that's funny because locally I get accused of 'being VC' when I oppose poorly designed 'facilities'. It's too bad that the official VC rep is a cranky, superstitious old man who turns just about everyone off except a few acolytes that choose to ignore his lousy attitude and personality. Because some of us could use some support in the real world for better designed facilities (since most municipalities are determined to build something), and better driver training programs; but all VC offers is the 'no facilities' option, without even basic driver training that would be supportive of an environment where the motorists would actually share the road with cyclists.
Sorry your hostility is directed at John personally. My mistake.
I do appreciate your actually answering my question. What kinds of efforts are you taking to promote your position? (I freely admit, I am new to this and not doing anything.) What kind of support would you want? How do we get the message out to others rather than again yelling at each other that we don't like our attitudes?
randya
03-22-08, 08:31 PM
I used to be on the City of Portland's Bicycle Advisory Committee, but I'm retired now; I just snipe at both the VC and Portland's bike planners from the sidelines.
;)
:)
I-Like-To-Bike
03-23-08, 07:15 AM
Sorry your hostility is directed at John personally. My mistake.
Your mistake is confusing personal hostility with a rational recognition of/reaction to the counterproductive (to most cyclists' interests) hyperbolic rhetoric from Forester and the handful of his acolytes/Effective Cycling™ promoters who repeat Foresterism as their mantra.
genec
03-23-08, 07:36 AM
So have you shifted your argument from "I support VC education AND bike facilities" to only supporting bike facilities?
That particular teacher taught his course for several years. Kids loved it. I'm not sure how many years or how many kids in his class. But let's guess that it's somewhere between 50 to 100. That's 50 to 100 kids that aren't going to be lured out under the wheels of a truck by you bike lane advocates.
It's also interesting that in the context of someone actually doing something constructive you've chosen instead to try and sabotage their efforts. It calls into question your willingness to actually get involved in the education side of things.
No, the reality is that I see this particular method of instruction as fruitless... Simply as it reaches so few people while meantime so many become new cyclists.
While I think education would be grand, until it is done on a grand scale, it will have virtually no impact.
The education program as it is now is as baseless as the "bike lane" program that settles for any lines at all on the street as a bike lane.
Therein lies the rub... the vehicular cyclists claim that the advocacy cyclists are willing to accept anything, while those same vehicular cyclists claim teaching 50-100 kids is a victory.
The bottom line is that both groups are going about this half a@@ and pointing at the other as being ineffective.
Frankly I would like to see cycling taught to every elementary school kid and through continuing education see advanced cycling taught before one could even take driving education.
I would also like to see proper facilities designed rather than the crap that usually results.
But as long as this rift in the cycling community exists... neither side is strong enough to get anything done well.
Bekologist
03-23-08, 08:13 AM
vehicular cycling has failed as a model for car-bike interaction on public roads; American and British bicycling accident rates are higher and participation rates much lower than countries that better accomodate bicyclists thru infrastructure and social programs.
forestors' books effective cycling, and the methodology of vehicular cycling has helped to serve american and british cyclists higher accident rates and lower participation in bicycling than better accomodated countries.
however, on a lighter, more positive note, gene, american cycling infrastructure IS being improved and implemented in more cities around the United States, and most of these communities are recording higher numbers of bicyclists and lowered indexed accident rates for bicyclists. and the vc weakly decry lack of correlation.... :roflmao:
Indyv8a
03-23-08, 09:18 AM
however, on a lighter, more positive note, gene, american cycling infrastructure IS being improved and implemented in more cities around the United States, and most of these communities are recording higher numbers of bicyclists and lowered indexed accident rates for bicyclists. and the vc weakly decry lack of correlation.... :roflmao:
Ok, Bek. Let's ignore statistical reality and go with the idea that you're absolutely right. What are you doing besides posting here to promote cycling/cycling facilities?
genec
03-23-08, 10:27 AM
Ok, Bek. Let's ignore statistical reality and go with the idea that you're absolutely right. What are you doing besides posting here to promote cycling/cycling facilities?
What statistical reality? I know in my area where there are facilities, there are cyclists... facilities attract cyclists and wanna be cyclists.
Folks use facilities who would not otherwise ride on the roadways.
Of course if by "facilities" you mean poorly drawn lines of paint on the streets... then sure, they don't do a lot to attract cyclists. But if you mean bike paths... then I think your statistics need to be examined.
Indyv8a
03-23-08, 10:44 AM
Statitical reality being that there is no causation proved by two numbers varying at the same time. I doubt the research as been complete enough to draw real conclusions on whether separate facilities attract users to cycle or cycle for transporation.
I agree, separate facilities attract users, but are they practical for transportation? In my area the only dedicated paths are park and rail trails. None are near enough to me to be more than recreational. They are also next to useless for transportation to work/school/shopping. I appreciate them being there and enjoy riding on them, but they are parks, not transportation.
Plus, the question was what is being done to promote cycling for transportation. I guess my whole point is that we cyclists are spending WAY to much energy complaining that we don't agree point for point with each other, but not really doing anything constructive for our being able to cycle legally and safely where ever we need to go.
Bekologist
03-23-08, 11:15 AM
ignore statistical reality? what are you talking about?
how about, RECOGNIZE REALITY, indy? communities that accomodate bicyclists thru a variety of infrastructure enhancements and social inducements have higher participation rates and lower indexed accident rates for bicyclists, indy.
and a look at this continent sees similar, strongly implied causual relationships between the vitality of local bike infrastructure, BIKE LANES, etc, and the higher participation and lower accident rates.
bury your head in the sand and decry the stale vcist rant that correlation doesn't imply causation, you ignore what is plain as day in the face evidence of vigorous bike infastructure influencing participation rates and accident rates.
randya
03-23-08, 12:48 PM
Statitical reality being that there is no causation proved by two numbers varying at the same time. I doubt the research as been complete enough to draw real conclusions on whether separate facilities attract users to cycle or cycle for transporation.
I agree, separate facilities attract users, but are they practical for transportation? In my area the only dedicated paths are park and rail trails. None are near enough to me to be more than recreational. They are also next to useless for transportation to work/school/shopping. I appreciate them being there and enjoy riding on them, but they are parks, not transportation.
Plus, the question was what is being done to promote cycling for transportation. I guess my whole point is that we cyclists are spending WAY to much energy complaining that we don't agree point for point with each other, but not really doing anything constructive for our being able to cycle legally and safely where ever we need to go.
you can only play the devil's advocate for so long. You've been reading these threads for a while, you must have an opinion. What do you think? And what are you doing about it besides posting here?
;)
:)
Indyv8a
03-23-08, 03:31 PM
I've already said, I'm in favor of both adequate biking facilities and better training. I've also already said, I've only been active on this part of the forum for a few days. I am actually doing nothing. I was hoping to get a cycling club started where I teach, but bureaucracy prevents that. So I came back here.
I am getting in touch with The Human Car, who is a prominent advocate in my area. I haven't heard back from him yet.
I am firmly of the opinion that the more we bicker about the absurdities of whose system is better, the more we are letting chances to make progress slip by. I keep trying to find out what real world efforts have been effective. Mostly I've been treated to a lot of demogaugery, raised voices, and opinions that if I don't join up to the "correct" side I'm stupid.
randya
03-23-08, 04:26 PM
I am firmly of the opinion that the more we bicker about the absurdities of whose system is better, the more we are letting chances to make progress slip by. I keep trying to find out what real world efforts have been effective. Mostly I've been treated to a lot of demogaugery, raised voices, and opinions that if I don't join up to the "correct" side I'm stupid.
What is certainly happening is that the Foresterologists have completely marginalized themselves by being so totally against all 'facilities'. At the same time, money is still being allocated to and by jurisdictions all over the country to build 'facilities', so most of these projects don't have the benefit of the vehicular cyclists' experience, which could be useful for improving the design of some of the facilities being built.
Because, what you see as bickering here is nothing more than a small peep in the real world - BF is one of the few places where the remaining desperado VC zealots have chosen to make their last stand. They've already lost the League of American Bicyclists (LAB), which is solidly in the 'facilities' camp these days, and their political clout is virtually nil as a result. John's shilling for the American Dream Coalition doesn't help much either.
John Forester
03-23-08, 06:11 PM
No, the reality is that I see this particular method of instruction as fruitless... Simply as it reaches so few people while meantime so many become new cyclists.
While I think education would be grand, until it is done on a grand scale, it will have virtually no impact.
The education program as it is now is as baseless as the "bike lane" program that settles for any lines at all on the street as a bike lane.
Therein lies the rub... the vehicular cyclists claim that the advocacy cyclists are willing to accept anything, while those same vehicular cyclists claim teaching 50-100 kids is a victory.
The bottom line is that both groups are going about this half a@@ and pointing at the other as being ineffective.
Frankly I would like to see cycling taught to every elementary school kid and through continuing education see advanced cycling taught before one could even take driving education.
I would also like to see proper facilities designed rather than the crap that usually results.
But as long as this rift in the cycling community exists... neither side is strong enough to get anything done well.
Teaching cyclists safe and competent cycling is a good in itself. It improves the safety of those taught. That is not fruitless, and it is an attempt in the right direction. On the other side is the bikeways movement which has nothing to do with safety and encourages more incompetent and dangerous cycling. What's your priority?
MarkS
03-24-08, 07:48 AM
Just out of curiosity, when you say "almost new", do you mean like one of those Amazon 2nd-tier resellers?
invisiblehand
03-24-08, 08:24 AM
Your mistake is confusing personal hostility with a rational recognition of/reaction to the counterproductive (to most cyclists' interests) hyperbolic rhetoric from Forester and the handful of his acolytes/Effective Cycling™ promoters who repeat Foresterism as their mantra.
You are back!
Then again, I might have missed your re-appearance as ILTB. As my signature suggests, I have a healthy boy now and time is a bit more scarce.
And again your data focuses on vehicles and deaths... NOT collisions.
I thought that we put together some descriptive statistics that suggested that accidents have been falling (approximately constant?) too. At least this is true with police reported accidents.
I kluged together a few tables from
Table 1-32: U.S. Vehicle-Miles
http://www.bts.gov/publications/national_transportation_statistics/html/table_01_32.html
Table 2-3: Transportation Accidents by Mode
http://www.bts.gov/publications/national_transportation_statistics/html/table_02_03.html
A recall that Randya questioned the accident statistics but I have not read about any systematic change in the way police report statistics over time. So for the time being, it seems like a reasonable source to make inferences about traffic.
It would be interesting to know whether insurance companies feel that there are more accidents or whether repairing cars are becoming more expensive. Either one -- or both -- would result in a response to be "more careful" as well as higher rates. Although I recall that insurance markets are quite regulated in many states such that the relationship between risk and premiums might be weak.
markhr
03-24-08, 08:51 AM
Just out of curiosity, when you say "almost new", do you mean like one of those Amazon 2nd-tier resellers?
yup
Allister
03-24-08, 08:59 AM
Teaching cyclists safe and competent cycling is a good in itself. It improves the safety of those taught. That is not fruitless, and it is an attempt in the right direction. On the other side is the bikeways movement which has nothing to do with safety and encourages more incompetent and dangerous cycling. What's your priority?
Well when you put it that way...
John Forester
03-26-08, 01:40 PM
What is certainly happening is that the Foresterologists have completely marginalized themselves by being so totally against all 'facilities'. At the same time, money is still being allocated to and by jurisdictions all over the country to build 'facilities', so most of these projects don't have the benefit of the vehicular cyclists' experience, which could be useful for improving the design of some of the facilities being built.
Because, what you see as bickering here is nothing more than a small peep in the real world - BF is one of the few places where the remaining desperado VC zealots have chosen to make their last stand. They've already lost the League of American Bicyclists (LAB), which is solidly in the 'facilities' camp these days, and their political clout is virtually nil as a result. John's shilling for the American Dream Coalition doesn't help much either.
Ah, well, it is interesting to see such boasting for the triumph of a system for which no substantive and accurate basis can be produced and whose real basis is so shameful that its advocates refuse to admit it. All the more reason for vehicular cyclists to work out their best protection against it.
LittleBigMan
05-09-08, 05:38 PM
What is certainly happening is that the Foresterologists have completely marginalized themselves by being so totally against all 'facilities'.
Perhaps some have.
My own view is that vehicular cycling widens the possibilities for travel by bicycle. It has for me.
For me, it's more about where I can ride, than where I can't.