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?
Bekologist, you are just reiterating your deliberate misstatements, as you have from the beginning of this part of the discussion. You are unworthy of receiving an answer to your deliberate misstatements, which you present, as you yourself have admitted, only to provoke me. It is unfortunate that the level of civility of these discourses has fallen so low as to allow your continued participation.
The BikeForums Team
-adv-
This is an archived thread, you can find the full version of this thread, with images, links and more content here.
can't discuss your quoted statements about your inferiority-laden cycling techniques, john?
genec
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.
John, if you cannot see the conflict in the two statements above... then I cannot help you.
I do agree that it does not take great speed to be able to operate "according to the rules of the road... " However, that statement does not stand alone, as there are also other road users about, so "operating according to the rules of the road" also requires cooperation from the other users of the road, and your other statement points to a denial of cooperation when those other users are moving at a speed over 15MPH of cyclists.
Bekologist
john, take it from one of your brothers of the wheel (me ) - your published and stated cycling techniques are LOADED with inferior lane positioning!
Bekologist
I must be misunderstanding you, john, your 'road sneak' methods, moving edge to edge in narrow lanes for the conveinence of motorists, of ambiguously riding the stripe between two lanes of faster traffic, your 'not taking the lane' on narrow rural highways, your published admittance bicyclists can't negotiate with motorists moving 15mph faster than the bicyclist.....
please, clarify without rancor.
its often vehicular to ride the stripe between slower traffic, but vehicular cyclists riding ambiguously between faster traffic in narrow lanes? - boy, only if they've screwed up their lane positioning.
The Human Car
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.
By the instructional program failing to thrive I meant that it is failing to reach sufficient numbers to make any difference in the national crash stats.
dogbitteneear
I was approaching a 4-way stop when I was cut off by a driver who clearly saw me.
Had to stop short to keep from hitting her.
Still have plate number.
What should I do?
:(
Ed Holland
I was approaching a 4-way stop when I was cut off by a driver who clearly saw me.
Had to stop short to keep from hitting her.
Still have plate number.
What should I do?
:(
You would be justified in calling the incident in to the local police, but it's unlikely they'll take action.
John Forester
John, if you cannot see the conflict in the two statements above... then I cannot help you.
I do agree that it does not take great speed to be able to operate "according to the rules of the road... " However, that statement does not stand alone, as there are also other road users about, so "operating according to the rules of the road" also requires cooperation from the other users of the road, and your other statement points to a denial of cooperation when those other users are moving at a speed over 15MPH of cyclists.
You claim that two particular statements of mine conflict with each other, yet when challenged to describe that conflict you reply that you are unable to describe it: "... if you cannot see the conflict in the two statements above ... then I cannot help you."
genec
You claim that two particular statements of mine conflict with each other, yet when challenged to describe that conflict you reply that you are unable to describe it: "... if you cannot see the conflict in the two statements above ... then I cannot help you."
Uh, John, I also went on to explain the conflict, which was actually quoted in your reply, you apparently chose to ignore that part. :rolleyes:
Ed Holland
Lets just say that cooperation between road users is more straightforward when speeds are similar. Ergo, the cyclist has an easier time of it the faster they travel. It is easier to "negotiate" with other road users if they do not feel that you are about to impede them unduly. Subjective and emotional, perhaps, but there we are.
genec
Lets just say that cooperation between road users is more straightforward when speeds are similar. Ergo, the cyclist has an easier time of it the faster they travel. It is easier to "negotiate" with other road users if they do not feel that you are about to impede them unduly. Subjective and emotional, perhaps, but there we are.
thank you for the objective observation and response.
Ed Holland
You are most welcome :)
John Forester
I must be misunderstanding you, john, your 'road sneak' methods, moving edge to edge in narrow lanes for the conveinence of motorists, of ambiguously riding the stripe between two lanes of faster traffic, your 'not taking the lane' on narrow rural highways, your published admittance bicyclists can't negotiate with motorists moving 15mph faster than the bicyclist.....
please, clarify without rancor.
its often vehicular to ride the stripe between slower traffic, but vehicular cyclists riding ambiguously between faster traffic in narrow lanes? - boy, only if they've screwed up their lane positioning.
Clarify your lies without rancor? You are asking for too much. Just so long as you insist on lying about my statements to suit your ideology, your lies don't deserve being answered.
You don't like my system of making lane changes in two moves, one into the lane, the second across the lane. I never specified this for narrow lanes, but it works with standard 12-foot lanes. The same goes for riding the lane line while faster traffic overtakes. It works, it lets faster drivers overtake, so I see no problem. My view about cycling on one particular type of highway, a narrow two-lane rural highway with 65 mph traffic, was limited to that particular situation. Such a highway does not carry much traffic, because if such traffic generated it would not be able to travel at that speed. With such little traffic, all that I said is that I would not bother to control the lane because there is no reason to do so. As for negotiating for lane changes into a stream of faster traffic, based on my experience using the head turn as the signal, and guessing at the relative speeds, that's my conclusion. But others have stated that using the arm signal works with greater speed differential. So what? I also have recommended using the arm signal when one wants to emphasize the desire.
As far as I can understand your motives, you wish to propagate the lie that vehicular cycling must deliberately delay motor traffic, in order to propagate your claim that bike lanes are better because they do not delay motorists. I won't play into that ploy.
Bekologist
yes, riding like a 'road sneak' and not claiming a standard 12 foot lane is most definetly an inferiority laden method, john- you say you do that for the conveinence of the motorists?
ambiguously riding a lane line- not the shoulder stripe- so motorists can overtake you on both sides in standard, non-WOLs is most definetly an inferiority laden technique- you do this for the conveinence of the motorists as well? is this on, like 30mph streets, if you as a cyclist is doing 10, over the threshold where 'negotiation is impossible?'
john, at what passing speed of traffic would you generally go into 'road sneak' mode so as to not inconveinece motorists in standard, non-WOLs?
is it at that 15mph break, essentially any road signed over 25mph?
John Forester
yes, riding like a 'road sneak' and not claiming a standard 12 foot lane is most definetly an inferiority laden method, john- you say you do that for the conveinence of the motorists?
ambiguously riding a lane line- not the shoulder stripe- so motorists can overtake you on both sides in standard, non-WOLs is most definetly an inferiority laden technique- you do this for the conveinence of the motorists as well? is this on, like 30mph streets, if you as a cyclist is doing 10, over the threshold where 'negotiation is impossible?'
john, at what passing speed of traffic would you generally go into 'road sneak' mode so as to not inconveinece motorists in standard, non-WOLs?
is it at that 15mph break, essentially any road signed over 25mph?
I repeat, you insist on repeating your original lies and are a blight upon reasonable discussion.
Ed Holland
So what we're looking at here is the cyclist's ability to influence traffic, according to differing situations such as number of lanes, speed limits & differentials and traffic density.
I see some issues with lane sharing & allowing traffic to overtake. A good example is a 35mph road, 2 lanes each direction, that I sometimes use.
The lanes are narrow there is no shoulder or outside lane, traffic is usually at or above the limit. If I do anything except occupy the middle of the right lane (which is bold but inconsiderate), cars attempt to squeeze past. Too far right, and they buzz past often without attempting to change lanes. If the "just left of the right tire track" position is adopted, many vehicles use the other lane, many split lanes to pass (offering ample room) and a few track rather too close for comfort.
Certainly I am unable to control all of the traffic all of the time.
I-Like-To-Bike
By the instructional program failing to thrive I meant that it is failing to reach sufficient numbers to make any difference in the national crash stats.
The effect on crash stats would be one method of measuring failure/success of an instructional program. Failing to reach sufficient numbers would certainly be an explanation for lack of effect. But of course there is also the possibility that an unproven instructional program would have little or no significant effect on bicyclists' behavior or crash stats no matter how many people it reached.
LittleBigMan
By the instructional program failing to thrive I meant that it is failing to reach sufficient numbers to make any difference in the national crash stats.
As I said, I would never consider bicycling to work in Atlanta without using vehicular cycling techniques.
A bike lane or bike path cannot substitute for learning how to negotiate motor traffic.
Yet a vehicular cyclist can negotiate motor traffic, a bike lane, or a bike path.
Bekologist
john -
you probably know this, you're a self styled transportation engineer.... :rolleyes:
"The 12-foot lane width standard was never presented as a means to provide a shared use lane."
but you proclaim 12 foot lanes shareable in multiple situations?
hmm, i see the roots of a deep-seated inferiority complex, john... the old vc memes.
the new vc memes embraces well provided bicycling infrastructure.
John Forester
john -
you probably know this, you're a self styled transportation engineer.... :rolleyes:
"The 12-foot lane width standard was never presented as a means to provide a shared use lane."
but you proclaim 12 foot lanes shareable in multiple situations?
hmm, i see the roots of a deep-seated inferiority complex, john... the old vc memes.
the new vc memes embraces well provided bicycling infrastructure.
Facts speak louder than words.
Bekologist
hmm...... do you mean john, despite widely accepted design considerations of standard lanes - that they are not shareable- this should be ignored by vehicular cyclists? you place it out there like an inscouscient challenge....You do it, so what?
do you reccomend to often ambiguously ride lane stripes or the edges of narrow lanes so as to not inconveinence the motorists, john? at what speed of passing traffic do you recommend cyclists start not taking the lane to stay out of the way of motorists?
a john forestorism 'I stay out of the way of the cars on the lane stripes- so what?'
John Forester
hmm...... do you mean john, despite widely accepted design considerations of standard lanes - that they are not shareable- this should be ignored by vehicular cyclists? you place it out there like an inscouscient challenge....You do it, so what?
do you reccomend to often ambiguously ride lane stripes or the edges of narrow lanes so as to not inconveinence the motorists, john? at what speed of passing traffic do you recommend cyclists start not taking the lane to stay out of the way of motorists?
a john forestorism 'I stay out of the way of the cars on the lane stripes- so what?'
You sure get your knickers in a twist, don't you, Bekologist? Over what you think is a BIG DEAL?
Surely you should know that the 12-foot lane standard was adopted long ago, long before highway designers bothered about bicycle traffic. That is, were considered neither shareable nor not shareable. The fact that when there are adjacent same-direction 12-foot lanes a cyclist or a motorcyclist can ride the lane line with plenty of room to spare between lines of passenger cars was not considered by the designers, but it is true, nevertheless. What's your problem with doing this? Why do you have your knickers in such a twist over it? It looks to me as though your problem is that this does not impede motorists. As for me, I have no ideological objective of impeding motorists; I just let and let live.
Ed Holland
It seems we are all a bit twisted here - So please let us try and clarify, without axes to grind, for everyone's benefit. I had come to believe that lane sharing was non vehicular, not in accordance with the rules of the road and contrary to the ideals of VC - to use the common parlance. Moreover that this same or similar reasoning was cited in the objection to bike lane markings on the roadway.
Now as regards practical usage of the road, of course it is very common that a lane (be there one or more) is shared whilst a car passes a bicycle. This may or may not be a problem according to the circumstances, see post 117 for example. It is unreasonable IMHO to impede traffic on a general basis, so a compromise is reached.
Can we move on from here?
Bekologist
hugging lane lines -wether edge of road or between two lanes of traffic - of standard width lanes as faster traffic overtakes, is an inferior and unvehicular lane position.
why i should accept 'so what?' as the rationale for that inferior lane positioning?
I'm confident bonifide traffic engineers would consider the 12 foot lane split a distinctly unvehicular traffic motion, john. it's not in the manual.
When looking at standard contemportary road design warrants, 14 feet is the minimum width for a shareable lane, outside lanes narrower than 14 feet are designed for one vehicle per lateral lane position, without bikes and cars sharing side by side.
I can share a wagon trace with cars john, but design of roads have advanced significantly since then..
Feldman
How about "Always keep in mind the fact that automobiles will reduce the hearing, eyesight, reaction time, and general intelligence of their users." I've been cycling for forty years--damn it, drivers are mentally inferior animals, no matter what earrings you want to hang on that pig it's still the same pig.
John Forester
hugging lane lines -wether edge of road or between two lanes of traffic - of standard width lanes as faster traffic overtakes, is an inferior and unvehicular lane position.
why i should accept 'so what?' as the rationale for that inferior lane positioning?
I'm confident bonifide traffic engineers would consider the 12 foot lane split a distinctly unvehicular traffic motion, john. it's not in the manual.
When looking at standard contemportary road design warrants, 14 feet is the minimum width for a shareable lane, outside lanes narrower than 14 feet are designed for one vehicle per lateral lane position, without bikes and cars sharing side by side.
I can share a wagon trace with cars john, but design of roads have advanced significantly since then..
It is very strange that you, Bekologist, feel that you have the qualifications to state that the way I ride is not vehicular. What qualifications do you have to issue that opinion? And the authority that you provide is that genuine certificated traffic engineers would not consider my cycling to be vehicular? What do such people know about it? There is no part of their training that is devoted to such considerations. And it has become more and more obvious that you have some big desire to impede motorists, while I don't have that desire. I can't help it that your conception of cycling without a bikeway must impede traffic; that's a problem from your ideology, even though it is false.
The Human Car
Ah yes, riding in a vehicular manner is fundamental for every cyclists safety but you need to be a certificated traffic engineer to know what that is.:rolleyes:
Ed Holland
Am I being ignored completely? John, Bek, I was tring to help
Is this a rhetorical question?
The Human Car
Am I being ignored completely? John, Bek, I was tring to help
Is this a rhetorical question?
Do you really want to get in the middle of that conversation? Unfortunately everything you have said has been logical and hard to disagree with. You need to try harding in making up an insulting comment or some other exaggeration to get people to comment on your post, sad but true.
Ed Holland
Do you really want to get in the middle of that conversation? Unfortunately everything you have said has been logical and hard to disagree with. You need to try harding in making up an insulting comment or some other exaggeration to get people to comment on your post, sad but true.
:roflmao:
Raiyn
Ladies and Gentlemen, Tom Cruise has left the building and will not return
John Forester
Am I being ignored completely? John, Bek, I was tring to help
Is this a rhetorical question?
Well, yes, Ed, your suggestion is being ignored. The discussion is not a reasonable and substantive discussion of cycling, but is Bekologist's ideology at work. Your suggestion is being ignored because Bekologist, to suit his own ideology, is trying to demonstrate that my style of cycling, which I named vehicular cycling, is dictated by fear of same-direction motor traffic and feelings of inferiority to motorists, the characteristics of the other style of cycling, which I named cyclist-inferiority cycling. Just so long as Bekologist chooses to continue presenting his lies, I feel some obligation to answer them.
genec
Well, yes, Ed, your suggestion is being ignored. The discussion is not a reasonable and substantive discussion of cycling, but is Bekologist's ideology at work. Your suggestion is being ignored because Bekologist, to suit his own ideology, is trying to demonstrate that my style of cycling, which I named vehicular cycling, is dictated by fear of same-direction motor traffic and feelings of inferiority to motorists, the characteristics of the other style of cycling, which I named cyclist-inferiority cycling. Just so long as Bekologist chooses to continue presenting his lies, I feel some obligation to answer them.
Well John, it is you that uses the term "road sneak" in reference to making left hand turns in relatively high speed traffic... com'on that is not exactly a term of someone who feels they have a rightful place on the road.
John have you seen these videos? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rU4nKKq02BU
Here is a whole series of videos, by the same cyclist: http://www.youtube.com/user/CyclistLorax
I don't believe the term "road sneak" is ever used in any of these cyclist training videos.
Bekologist
yes, john, a fair amount of your 'techniques' are synonomous with what you describe as inferiority laden cycling.
Ed Holland
Well, yes, Ed, your suggestion is being ignored. The discussion is not a reasonable and substantive discussion of cycling, but is Bekologist's ideology at work. Your suggestion is being ignored because Bekologist, to suit his own ideology, is trying to demonstrate that my style of cycling, which I named vehicular cycling, is dictated by fear of same-direction motor traffic and feelings of inferiority to motorists, the characteristics of the other style of cycling, which I named cyclist-inferiority cycling. Just so long as Bekologist chooses to continue presenting his lies, I feel some obligation to answer them.
yes, john, a fair amount of your 'techniques' are synonomous with what you describe as inferiority laden cycling
I note Bekologists stance, and whilst I feel that he has every right to express it, does not always do so on the most genial terms. However, when this type of conflict perpetuates, nobody wins. This is an open request for reasoned debate over personal sniping.
Thank you,
Ed
John Forester
I note Bekologists stance, and whilst I feel that he has every right to express it, does not always do so on the most genial terms. However, when this type of conflict perpetuates, nobody wins. This is an open request for reasoned debate over personal sniping.
Thank you,
Ed
Ed, you included the following quotation from Bekologist's previous post: "yes, john, a fair amount of your 'techniques' are synonomous with what you describe as inferiority laden cycling." I presume, Ed, that you thought that Bekologist's statement is reasonable and relevant to this discussion. Unfortunately, it is neither; it is an expression of a logical fallacy. A corresponding fallacy would be the following. Touring cyclists ride sitting on their saddles. Therefore, any cyclist sitting on his saddle is going touring. A few common features do not demonstrate congruence.
Ed, you ask for reasoned debate about the great cycling divide, between vehicular cyclists and bikeway advocates. Reasoned debate about that divide is not to be had. It is not to be had because the facts and traffic-engineering knowledge support vehicular cycling and contradict bikeway cycling, and bikeway advocates have not been able to demonstrate otherwise. It is obvious that the existence of bikeways demonstrates that there is a powerful motivation for them, but the motivation is not the welfare of cyclists in a substantive way, as demonstrated by accident reduction, required skill reduction, or greater convenience in travel. Evidently bikeway advocates do not like whatever that motivation is, because they have kept on attempting, and failing, to demonstrate such substantive betterments, and have therefore resorted to the kind of ideological polemic that characterizes Bekologist's postings.
If bikeway advocates were to retreat to what is reasonable, then some reasonable discussion might be productive. However, they have never shown any sign of retreating from the original claims made for bikeways, claims made purely on the basis of superstition and since shown empirically to be false. And in trying to preserve their system, they have become more confused than ever.
Allister
How the hell did this suddenly become about 'bikeways' again? :rolleyes:
The Human Car
... they have become more confused than ever.
I think the floor is still open to whether it is your explanations that are confusing or "our" understanding is confused.
I know how I ride and I can agree with "both" sides of the debate so my riding style must be both vehicular and non-vehicular at the same time. Yep, I must be confused.
Allister
I had come to believe that lane sharing was non vehicular, not in accordance with the rules of the road and contrary to the ideals of VC - to use the common parlance.
By my reckonong, that view of VC was held only by Serge, and supposedly only in the absense of FSDT - not a very useful definition IMO. My reading of Forester's writings both here and in his published works indicates to me that he uses the same critieria for lane sharing that many of us already use - share if there's room, otherwise take the lane. How wide a lane needs to be to be considered 'shareable' is up for debate I guess, but realistically it comes down to a personal comfort level that's different for anyone.
Now as regards practical usage of the road, of course it is very common that a lane (be there one or more) is shared whilst a car passes a bicycle. This may or may not be a problem according to the circumstances, see post 117 for example. It is unreasonable IMHO to impede traffic on a general basis, so a compromise is reached.
As far as I'm concerned, 'unreasonably' obstructing traffic is illegal and I don't do it. If I'm claiming the lane, I'm doing it only because it's necessary, and I certainly don't move off my line for traffic coming up behind me.
Bekologist
yes, no doubt. HOW did this become about bikeways again?
john, if you cannot explain your riding techniques- when you recommend riders go into road sneak mode, at what speed of passing traffic should a bicyclist go from claiming narrow lanes to riding like a road sneak on the edges, etc... you are clearly just a pontificanting blowhard.
Anwser up so we can develop some new vc memes, john....
should one of the new vc memes be "Ride the edges of narrow lanes- so what?"
The Human Car
How the hell did this suddenly become about bikeways again?
Option 1. If you disagree with John's riding style without bike lanes you must be for bike lanes, that is simple logic.
Option 2. It maybe that John was caught riding as if the bike lane stripe WAS there. :p
John Forester
yes, no doubt. HOW did this become about bikeways again?
john, if you cannot explain your riding techniques- when you recommend riders go into road sneak mode, at what speed of passing traffic should a bicyclist go from claiming narrow lanes to riding like a road sneak on the edges, etc... you are clearly just a pontificanting blowhard.
Anwser up so we can develop some new vc memes, john....
should one of the new vc memes be "Ride the edges of narrow lanes- so what?"
Bekologist's statements above are products of his ideological imagination and have nothing to do with my views or positions.
Bekologist
john, ENOUGH DODGING!
you obviously go from lane claiming to not claiming lanes as motorist speeds increase. Genec and I have abundantly noted several scenarios you proclaim a vehicular cyclist DOESN'T take the lane, rides between lanes, 'rides the edges of lanes', rides like a road sneak, etc.....
explain and illuminate, because your techniques as described by you both in print and in this forum reek of contradictions. or else enough vagaries that your methodology is worthless.. which is it?
I'm incredibly curious at what speed of passing traffic you recommend a bicyclist go from claiming lanes to set up for left turns, and riding like a 'road sneak'- YOUR WORDS, JOHN- in an ambiguous position between narrow, standard (nonshareable) lanes?
Allister
Bekologist's statements above are products of his ideological imagination and have nothing to do with my views or positions.
That's fairly evident, but you keep on responding to his trolling anyway. :lol:
Bekologist
...STILL WAITING to hear at what speeds of passing traffic a left turning bicyclist should go from claiming lanes to riding like a road sneak ambiguosuly between them...
is it at any time a bicyclist is going slower than the motorists, at a 15mph speed differential -at which john declares negotiation with motorists impossible, or some other defineable metric?
Should cyclists attempt to share unshareable lanes with faster traffic ANYTIME the bicyclist feels the edge is just as good as claiming the lane?
or is THIS the new vc memes......" RIDE THE EDGES OF NARROW LANES TO FEEL SAFE"
Ed Holland
By my reckonong, that view of VC was held only by Serge, and supposedly only in the absense of FSDT - not a very useful definition IMO. My reading of Forester's writings both here and in his published works indicates to me that he uses the same critieria for lane sharing that many of us already use - share if there's room, otherwise take the lane. How wide a lane needs to be to be considered 'shareable' is up for debate I guess, but realistically it comes down to a personal comfort level that's different for anyone.
As far as I'm concerned, 'unreasonably' obstructing traffic is illegal and I don't do it. If I'm claiming the lane, I'm doing it only because it's necessary, and I certainly don't move off my line for traffic coming up behind me.
Thanks Allister :) I find myself in the "share if there's room" camp more often than not. Holding one's line is also, I think, a key part in the way one asserts rights to the road.
Ed
Ed Holland
Ed, you included the following quotation from Bekologist's previous post: "yes, john, a fair amount of your 'techniques' are synonomous with what you describe as inferiority laden cycling." I presume, Ed, that you thought that Bekologist's statement is reasonable and relevant to this discussion. Unfortunately, it is neither; it is an expression of a logical fallacy. A corresponding fallacy would be the following. Touring cyclists ride sitting on their saddles. Therefore, any cyclist sitting on his saddle is going touring. A few common features do not demonstrate congruence.
Actually, what I tried to do was include an example of both sides contributions to the bickering. I quoted you and Bekologist in the interests of fairness. This was not intended as an endorsement of either party's veiwpoint. I'm trying hard here.
Ed, you ask for reasoned debate about the great cycling divide, between vehicular cyclists and bikeway advocates. Reasoned debate about that divide is not to be had. It is not to be had because the facts and traffic-engineering knowledge support vehicular cycling and contradict bikeway cycling, and bikeway advocates have not been able to demonstrate otherwise. It is obvious that the existence of bikeways demonstrates that there is a powerful motivation for them, but the motivation is not the welfare of cyclists in a substantive way, as demonstrated by accident reduction, required skill reduction, or greater convenience in travel. Evidently bikeway advocates do not like whatever that motivation is, because they have kept on attempting, and failing, to demonstrate such substantive betterments, and have therefore resorted to the kind of ideological polemic that characterizes Bekologist's postings.
I believe a debate is to be had regarding good techniques for using a roadway. I didn't mention bikeways. They arguably have their place and are not necessarily a threat to cyclists rights. However, [nods to the OP] this thread was originally aimed at ways to encourage and spread the notion of good roadway use. Whatever the number of bikeways, cyclists will always have use of ordinary roads.
Ed
John Forester
Actually, what I tried to do was include an example of both sides contributions to the bickering. I quoted you and Bekologist in the interests of fairness. This was not intended as an endorsement of either party's veiwpoint. I'm trying hard here.
I believe a debate is to be had regarding good techniques for using a roadway. I didn't mention bikeways. They arguably have their place and are not necessarily a threat to cyclists rights. However, [nods to the OP] this thread was originally aimed at ways to encourage and spread the notion of good roadway use. Whatever the number of bikeways, cyclists will always have use of ordinary roads.
Ed
You forget, Ed, that bikeways include bike lanes, which are part of the roadway. And, bike lanes are closely allied with bike paths in the agenda of bicycle advocates.
Bekologist
john,john,
leave bikelanes and bikeways out of it for a moment. like ed says, we are not discussing bikeways.
if you can clarify for the forum and bike riders worldwide- at what speed, generally, of passing traffic should a vehicular cyclist go from claiming lanes setting up for a left turn, and riding like a road sneak ambiguously between lanes of traffic?
Surely, if a bike is moving 8mph and the vehicles are moving 8mph, you'd recommend the bicyclist take the lane, yes?
At what speed does the 'road sneak' methods of ambiguously sharing lanes with cars come into play?