advocate this bike lane system that will only be used properly by cyclists who know vehicular cycling so well that they know when and how to leave bike lanes, and by motorists who have a similar sophisticated understanding of the errors of bike-lane superstition. This is absurd.

[MarkS]

It seems to me that we can add all the laws we want... as long as we make the motorist aware of them.Yeah, but CA's year-round legislature passes 1000 laws a year! I wonder how many people know its illegal to drive with your parking lights on? (don't understand that one, but there it is) To run your headlights when its misting? To not have tinted front windows?

You know, they should pass a law that says they can't pass a law without an associated education campaign. What we need is full-time educators and part-time legislators ;)

[MarkS]

Situation 2) I'm riding in a bike lane and am approaching an intersection. Using destination positioning I do not want to be to the right so I signal and merge with thru traffic.

How am I contradicting/disobeying the rules of the road in the second case just because a extra travel (bike) lane is involved?"A well-designed bike lane will put you in the same place. With the lines in place, drivers will have a greater tendency stay between lines rather than, as I often see, straddling some imaginary position between the RTL and the through-lane.

[ChipSeal]

So, given your expertise and technical skill, why is there a continuing movement for bikeways?

"Never underestimate the difficulty of changing false beliefs by facts." -Henry Rosovski

You demonstrate the prototypical frailty of the technocrat. "Let's dismiss the opinions and feelings of the 'commoners' since they are obviously wrong." Instead, you just keep on insisting that you are right and will prevail.

Facts are stubborn things. Perhaps you think it would be prudent to abandon what we know to be factually true and embrace contrary emotional beliefs? Do you think through your position before you post?

If there was any value in dismissing emotional beliefs, this would be a different world. Not better, but surely different.

"Some things are believed because they are demonstrably true. But many other things are are believed because they are consistent with a widely held vision of the world-- and this vision is accepted as a substitute for facts." Thomas Sowell; Economic Facts and Fallacies

It would be a wise man who made sure his vision of the world corresponded with how the world actually works. There is a value in dismissing false emotional beliefs. If those beliefs are demonstrably false, why keep them? To what end would you cling to them? We all have enough difficulties without that too.