randya
03-27-08, 10:29 PM
So why aren't you going around to the various Bike Summits and spreading your message to the facilities people there? the ADC seems like a pretty safe place to preach the radical theory of vehicular cycling.
View Full Version : Replacing the old memes with new/VC memes
Allister
03-27-08, 11:03 PM
It is impossible that bike lanes can be well designed..
Yep, no imagination.
What is extremely relevant is the effect on all the other road users who are not well-trained and confident vehicular cyclists.
That's your area, mate. You've been training cyclists for how many years now? Why are there still so many untrained ones? Is it not your goal to see all cyclists riding in the vehicular manner? Maybe if you didn't spend so much time whining about bikelanes, instead of teaching people how to use them in a well-trained and confident manner, you wouldn't have so much to whine about.
Yep, no imagination.
What is extremely relevant is the effect on all the other road users who are not well-trained and confident vehicular cyclists.
That's your area, mate. You've been training cyclists for how many years now? Why are there still so many untrained ones? Is it not your goal to see all cyclists riding in the vehicular manner? Maybe if you didn't spend so much time whining about bikelanes, instead of teaching people how to use them in a well-trained and confident manner, you wouldn't have so much to whine about.
randya
03-27-08, 11:07 PM
he's talking to the wrong people
Helmet Head
03-28-08, 12:56 AM
:rolleyes: It's pretty clear you don't like to pinned down on anything you say.
Ask me anything clearly and specifically, and I'll be happy to be pinned down.
Ask me vague/ambiguous questions, then no.
Do you or do you not think that bikelanes can be well designed, useful and safe for vehicular cyclists?
I think that "well designed" bike lanes offer some limited utility to vehicular cyclists in one situation: to "reserve space" for slowly/carefully passing slow/congested traffic on the right.
But this utility is relatively insignificant, and is not worth it simply for the increased speed and diminished attention with which motorists tends to pass cyclists due to the stripe, or the crash and puncture causing debris that tends to collect because of the stripe. But it's definitely not worth it considering how much such bike lanes also encourage less experienced/skilled/knowledgeable cyclists to pass on the right too quickly/carelessly in the congested traffic situations, the intersection and junction confusion problems they create, and the general anti-cycling "cyclists should be out of the way" and "cyclists should keep right all the time - not just to allow faster traffic to pass" notions they reinforce. Even "well designed" bike lanes carry all this baggage.
I don't see how the stripe enhances safety in any way for anyone, much less for vehicular cyclists.
Ask me anything clearly and specifically, and I'll be happy to be pinned down.
Ask me vague/ambiguous questions, then no.
Do you or do you not think that bikelanes can be well designed, useful and safe for vehicular cyclists?
I think that "well designed" bike lanes offer some limited utility to vehicular cyclists in one situation: to "reserve space" for slowly/carefully passing slow/congested traffic on the right.
But this utility is relatively insignificant, and is not worth it simply for the increased speed and diminished attention with which motorists tends to pass cyclists due to the stripe, or the crash and puncture causing debris that tends to collect because of the stripe. But it's definitely not worth it considering how much such bike lanes also encourage less experienced/skilled/knowledgeable cyclists to pass on the right too quickly/carelessly in the congested traffic situations, the intersection and junction confusion problems they create, and the general anti-cycling "cyclists should be out of the way" and "cyclists should keep right all the time - not just to allow faster traffic to pass" notions they reinforce. Even "well designed" bike lanes carry all this baggage.
I don't see how the stripe enhances safety in any way for anyone, much less for vehicular cyclists.
Sixty Fiver
03-28-08, 01:33 AM
I don't see motorists crossing into the marked bike lanes here and they are not full of debris as even when other streets might not get cleaned up, the city maintains it's bike paths really well... we have 400 km of shared use paths, multi use trails, and off road trails... many of these will take you through the largest park system in North America so not only is there a lack of cars, the scenery is gorgeous as you are getting from a to b.
A good portion of my spring - fall commute takes me through this Park system and it is wonderful not to have to deal with cars in any way.
You see...we have a city that is attuned to the needs of cyclists because we don't give them a moment's rest... our bike highways are usually cleared of snow before I hit them on my 7am commute.
It comes down to having a few decades of strong and persistent advocacy behind us... this has created some excellent facilities and the city has a department that's sole purpose is to address issues pertaining to bike paths, bike lanes, and MUTs and the people who use them. The people who work in these departments are people I know well and ride with on a frequent basis so know they understand what kind of issues we face.
It's still far from perfect and improvements can and will be made but it will not be done by adopting a narrow view of how things should be but a blend of many ideas.
I often tell people that I go "vehicular" but I am not a jihadist and will always recognize that although I share the roads with cars I am not a car, and having a number of other options is good for me and for people who might become interested in spending more time on their bikes.
I'll ride in the thick of traffic as I have the skills, experience,and the confidence to do so but those who do only comprise a very small percentage of cyclists, most of whom would like to have a little distance and space between them and the automobile traffic.
I feel safe in our bike lanes and have never had a vehicle violate that space while I was in it... I have been cut off and nearly run off the road when I have been riding outside or away from those lanes in a vehicular manner and have come very close to sustaining serious injuries while riding in traffic, as traffic.
Skills and a bit of luck... that is what has saved me.
So in the last 20,000 km (less than 2 years of riding) I find that the worst incidents happened outside of the bike paths and bike lanes where I was in a position of potential conflict with vehicles and those incidents happened because of driver error.
A good portion of my spring - fall commute takes me through this Park system and it is wonderful not to have to deal with cars in any way.
You see...we have a city that is attuned to the needs of cyclists because we don't give them a moment's rest... our bike highways are usually cleared of snow before I hit them on my 7am commute.
It comes down to having a few decades of strong and persistent advocacy behind us... this has created some excellent facilities and the city has a department that's sole purpose is to address issues pertaining to bike paths, bike lanes, and MUTs and the people who use them. The people who work in these departments are people I know well and ride with on a frequent basis so know they understand what kind of issues we face.
It's still far from perfect and improvements can and will be made but it will not be done by adopting a narrow view of how things should be but a blend of many ideas.
I often tell people that I go "vehicular" but I am not a jihadist and will always recognize that although I share the roads with cars I am not a car, and having a number of other options is good for me and for people who might become interested in spending more time on their bikes.
I'll ride in the thick of traffic as I have the skills, experience,and the confidence to do so but those who do only comprise a very small percentage of cyclists, most of whom would like to have a little distance and space between them and the automobile traffic.
I feel safe in our bike lanes and have never had a vehicle violate that space while I was in it... I have been cut off and nearly run off the road when I have been riding outside or away from those lanes in a vehicular manner and have come very close to sustaining serious injuries while riding in traffic, as traffic.
Skills and a bit of luck... that is what has saved me.
So in the last 20,000 km (less than 2 years of riding) I find that the worst incidents happened outside of the bike paths and bike lanes where I was in a position of potential conflict with vehicles and those incidents happened because of driver error.
Helmet Head
03-28-08, 01:52 AM
I don't see motorists crossing into the marked bike lanes here and they are not full of debris as even when other streets might not get cleaned up, the city maintains it's bike paths really well... we have 400 km of shared use paths, multi use trails, and off road trails... many of these will take you through the largest park system in North America so not only is there a lack of cars, the scenery is gorgeous as you are getting from a to b.
A good portion of my spring - fall commute takes me through this Park system and it is wonderful not to have to deal with cars in any way.
You see...we have a city that is attuned to the needs of cyclists because we don't give them a moment's rest... our bike highways are usually cleared of snow before I hit them on my 7am commute.
It comes down to having a few decades of strong and persistent advocacy behind us... this has created some excellent facilities and the city has a department that's sole purpose is to address issues pertaining to bike paths, bike lanes, and MUTs and the people who use them. The people who work in these departments are people I know well and ride with on a frequent basis so know they understand what kind of issues we face.
It's still far from perfect and improvements can and will be made but it will not be done by adopting a narrow view of how things should be but a blend of many ideas.
I often tell people that I go "vehicular" but I am not a jihadist and will always recognize that although I share the roads with cars I am not a car, and having a number of other options is good for me and for people who might become interested in spending more time on their bikes.
I'll ride in the thick of traffic as I have the skills, experience,and the confidence to do so but those who do only comprise a very small percentage of cyclists, most of whom would like to have a little distance and space between them and the automobile traffic.
I feel safe in our bike lanes and have never had a vehicle violate that space while I was in it... I have been cut off and nearly run off the road when I have been riding outside or away from those lanes in a vehicular manner and have come very close to sustaining serious injuries while riding in traffic, as traffic.
Skills and a bit of luck... that is what has saved me.
So in the last 20,000 km (less than 2 years of riding) I find that the worst incidents happened outside of the bike paths and bike lanes where I was in a position of potential conflict with vehicles and those incidents happened because of driver error.
Yeah, well, you live in a country that does not spend hundreds of billions of dollars fighting a pointless war in the mideast, so you can afford to build and keep clean bike highways. Show off.
A good portion of my spring - fall commute takes me through this Park system and it is wonderful not to have to deal with cars in any way.
You see...we have a city that is attuned to the needs of cyclists because we don't give them a moment's rest... our bike highways are usually cleared of snow before I hit them on my 7am commute.
It comes down to having a few decades of strong and persistent advocacy behind us... this has created some excellent facilities and the city has a department that's sole purpose is to address issues pertaining to bike paths, bike lanes, and MUTs and the people who use them. The people who work in these departments are people I know well and ride with on a frequent basis so know they understand what kind of issues we face.
It's still far from perfect and improvements can and will be made but it will not be done by adopting a narrow view of how things should be but a blend of many ideas.
I often tell people that I go "vehicular" but I am not a jihadist and will always recognize that although I share the roads with cars I am not a car, and having a number of other options is good for me and for people who might become interested in spending more time on their bikes.
I'll ride in the thick of traffic as I have the skills, experience,and the confidence to do so but those who do only comprise a very small percentage of cyclists, most of whom would like to have a little distance and space between them and the automobile traffic.
I feel safe in our bike lanes and have never had a vehicle violate that space while I was in it... I have been cut off and nearly run off the road when I have been riding outside or away from those lanes in a vehicular manner and have come very close to sustaining serious injuries while riding in traffic, as traffic.
Skills and a bit of luck... that is what has saved me.
So in the last 20,000 km (less than 2 years of riding) I find that the worst incidents happened outside of the bike paths and bike lanes where I was in a position of potential conflict with vehicles and those incidents happened because of driver error.
Yeah, well, you live in a country that does not spend hundreds of billions of dollars fighting a pointless war in the mideast, so you can afford to build and keep clean bike highways. Show off.
Allister
03-28-08, 05:13 AM
Ask me anything clearly and specifically, and I'll be happy to be pinned down.
Ask me vague/ambiguous questions, then no.
The question I asked was perfectly clear, Serge, as are all my questions.
I think that "well designed" bike lanes offer some limited utility to vehicular cyclists in one situation: to "reserve space" for slowly/carefully passing slow/congested traffic on the right.
But this utility is relatively insignificant, and is not worth it simply for the increased speed and diminished attention with which motorists tends to pass cyclists due to the stripe, or the crash and puncture causing debris that tends to collect because of the stripe. But it's definitely not worth it considering how much such bike lanes also encourage less experienced/skilled/knowledgeable cyclists to pass on the right too quickly/carelessly in the congested traffic situations, the intersection and junction confusion problems they create, and the general anti-cycling "cyclists should be out of the way" and "cyclists should keep right all the time - not just to allow faster traffic to pass" notions they reinforce. Even "well designed" bike lanes carry all this baggage.
And you think that's being 'pinned down'? LOL You're too much.
I don't see how the stripe enhances safety in any way for anyone, much less for vehicular cyclists.
Safety isn't the only reason to install a bikelane, Serge, any more than it's the sole reason to add any other lane. The obsession with safety is entirely your own.
Ask me vague/ambiguous questions, then no.
The question I asked was perfectly clear, Serge, as are all my questions.
I think that "well designed" bike lanes offer some limited utility to vehicular cyclists in one situation: to "reserve space" for slowly/carefully passing slow/congested traffic on the right.
But this utility is relatively insignificant, and is not worth it simply for the increased speed and diminished attention with which motorists tends to pass cyclists due to the stripe, or the crash and puncture causing debris that tends to collect because of the stripe. But it's definitely not worth it considering how much such bike lanes also encourage less experienced/skilled/knowledgeable cyclists to pass on the right too quickly/carelessly in the congested traffic situations, the intersection and junction confusion problems they create, and the general anti-cycling "cyclists should be out of the way" and "cyclists should keep right all the time - not just to allow faster traffic to pass" notions they reinforce. Even "well designed" bike lanes carry all this baggage.
And you think that's being 'pinned down'? LOL You're too much.
I don't see how the stripe enhances safety in any way for anyone, much less for vehicular cyclists.
Safety isn't the only reason to install a bikelane, Serge, any more than it's the sole reason to add any other lane. The obsession with safety is entirely your own.
buzzman
03-28-08, 09:11 AM
Yeah, well, you live in a country that does not spend hundreds of billions of dollars fighting a pointless war in the mideast, so you can afford to build and keep clean bike highways. Show off.
did you really just post that?
So are you saying a well built and maintained bike infrastructure is something to be envied?:eek:
You're starting to sound like a a "bike lane advocate"!
I must be dreaming or maybe, once again, I am confused by one of your posts and have completely misunderstood you. Yeah, that's what it is I am sure- I've misunderstood.:o
BTW, great post sixtyfiver.
did you really just post that?
So are you saying a well built and maintained bike infrastructure is something to be envied?:eek:
You're starting to sound like a a "bike lane advocate"!
I must be dreaming or maybe, once again, I am confused by one of your posts and have completely misunderstood you. Yeah, that's what it is I am sure- I've misunderstood.:o
BTW, great post sixtyfiver.
Bekologist
03-28-08, 09:37 AM
sounds like helmeet head is envious of well built and maintained bike infrastructure...
Helmet Head
03-28-08, 09:49 AM
The question I asked was perfectly clear, Serge, as are all my questions.
That's your opinion. Shall we have a poll, asking others your (earlier) "perfectly clear" question in as much absence of any context? Do you think bike lanes are dangerous?
Yes No It depends.
Do you really think your question is "perfectly clear", Allister? What's your answer?
And you think that's being 'pinned down'? LOL You're too much.
Yes. See how simple it is to express an opinion without deriding the person with whom you're disagreeing?
Safety isn't the only reason to install a bikelane, Serge, any more than it's the sole reason to add any other lane. The obsession with safety is entirely your own.
This was your question: Do you or do you not think that bikelanes can be well designed, useful and safe for vehicular cyclists?
I mostly addressed the utility aspect in my answer, but to not ignore the safety aspect of your question, I threw this in at the end, for completeness. I don't see how the stripe enhances safety in any way for anyone, much less for vehicular cyclists.
And from that you leaped to the above wild assertions. Why?
More generally, why would you ask someone about something and then chastise him for addressing it when they answer?
Speaking of obsessions, why are you so obsessed with me? :love:
That's your opinion. Shall we have a poll, asking others your (earlier) "perfectly clear" question in as much absence of any context? Do you think bike lanes are dangerous?
Yes No It depends.
Do you really think your question is "perfectly clear", Allister? What's your answer?
And you think that's being 'pinned down'? LOL You're too much.
Yes. See how simple it is to express an opinion without deriding the person with whom you're disagreeing?
Safety isn't the only reason to install a bikelane, Serge, any more than it's the sole reason to add any other lane. The obsession with safety is entirely your own.
This was your question: Do you or do you not think that bikelanes can be well designed, useful and safe for vehicular cyclists?
I mostly addressed the utility aspect in my answer, but to not ignore the safety aspect of your question, I threw this in at the end, for completeness. I don't see how the stripe enhances safety in any way for anyone, much less for vehicular cyclists.
And from that you leaped to the above wild assertions. Why?
More generally, why would you ask someone about something and then chastise him for addressing it when they answer?
Speaking of obsessions, why are you so obsessed with me? :love:
genec
03-28-08, 09:51 AM
Yeah, well, you live in a country that does not spend hundreds of billions of dollars fighting a pointless war in the mideast, so you can afford to build and keep clean bike highways. Show off.
Oh you mean a country that is addicted to oil and places the automobile on a very high pedestal calling it "the greatest invention."
Yeah I think we do have a heap of misguided people here that believe that the very inefficient auto is somehow "the key to their kingdom."
So getting back to the memes issues... you want changes... they have to start with the mentality that "cars rule."
If the green trend continues and really catches hold... then indeed perhaps the transportation priority can be shifted away from the motor car toward human power. In that case, go revisit post 11. (http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=6412607&postcount=11)
Oh you mean a country that is addicted to oil and places the automobile on a very high pedestal calling it "the greatest invention."
Yeah I think we do have a heap of misguided people here that believe that the very inefficient auto is somehow "the key to their kingdom."
So getting back to the memes issues... you want changes... they have to start with the mentality that "cars rule."
If the green trend continues and really catches hold... then indeed perhaps the transportation priority can be shifted away from the motor car toward human power. In that case, go revisit post 11. (http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=6412607&postcount=11)
Helmet Head
03-28-08, 09:56 AM
did you really just post that?
So are you saying a well built and maintained bike infrastructure is something to be envied?:eek:
Sure. If the space and resources are available, of course (assuming the infrastructure consists of well designed bike roadways with reasonably safe intersections with vehicular roads, and doesn't inhibit vehicular use of surface streets by bicyclists).
You're starting to sound like a "bike lane advocate"!
:eek:
I must be dreaming or maybe, once again, I am confused by one of your posts and have completely misunderstood you. Yeah, that's what it is I am sure- I've misunderstood.:o
I don't know why you guys have such a hard time grasping that Forester, myself and other VC advocates are arguably the biggest proponents of reasonably safe truly segregated bike infrastructure.
Do you think I'm joking when I say my dream is to underground all motor traffic leaving the surface streets to bicyclists and pedestrians?
So are you saying a well built and maintained bike infrastructure is something to be envied?:eek:
Sure. If the space and resources are available, of course (assuming the infrastructure consists of well designed bike roadways with reasonably safe intersections with vehicular roads, and doesn't inhibit vehicular use of surface streets by bicyclists).
You're starting to sound like a "bike lane advocate"!
:eek:
I must be dreaming or maybe, once again, I am confused by one of your posts and have completely misunderstood you. Yeah, that's what it is I am sure- I've misunderstood.:o
I don't know why you guys have such a hard time grasping that Forester, myself and other VC advocates are arguably the biggest proponents of reasonably safe truly segregated bike infrastructure.
Do you think I'm joking when I say my dream is to underground all motor traffic leaving the surface streets to bicyclists and pedestrians?
Allister
03-28-08, 10:34 AM
That's your opinion. Shall we have a poll, asking others your (earlier) "perfectly clear" question in as much absence of any context? Do you think bike lanes are dangerous?
Yes No It depends.
:rolleyes:Saints preserve us from another one of your stupid polls!
Do you really think your question is "perfectly clear", Allister? What's your answer?\
That wasn't the question, Serge, and I used small words and everything. It was clear to me, and anyone else with two brain cells to rub together. What's your problem?
But just to please you, no, bikelanes are not dangerous, nor are they safe, they're just paint. Ok, when wet the paint can be slippery to ride on. They're not always well designed, nor always necessary, and some are just plain stupid, and they get misused by some motorists and cyclists, but dangerous in themselves? No. If I get into a dicey situation, I'm not looking to blame the road. It's like the drunk blaming the tree for hitting his car.
Bikelanes are a many and varied thing - some good, some not so good. I was just wondering if despite your constant bleating about their dangers, whether you think they can (and I'll emphasise that again just so you don't miss it this time) be built to be practicable, safe and in accordance with the road rules. To which my answer would be yes.
See the difference?
Yes No It depends.
:rolleyes:Saints preserve us from another one of your stupid polls!
Do you really think your question is "perfectly clear", Allister? What's your answer?\
That wasn't the question, Serge, and I used small words and everything. It was clear to me, and anyone else with two brain cells to rub together. What's your problem?
But just to please you, no, bikelanes are not dangerous, nor are they safe, they're just paint. Ok, when wet the paint can be slippery to ride on. They're not always well designed, nor always necessary, and some are just plain stupid, and they get misused by some motorists and cyclists, but dangerous in themselves? No. If I get into a dicey situation, I'm not looking to blame the road. It's like the drunk blaming the tree for hitting his car.
Bikelanes are a many and varied thing - some good, some not so good. I was just wondering if despite your constant bleating about their dangers, whether you think they can (and I'll emphasise that again just so you don't miss it this time) be built to be practicable, safe and in accordance with the road rules. To which my answer would be yes.
See the difference?
John Forester
03-28-08, 10:35 AM
So why aren't you going around to the various Bike Summits and spreading your message to the facilities people there? the ADC seems like a pretty safe place to preach the radical theory of vehicular cycling.
Considering who organizes and who attends the Bike Summits, vehicular cyclists don't get schedule time. There's no reason to pay a high price to listen to junk without the scheduled opportunity to rebut it. I did attend the original National Bike Safety Conferences, along with several other vehicular cyclists, when there was the opportunity to modify the recommendations. See my website for details on those. The other purpose of attending such events is to acquire intelligence about the current operations, and I have associates on the East Coast who do a good job of that.
Considering who organizes and who attends the Bike Summits, vehicular cyclists don't get schedule time. There's no reason to pay a high price to listen to junk without the scheduled opportunity to rebut it. I did attend the original National Bike Safety Conferences, along with several other vehicular cyclists, when there was the opportunity to modify the recommendations. See my website for details on those. The other purpose of attending such events is to acquire intelligence about the current operations, and I have associates on the East Coast who do a good job of that.
Allister
03-28-08, 10:39 AM
I don't know why you guys have such a hard time grasping that Forester, myself and other VC advocates are arguably the biggest proponents of reasonably safe truly segregated bike infrastructure.
Hey, I believe you. Millions wouldn't.
Personally, I prefer to avoid segregated facilities. Takes too long to get anywhere. Plenty of other people seem to like them though. Fine by me.
Do you think I'm joking when I say my dream is to underground all motor traffic leaving the surface streets to bicyclists and pedestrians?
Actually, I'd vote for that.
I say we forgo building tunnels at all and just bury them.
Hey, I believe you. Millions wouldn't.
Personally, I prefer to avoid segregated facilities. Takes too long to get anywhere. Plenty of other people seem to like them though. Fine by me.
Do you think I'm joking when I say my dream is to underground all motor traffic leaving the surface streets to bicyclists and pedestrians?
Actually, I'd vote for that.
I say we forgo building tunnels at all and just bury them.
Helmet Head
03-28-08, 10:41 AM
Do you think bike lanes are dangerous?
That wasn't the question
Pardon me:
So, you don't think bikelanes are dangerous then?
:rolleyes:
That wasn't the question
Pardon me:
So, you don't think bikelanes are dangerous then?
:rolleyes:
Ed Holland
03-28-08, 10:45 AM
I cited this same article in the OP. Did you read it?
No, apologies for that :)
No, apologies for that :)
Helmet Head
03-28-08, 10:45 AM
Personally, I prefer to avoid segregated facilities. Takes too long to get anywhere. Plenty of other people seem to like them though. Fine by me.
Unless I'm on a family recreational ride, I too avoid paths that take longer to get somewhere.
But we have some bike paths that are transportational for which alternative routes on streets are much longer.
For example, the Rose Canyon path is maybe 10 minutes long, but would probably take over an hour to get from one end to the other on surface streets (the parallel freeway alternative is not an option for cyclists, and would probably not be any faster than the path if it were).
Unless I'm on a family recreational ride, I too avoid paths that take longer to get somewhere.
But we have some bike paths that are transportational for which alternative routes on streets are much longer.
For example, the Rose Canyon path is maybe 10 minutes long, but would probably take over an hour to get from one end to the other on surface streets (the parallel freeway alternative is not an option for cyclists, and would probably not be any faster than the path if it were).
Ed Holland
03-28-08, 10:49 AM
[childish irreverence=on]
I am putting in my oar here, too. It is impossible that roads can be well designed, because the road stripe will always mislead some road users. Such roads can be useful and safe for road users who are prepared to ignore the road stripe, though whether or not they safer than similar roads without the stripe has never been demonstrated. However, this is not the issue. It is largely irrelevant whether or not well-trained and self-confident road users can operate in reasonable safety, because they can do so regardless of the irrationality of the placement of the road stripe. What is extremely relevant is the effect on all the other road users who are not well-trained and confident vehicular cyclists. The whole road hypothesis contradicts proper road behavior and misleads traffic policy, as well as confusing those who are not well-informed of its defects. Any traffic program that is based on such defects is bad for the traveling public, be they motorist or cyclist.
[/childish irreverence]
Fixed :D
I am putting in my oar here, too. It is impossible that roads can be well designed, because the road stripe will always mislead some road users. Such roads can be useful and safe for road users who are prepared to ignore the road stripe, though whether or not they safer than similar roads without the stripe has never been demonstrated. However, this is not the issue. It is largely irrelevant whether or not well-trained and self-confident road users can operate in reasonable safety, because they can do so regardless of the irrationality of the placement of the road stripe. What is extremely relevant is the effect on all the other road users who are not well-trained and confident vehicular cyclists. The whole road hypothesis contradicts proper road behavior and misleads traffic policy, as well as confusing those who are not well-informed of its defects. Any traffic program that is based on such defects is bad for the traveling public, be they motorist or cyclist.
[/childish irreverence]
Fixed :D
Sixty Fiver
03-28-08, 10:58 AM
Yeah, well, you live in a country that does not spend hundreds of billions of dollars fighting a pointless war in the mideast, so you can afford to build and keep clean bike highways. Show off.
It is not just the bike routes...
We used to joke that even with your eyes closed you could tell when you left Canada and entered the US as the quality of the roadways degraded considerably... and it was most often true.
It is not just the bike routes...
We used to joke that even with your eyes closed you could tell when you left Canada and entered the US as the quality of the roadways degraded considerably... and it was most often true.
genec
03-28-08, 11:24 AM
It is not just the bike routes...
We used to joke that even with your eyes closed you could tell when you left Canada and entered the US as the quality of the roadways degraded considerably... and it was most often true.
Heck I noticed that leaving Oregon and going into California...
We used to joke that even with your eyes closed you could tell when you left Canada and entered the US as the quality of the roadways degraded considerably... and it was most often true.
Heck I noticed that leaving Oregon and going into California...
noisebeam
03-28-08, 11:29 AM
Heck I noticed that leaving Oregon and going into California...
I notice when traveling from Tempe to Mesa. There is a big difference in road quality/maintenance.
Al
I notice when traveling from Tempe to Mesa. There is a big difference in road quality/maintenance.
Al
John Forester
03-28-08, 11:40 AM
Fixed :D
Why waste our time with childish irreverence?
Why waste our time with childish irreverence?
Helmet Head
03-28-08, 11:45 AM
It is not just the bike routes...
We used to joke that even with your eyes closed you could tell when you left Canada and entered the US as the quality of the roadways degraded considerably... and it was most often true.
Indeed, there is a lot you can do when you're not paying to meddle in and police the affairs of everyone else in the world.
We used to joke that even with your eyes closed you could tell when you left Canada and entered the US as the quality of the roadways degraded considerably... and it was most often true.
Indeed, there is a lot you can do when you're not paying to meddle in and police the affairs of everyone else in the world.
The Human Car
03-28-08, 11:47 AM
Why waste our time with childish irreverence?
Satire, a tool for the intellect. "Satire is a sort of glass, wherein beholders do generally discover everybody's face but their own"
Satire, a tool for the intellect. "Satire is a sort of glass, wherein beholders do generally discover everybody's face but their own"
John Forester
03-28-08, 12:10 PM
Yep, no imagination.
That's your area, mate. You've been training cyclists for how many years now? Why are there still so many untrained ones? Is it not your goal to see all cyclists riding in the vehicular manner? Maybe if you didn't spend so much time whining about bikelanes, instead of teaching people how to use them in a well-trained and confident manner, you wouldn't have so much to whine about.
The task is sufficiently difficult in a society in which the motoring and safety establishments oppose vehicular cycling, the first for their own reasons, the second because they believed the motorists. But it must also be recognized that in the USA it was the bicycle advocates who killed the instructional program by watering it down to nothing.
That's your area, mate. You've been training cyclists for how many years now? Why are there still so many untrained ones? Is it not your goal to see all cyclists riding in the vehicular manner? Maybe if you didn't spend so much time whining about bikelanes, instead of teaching people how to use them in a well-trained and confident manner, you wouldn't have so much to whine about.
The task is sufficiently difficult in a society in which the motoring and safety establishments oppose vehicular cycling, the first for their own reasons, the second because they believed the motorists. But it must also be recognized that in the USA it was the bicycle advocates who killed the instructional program by watering it down to nothing.
The Human Car
03-28-08, 01:24 PM
But it must also be recognized that in the USA it was the bicycle advocates who killed the instructional program by watering it down to nothing.
It also must be recognized that the instructional program was failing to thrive long before it got "killed." I'm sorry but there is something seriously wrong if you keep doing the same thing over and over again and expect different results.
It also must be recognized that the instructional program was failing to thrive long before it got "killed." I'm sorry but there is something seriously wrong if you keep doing the same thing over and over again and expect different results.
Ed Holland
03-28-08, 01:42 PM
Why waste our time with childish irreverence?
Well, my comment is deeper than you think. "Many a true word..."
Roads are imperfect, as are the users. But what is a perfect road? Would it, could it be so well contructed that accidents between users could never happen, dispite their differing capabilities. Well of course not. Would it be simplified, with no "design" at all - there are trial schemes in UK & Europe with road markings, signals etc. removed completely. Does this "work" because its good, or because its novel?
Deep deep thinky in the brainode,
Well, my comment is deeper than you think. "Many a true word..."
Roads are imperfect, as are the users. But what is a perfect road? Would it, could it be so well contructed that accidents between users could never happen, dispite their differing capabilities. Well of course not. Would it be simplified, with no "design" at all - there are trial schemes in UK & Europe with road markings, signals etc. removed completely. Does this "work" because its good, or because its novel?
Deep deep thinky in the brainode,
Allister
03-31-08, 12:20 AM
The task is sufficiently difficult in a society in which the motoring and safety establishments oppose vehicular cycling, the first for their own reasons, the second because they believed the motorists. But it must also be recognized that in the USA it was the bicycle advocates who killed the instructional program by watering it down to nothing.
Ooo, those naughty bicycle advocates. :rolleyes:
I don't know about the US, but I hear lots of whining from motorists that cyclists don't obey the rules. Seems to me the 'motoring establishment' has a fair bit of interest in getting cyclists riding legally. Why would they oppose proper training? Maybe you need to work on your marketing.
Ooo, those naughty bicycle advocates. :rolleyes:
I don't know about the US, but I hear lots of whining from motorists that cyclists don't obey the rules. Seems to me the 'motoring establishment' has a fair bit of interest in getting cyclists riding legally. Why would they oppose proper training? Maybe you need to work on your marketing.
RobertHurst
03-31-08, 01:04 AM
...
trying to insert "memes" into the culture of bicycling and insisting that everyone adopt them and that existing memes are wrong and need to be replaced there's something dangerous about that. ...
I tried replacing the old mimes with new mimes, but honestly the new mimes weren't that good. Man-in-a-box was more like boy-in-a-bubble.
I ended up having to rehire most of the old mimes. Some demanded substantial salary increases. Just a word to the wise.
trying to insert "memes" into the culture of bicycling and insisting that everyone adopt them and that existing memes are wrong and need to be replaced there's something dangerous about that. ...
I tried replacing the old mimes with new mimes, but honestly the new mimes weren't that good. Man-in-a-box was more like boy-in-a-bubble.
I ended up having to rehire most of the old mimes. Some demanded substantial salary increases. Just a word to the wise.
Ed Holland
03-31-08, 10:16 AM
I tried replacing the old mimes with new mimes, but honestly the new mimes weren't that good. Man-in-a-box was more like boy-in-a-bubble.
I ended up having to rehire most of the old mimes. Some demanded substantial salary increases. Just a word to the wise.
There's nothing in the street
Looks any different to me
And the slogans are replaced, by-the-bye
And the parting on the left
Is now the parting on the right
And the beards have all grown longer overnight
"meet the new memes, same as the old memes"
We won't get fooled again
I ended up having to rehire most of the old mimes. Some demanded substantial salary increases. Just a word to the wise.
There's nothing in the street
Looks any different to me
And the slogans are replaced, by-the-bye
And the parting on the left
Is now the parting on the right
And the beards have all grown longer overnight
"meet the new memes, same as the old memes"
We won't get fooled again
John Forester
03-31-08, 12:00 PM
Ooo, those naughty bicycle advocates. :rolleyes:
I don't know about the US, but I hear lots of whining from motorists that cyclists don't obey the rules. Seems to me the 'motoring establishment' has a fair bit of interest in getting cyclists riding legally. Why would they oppose proper training? Maybe you need to work on your marketing.
Allister, you probably are unfamiliar with the history of cycling as practiced in the USA. As I frequently remind American motorists, they are regretting getting what they wanted and worked for. Right up into the 1970s, American bicycle safety affairs were run by motorists. Motorists created the system of cycling that I later named cyclist-inferiority cycling. This emphasized staying close to the edge of the roadway, or off the roadway if possible, stopping at stop signs, and signaling turns. Sounds OK? Its defects were that it entirely ignored any use of judgment by the cyclist, and any use of more of the roadway than the right-hand margin. It was based on the idea that since cyclists are incapable of operating according to the rules of the road, they had to operate in this inferior manner. And its rules were based on fear, that if you strayed from the edge of the roadway you would be run over, and if you tried to ride like a motorist you would be attempting a very dangerous activity that was beyond your capability. This satisfied motorists' desires about how bicycle traffic should be controlled, and it led to the superstition that this type of cycling was necessary for cyclists' safety. It also developed two types of view, the fearful view that applied to the general public and to most cyclists, and the scofflaw view that applied to cyclists who refused to obey those limitations (perhaps because they recognized the defects) and, also, any other traffic laws, saying that those are for motorists, not for us.
And that's also the source of the bikeway program, which is the physical embodiment of that cyclist-inferiority superstition.
I don't know about the US, but I hear lots of whining from motorists that cyclists don't obey the rules. Seems to me the 'motoring establishment' has a fair bit of interest in getting cyclists riding legally. Why would they oppose proper training? Maybe you need to work on your marketing.
Allister, you probably are unfamiliar with the history of cycling as practiced in the USA. As I frequently remind American motorists, they are regretting getting what they wanted and worked for. Right up into the 1970s, American bicycle safety affairs were run by motorists. Motorists created the system of cycling that I later named cyclist-inferiority cycling. This emphasized staying close to the edge of the roadway, or off the roadway if possible, stopping at stop signs, and signaling turns. Sounds OK? Its defects were that it entirely ignored any use of judgment by the cyclist, and any use of more of the roadway than the right-hand margin. It was based on the idea that since cyclists are incapable of operating according to the rules of the road, they had to operate in this inferior manner. And its rules were based on fear, that if you strayed from the edge of the roadway you would be run over, and if you tried to ride like a motorist you would be attempting a very dangerous activity that was beyond your capability. This satisfied motorists' desires about how bicycle traffic should be controlled, and it led to the superstition that this type of cycling was necessary for cyclists' safety. It also developed two types of view, the fearful view that applied to the general public and to most cyclists, and the scofflaw view that applied to cyclists who refused to obey those limitations (perhaps because they recognized the defects) and, also, any other traffic laws, saying that those are for motorists, not for us.
And that's also the source of the bikeway program, which is the physical embodiment of that cyclist-inferiority superstition.
Ed Holland
03-31-08, 12:26 PM
^^ I think this general view (of the risk and safety of cycling) will continue unless cycles become a much greater proportion of traffic - something of a "Catch 22" situation, given most non cyclists perception of riding dangers and practicality.
Sixty Fiver
03-31-08, 12:29 PM
In some ways we cannot operate by the rules of the road as most of us are too slow to play in traffic.
In North America, utility cycling pretty much disappeared after WW2 when people started moving into the burbs and more and more peopl thought they needed a car to make their commute to and from work and the current issues of urban sprawl also make it difficult for many to utilize cycling as a means of transportation.
Fuel was also cheap.
So for a while most of the people who were buying and riding bikes were kids and even know when more and more adults are riding, many of us still encounter people who are shocked that an adult without a DUI and the ability to pay for and operate a car would choose not to.
We made a wrong turn somewhere...
In North America, utility cycling pretty much disappeared after WW2 when people started moving into the burbs and more and more peopl thought they needed a car to make their commute to and from work and the current issues of urban sprawl also make it difficult for many to utilize cycling as a means of transportation.
Fuel was also cheap.
So for a while most of the people who were buying and riding bikes were kids and even know when more and more adults are riding, many of us still encounter people who are shocked that an adult without a DUI and the ability to pay for and operate a car would choose not to.
We made a wrong turn somewhere...
John Forester
03-31-08, 12:55 PM
In some ways we cannot operate by the rules of the road as most of us are too slow to play in traffic.
snips
.
It does not require great cycling speed to be able to operate according to the rules of the road.
snips
.
It does not require great cycling speed to be able to operate according to the rules of the road.
Bekologist
03-31-08, 01:59 PM
Allister, you probably are unfamiliar with the history of cycling as practiced in the USA. As I frequently remind American motorists, they are regretting getting what they wanted and worked for. Right up into the 1970s, American bicycle safety affairs were run by motorists. Motorists created the system of cycling that I later named cyclist-inferiority cycling. This emphasized staying close to the edge of the roadway, or off the roadway if possible, stopping at stop signs, and signaling turns. Sounds OK? Its defects were that it entirely ignored any use of judgment by the cyclist, and any use of more of the roadway than the right-hand margin. It was based on the idea that since cyclists are incapable of operating according to the rules of the road, they had to operate in this inferior manner. And its rules were based on fear, that if you strayed from the edge of the roadway you would be run over, and if you tried to ride like a motorist you would be attempting a very dangerous activity that was beyond your capability. This satisfied motorists' desires about how bicycle traffic should be controlled, and it led to the superstition that this type of cycling was necessary for cyclists' safety. It also developed two types of view, the fearful view that applied to the general public and to most cyclists, and the scofflaw view that applied to cyclists who refused to obey those limitations (perhaps because they recognized the defects) and, also, any other traffic laws, saying that those are for motorists, not for us.
And that's also the source of the bikeway program, which is the physical embodiment of that cyclist-inferiority superstition.
What a load of superstition and propaganda- how much did you actually perpetuate that faulty viewpoint, john? Methinks you contributed a lot- didn't you he;lp with the compromise to get bikes banned from high speed roads in Cali if slower speed roads were available?
You do realize your admitted style of riding as a 'road sneak' in narrow lanes, so as not to slow down faster motorists, is a blatant admittance of your own inferiority complexes?
And that's also the source of the bikeway program, which is the physical embodiment of that cyclist-inferiority superstition.
What a load of superstition and propaganda- how much did you actually perpetuate that faulty viewpoint, john? Methinks you contributed a lot- didn't you he;lp with the compromise to get bikes banned from high speed roads in Cali if slower speed roads were available?
You do realize your admitted style of riding as a 'road sneak' in narrow lanes, so as not to slow down faster motorists, is a blatant admittance of your own inferiority complexes?
Ed Holland
03-31-08, 02:08 PM
It does not require great cycling speed to be able to operate according to the rules of the road.
Well, that is something of a blanket statement. Noting that we have elsewhere debated at length the impact of speed differential and speed limits, I would have to call this view into question.
Theoretically, of course, one can operate at any speed within the rules of the road. A practical experiment will show just how slow traffic is received by faster traffic.
Based on personal experience, it is clear that the ability to ride faster is beneficial in traffic situations where there are no bike facilities and speed limits of 25-35 mph. Lane changes (see the left turn thread) are facilitated and motorists seem more accommodating when they see that the cyclist is making good progress.
Ed
Well, that is something of a blanket statement. Noting that we have elsewhere debated at length the impact of speed differential and speed limits, I would have to call this view into question.
Theoretically, of course, one can operate at any speed within the rules of the road. A practical experiment will show just how slow traffic is received by faster traffic.
Based on personal experience, it is clear that the ability to ride faster is beneficial in traffic situations where there are no bike facilities and speed limits of 25-35 mph. Lane changes (see the left turn thread) are facilitated and motorists seem more accommodating when they see that the cyclist is making good progress.
Ed
Helmet Head
03-31-08, 02:32 PM
In some ways we cannot operate by the rules of the road as most of us are too slow to play in traffic.
It does not require great cycling speed to be able to operate according to the rules of the road.
Well, that is something of a blanket statement. Noting that we have elsewhere debated at length the impact of speed differential and speed limits, I would have to call this view into question.
Theoretically, of course, one can operate at any speed within the rules of the road. A practical experiment will show just how slow traffic is received by faster traffic.
Based on personal experience, it is clear that the ability to ride faster is beneficial in traffic situations where there are no bike facilities and speed limits of 25-35 mph. Lane changes (see the left turn thread) are facilitated and motorists seem more accommodating when they see that the cyclist is making good progress.
Ed
It is a blanket statement and I'm sure it was not made lightly.
Here, I'll make it too: It does not require great cycling speed to be able to operate according to the rules of the road.
If should go without saying that this is the case on roads where drivers of slow moving vehicles are not prohibited.
It should also be noted that in some circumstances driving a slow moving vehicle can be challenging, and requires traffic skills and knowledge that are not required when a operating a vehicle that can easily keep up with other traffic. Anyone who has ever rented a large RV, moving van, or some kind of large/slow equipment, or driven an old VW van, probably knows what I mean. These additional challenges of operating slowly relative to other traffic have nothing to do with bicycling per se.
Finally, the greater the speed differential the greater the need for additional relatively slow operating skills and knowledge. No one that I know denies this.
All of these clarifications together do not add up to meaning that great cycling speeds are ever required to operate according to the rules of the road on roads where drivers of slow moving vehiclies are not prohibited. So the "blanket statement" stands.
It does not require great cycling speed to be able to operate according to the rules of the road.
Well, that is something of a blanket statement. Noting that we have elsewhere debated at length the impact of speed differential and speed limits, I would have to call this view into question.
Theoretically, of course, one can operate at any speed within the rules of the road. A practical experiment will show just how slow traffic is received by faster traffic.
Based on personal experience, it is clear that the ability to ride faster is beneficial in traffic situations where there are no bike facilities and speed limits of 25-35 mph. Lane changes (see the left turn thread) are facilitated and motorists seem more accommodating when they see that the cyclist is making good progress.
Ed
It is a blanket statement and I'm sure it was not made lightly.
Here, I'll make it too: It does not require great cycling speed to be able to operate according to the rules of the road.
If should go without saying that this is the case on roads where drivers of slow moving vehicles are not prohibited.
It should also be noted that in some circumstances driving a slow moving vehicle can be challenging, and requires traffic skills and knowledge that are not required when a operating a vehicle that can easily keep up with other traffic. Anyone who has ever rented a large RV, moving van, or some kind of large/slow equipment, or driven an old VW van, probably knows what I mean. These additional challenges of operating slowly relative to other traffic have nothing to do with bicycling per se.
Finally, the greater the speed differential the greater the need for additional relatively slow operating skills and knowledge. No one that I know denies this.
All of these clarifications together do not add up to meaning that great cycling speeds are ever required to operate according to the rules of the road on roads where drivers of slow moving vehiclies are not prohibited. So the "blanket statement" stands.
Bekologist
03-31-08, 03:05 PM
sixty fiver has it more correct than you do, head.
VC fails even john forestor as speed differential increases - he goes into "not claiming" narrow high speed roads and also goes into 'road sneak' mode so as not to inconveinence the faster motorists in narrow lanes of traffiv-
trying to share a narrow lane to narrow to be safely shared with faster traffic is anathema to most modern savvy traffic cyclists nowadays, eh, head?
VC fails even john forestor as speed differential increases - he goes into "not claiming" narrow high speed roads and also goes into 'road sneak' mode so as not to inconveinence the faster motorists in narrow lanes of traffiv-
trying to share a narrow lane to narrow to be safely shared with faster traffic is anathema to most modern savvy traffic cyclists nowadays, eh, head?
Helmet Head
03-31-08, 03:47 PM
sixty fiver has it more correct than you do, head.
VC fails even john forestor as speed differential increases - he goes into "not claiming" narrow high speed roads and also goes into 'road sneak' mode so as not to inconveinence the faster motorists in narrow lanes of traffiv-
trying to share a narrow lane to narrow to be safely shared with faster traffic is anathema to most modern savvy traffic cyclists nowadays, eh, head?
The vehicular rules of the road do not require a cyclist to claim narrow high speed roads, Bek, nor is playing in "road sneak" mode in violation of the rules of the road.
"It does not require great cycling speed to be able to operate according to the rules of the road." -John Forester
VC fails even john forestor as speed differential increases - he goes into "not claiming" narrow high speed roads and also goes into 'road sneak' mode so as not to inconveinence the faster motorists in narrow lanes of traffiv-
trying to share a narrow lane to narrow to be safely shared with faster traffic is anathema to most modern savvy traffic cyclists nowadays, eh, head?
The vehicular rules of the road do not require a cyclist to claim narrow high speed roads, Bek, nor is playing in "road sneak" mode in violation of the rules of the road.
"It does not require great cycling speed to be able to operate according to the rules of the road." -John Forester
Bekologist
03-31-08, 06:36 PM
so, head- you think foresteor's admittances of riding the edges of lanes TOO NARROW TO BE SAFELY SHARED for the conveinence of faster, passing motorists, is a vehicular cycling technique?
-not the forestor brand inferiority-complex vehicular cycling, but how you or I would ride a narrow lane...
you see, its simple. vc fails one of the outspoken spokesman of vc - and he waffles and dodges when i call him on it.
john technique goes from claiming the lane, to not claiming the lane, of narrow lanes of traffic, as traffic speeds increase. his technique to share roads with motorists includes hugging the edges of lanes too narrow to be safely shared for the advantage of faster motorists. this is a road position, helmet head, that you RELENTLESSLY rag on other forum members for, BTW...
-sorry, john, I should say it how you describe it, "NOT taking the (narrow) lane" -
which in bicyclese, if you're not claiming a narrow lane, you're hugging a curb or edge of the road...maybe you've forgotten what bicycling narrow lanes is like?
he even admits to riding in an inferior lane position in narrow lanes setting up for left turns :eek: for the advantage of the motorists.
-not the forestor brand inferiority-complex vehicular cycling, but how you or I would ride a narrow lane...
you see, its simple. vc fails one of the outspoken spokesman of vc - and he waffles and dodges when i call him on it.
john technique goes from claiming the lane, to not claiming the lane, of narrow lanes of traffic, as traffic speeds increase. his technique to share roads with motorists includes hugging the edges of lanes too narrow to be safely shared for the advantage of faster motorists. this is a road position, helmet head, that you RELENTLESSLY rag on other forum members for, BTW...
-sorry, john, I should say it how you describe it, "NOT taking the (narrow) lane" -
which in bicyclese, if you're not claiming a narrow lane, you're hugging a curb or edge of the road...maybe you've forgotten what bicycling narrow lanes is like?
he even admits to riding in an inferior lane position in narrow lanes setting up for left turns :eek: for the advantage of the motorists.
Bekologist
03-31-08, 06:37 PM
so ,should the new memes include some of johns inferiority complex-laden vc techniques about sharing narrow lanes with faster traffic?
buzzman
03-31-08, 09:58 PM
I tried replacing the old mimes with new mimes, but honestly the new mimes weren't that good. Man-in-a-box was more like boy-in-a-bubble.
I ended up having to rehire most of the old mimes. Some demanded substantial salary increases. Just a word to the wise.
And if I see one more mime struggling into the wind- I mean get a clue- why go out in that kind of weather? Sometimes I wish all those mimes would just shut up. ;)
I ended up having to rehire most of the old mimes. Some demanded substantial salary increases. Just a word to the wise.
And if I see one more mime struggling into the wind- I mean get a clue- why go out in that kind of weather? Sometimes I wish all those mimes would just shut up. ;)
buzzman
03-31-08, 10:00 PM
It does not require great cycling speed to be able to operate according to the rules of the road.
yeah, especially when there's no traffic.:D
yeah, especially when there's no traffic.:D
genec
04-01-08, 09:58 AM
"It does not require great cycling speed to be able to operate according to the rules of the road." -John Forester
"When the traffic is moving more than 15 mph faster than you, negotiation is impossible... " -John Forester (page 311, Effective Cycling, sixth edition.)
Hmmmmm, there seems to be a conflict.
"When the traffic is moving more than 15 mph faster than you, negotiation is impossible... " -John Forester (page 311, Effective Cycling, sixth edition.)
Hmmmmm, there seems to be a conflict.
I-Like-To-Bike
04-01-08, 10:35 AM
"It does not require great cycling speed to be able to operate according to the rules of the road." -John Forester
"When the traffic is moving more than 15 mph faster than you, negotiation is impossible... " -John Forester (page 311, Effective Cycling, sixth edition.)
Hmmmmm, there seems to be a conflict.
The term "Rules of the Road" is so vaguely defined by certain VC idealogues that it can be negotiated to fit any scenario/argument. Same applies to their methods of "negotiation" with other vehicle operators- vague enough to fit any scenario.
"When the traffic is moving more than 15 mph faster than you, negotiation is impossible... " -John Forester (page 311, Effective Cycling, sixth edition.)
Hmmmmm, there seems to be a conflict.
The term "Rules of the Road" is so vaguely defined by certain VC idealogues that it can be negotiated to fit any scenario/argument. Same applies to their methods of "negotiation" with other vehicle operators- vague enough to fit any scenario.
LittleBigMan
04-01-08, 04:18 PM
It also must be recognized that the instructional program was failing to thrive long before it got "killed." I'm sorry but there is something seriously wrong if you keep doing the same thing over and over again and expect different results.
As an Atlanta bicycle commuter of many years/miles, I can say confidently that I would never consider bicycling to work any other way than following the basic tenets of vehicular cycling. So in my opinion, vehicular cycling has not "failed" at all, just that most people prefer the comfort of a climate-controlled motor vehicle to get around.
As an Atlanta bicycle commuter of many years/miles, I can say confidently that I would never consider bicycling to work any other way than following the basic tenets of vehicular cycling. So in my opinion, vehicular cycling has not "failed" at all, just that most people prefer the comfort of a climate-controlled motor vehicle to get around.
John Forester
04-01-08, 04:46 PM
Genec, like the ideologue he is, has argued that he thinks that there is a conflict between the two following statements from my work:
"When the traffic is moving more than 15 mph faster than you, negotiation is impossible... "
"It does not require great cycling speed to be able to operate according to the rules of the road."
OK, Genec, please state what the conflict is. No more of your hiding behind weasel words like "seems"; you have made a statement for which you think you have sufficient grounds. Then you are obliged by the rules of civil discourse, let alone the ruled for technical discussion, to state those grounds.
"When the traffic is moving more than 15 mph faster than you, negotiation is impossible... "
"It does not require great cycling speed to be able to operate according to the rules of the road."
OK, Genec, please state what the conflict is. No more of your hiding behind weasel words like "seems"; you have made a statement for which you think you have sufficient grounds. Then you are obliged by the rules of civil discourse, let alone the ruled for technical discussion, to state those grounds.
John Forester
04-01-08, 04:51 PM
so, head- you think foresteor's admittances of riding the edges of lanes TOO NARROW TO BE SAFELY SHARED for the conveinence of faster, passing motorists, is a vehicular cycling technique?
-not the forestor brand inferiority-complex vehicular cycling, but how you or I would ride a narrow lane...
you see, its simple. vc fails one of the outspoken spokesman of vc - and he waffles and dodges when i call him on it.
john technique goes from claiming the lane, to not claiming the lane, of narrow lanes of traffic, as traffic speeds increase. his technique to share roads with motorists includes hugging the edges of lanes too narrow to be safely shared for the advantage of faster motorists. this is a road position, helmet head, that you RELENTLESSLY rag on other forum members for, BTW...
-sorry, john, I should say it how you describe it, "NOT taking the (narrow) lane" -
which in bicyclese, if you're not claiming a narrow lane, you're hugging a curb or edge of the road...maybe you've forgotten what bicycling narrow lanes is like?
he even admits to riding in an inferior lane position in narrow lanes setting up for left turns :eek: for the advantage of the motorists.
I see, bekologist, that you are a follower of the dictum that the bigger the lie the more likely it is to be believed.
-not the forestor brand inferiority-complex vehicular cycling, but how you or I would ride a narrow lane...
you see, its simple. vc fails one of the outspoken spokesman of vc - and he waffles and dodges when i call him on it.
john technique goes from claiming the lane, to not claiming the lane, of narrow lanes of traffic, as traffic speeds increase. his technique to share roads with motorists includes hugging the edges of lanes too narrow to be safely shared for the advantage of faster motorists. this is a road position, helmet head, that you RELENTLESSLY rag on other forum members for, BTW...
-sorry, john, I should say it how you describe it, "NOT taking the (narrow) lane" -
which in bicyclese, if you're not claiming a narrow lane, you're hugging a curb or edge of the road...maybe you've forgotten what bicycling narrow lanes is like?
he even admits to riding in an inferior lane position in narrow lanes setting up for left turns :eek: for the advantage of the motorists.
I see, bekologist, that you are a follower of the dictum that the bigger the lie the more likely it is to be believed.
Bekologist
04-01-08, 05:49 PM
john, im just reiterating what you'd described in this forum about your inferiority laden tec\hniques of edge hugging narrow lanes for the conveinence of motorists.
Care to reiterate when and at what speeds a bicyclist should go from 'claiming' a narrow lane setting up for a left turn, and riding like a 'road sneak' to allow motorists to pass you in a lane generaly considered by the bicycling community too narrow to be safely shared?
Once you've explained the inferiority method of road sneak, please move on to genec' concerns about your inability to negotiate with traffic moving 15mph faster than the bicyvclist- does that mean a bicyclist riding 10mph cannot negotiate with motorists driving 25?
Care to reiterate when and at what speeds a bicyclist should go from 'claiming' a narrow lane setting up for a left turn, and riding like a 'road sneak' to allow motorists to pass you in a lane generaly considered by the bicycling community too narrow to be safely shared?
Once you've explained the inferiority method of road sneak, please move on to genec' concerns about your inability to negotiate with traffic moving 15mph faster than the bicyvclist- does that mean a bicyclist riding 10mph cannot negotiate with motorists driving 25?
vBulletin® v3.7.3, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.