Replacing the old memes with new/VC memes

[joejack951]

By my reckonong, that view [that lane sharing was non vehicular, not in accordance with the rules of the road and contrary to the ideals of VC ] of VC was held only by Serge, and supposedly only in the absense of FSDT - not a very useful definition IMO.

I'm not sure where you ever got that from. Can you explain how you remember HH explaining why lane sharing was non-vehicular in the absense of FSDT (paraphrasing your statement)?

The only significant difference between what HH and JF promote on this forum is that HH does promote riding further left in the absense of FSDT while maintaining rearward situational awareness. I'm not going to list out all of the reasons for doing this but it mainly revolves around positioning yourself in the same spot you would most likely move to in the event that the situation in front of you changed, especially if unexpectedly.

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.

This statement above is 100% correct. I can't find anything to even begin to nitpick at, and that's saying a lot :)

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.

Just as with lane sharing, different people have a different view of "unreasonably obstructing traffic." One thing many cyclists get confused about from all the "keep right" adovocacy is that simply causing motorists to slow down is most definitely not illegal.

[WaltPoutine]

I certainly don't move off my line for traffic coming up behind me.

At least in California as a "slow vehicle" you're supposed to pull in to the side if more than 5 or so cars are backed up behind you and there's no passing lane. Similar behaviours apply in other countries to other slow moving traffic, e.g. farm vehicles.

[WaltPoutine]

Bekologist's statements above are products of his ideological imagination and have nothing to do with my views or positions.

As pointed out by Allister it's pretty obvious to most of us that he's trolling and also a couple of wheels short of a bicycle.

[Bekologist]

no, i ask genuine questions to john in this and other threads and he repeatedly dodges the questions with insults. claiming my ideology interferes???


joejack, another significant difference between HH and JF is that john forestor endorses inferior lane positioning like ambiguously positioning oneself between two lanes of faster traffic. riding like a 'road sneak' is how he describes it.

I'm looking for clarification from john at what passing traffic speed he generally recommends bicyclists move from claiming lanes to riding like a road sneak while preparing for left turns.

[invisiblehand]

no, i ask genuine questions to john in this and other threads and he repeatedly dodges the questions with insults. claiming my ideology interferes???

That description sounds like someone else on this forum.

[Ed Holland]

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.

I'm happy to include bike lane discussion here, as most people understand these to be part of the roadway. Bike paths are separate from the roadway and issues regarding its usage.
I'm genuinely struggling with the definition of bikeway. To me its either a lane (on the road) or a path (off the road). Either way, vehicles are operated on the road - surely this is where our focus should be, as it is the place where safe bicycle operation is most important.

Ed

[genec]

I'm happy to include bike lane discussion here, as most people understand these to be part of the roadway. Bike paths are separate from the roadway and issues regarding its usage.
I'm genuinely struggling with the definition of bikeway. To me its either a lane (on the road) or a path (off the road). Either way, vehicles are operated on the road - surely this is where our focus should be, as it is the place where safe bicycle operation is most important.

Ed

That is the problem with the term: "bikeways;" it is too generic a term and what applies to bike lanes may not even apply to bike paths, and vice versa...

Using the term "bikeways" is akin to using the term "roadways" and having that term apply to everything from a 25MPH residential street to a 75MPH limited access freeway... sure, in some instances it does apply... they are generally made of the same material, and motor traffic accesses both; but beyond that, we are talking night and day. For instance, I might easily enjoy a pickup game of basketball on the "roadway" in front of my house, but I am not likely to play basketball on the "roadway" that runs the length of California, otherwise known as "Interstate 5."

Thus the use of the term "bikeways" is generally disingenuous, unless we are discussing the material of which they are made.

[RobertHurst]

I'm happy to include bike lane discussion here, as most people understand these to be part of the roadway. Bike paths are separate from the roadway and issues regarding its usage.
I'm genuinely struggling with the definition of bikeway. To me its either a lane (on the road) or a path (off the road). Either way, vehicles are operated on the road - surely this is where our focus should be, as it is the place where safe bicycle operation is most important.

Ed

Ed, there are a few types of 'bikeways:' off-road paths in their own rights-of-way, off-road paths that intersect with the street grid, on-road bicycle lanes, and streets designated as bicycle routes even though they may have no bike lane striping. Forester has expressed an appreciation for certain types of bikeways and a strong dislike for others. And yet, he uses the terms 'bikeway' and 'bikeway program' in these internet discussions without any of that basic distinction. He would have you believe that bikeways and the so-called bikeway program are uniformly negative, horrible things for cyclists, but obviously that is not the case. Asking people to believe something that is obviously not true would seem to be a roadblock in the way of his views' being adopted by the masses.

Robert

[Ed Holland]

Thanks Gene & Robert for your clarification. I'd thought that "bikeway" was a rather ambiguous term, but didn't want to stick my neck out.

The rant against bikelanes & paths might appear to the casual observer as something of a persecution complex. It is hard to believe in some authoritarian conspiricy against cycle use when there are so few who use the road in this way. Far easier to accept schemes as being planned with a genuine aim to provide facilities and aid safety, even if the implementation sometimes misses the mark in terms of practicality.

Ed

[John Forester]

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?

Don't you understand? Motorist speed is immaterial.

[Ed Holland]

Don't you understand? Motorist speed is immaterial.

I think it is impossible to answer outright the question: At what speed (differential) should one allow lane sharing? However, I don't think that motorist speed is immaterial to cyclists.

[Allister]

The only significant difference between what HH and JF promote on this forum is that HH does promote riding further left in the absense of FSDT while maintaining rearward situational awareness. I'm not going to list out all of the reasons for doing this but it mainly revolves around positioning yourself in the same spot you would most likely move to in the event that the situation in front of you changed, especially if unexpectedly.

I'm well aware of the oft' stated reasons. I still think it's a silly and uneccessary method IMO, and totally worthless for riding with any amount of traffic on the road, no matter how great the gaps. It's quite possible to ride in a sharing position, and still maintain enough conspicuousness that crossing traffic is no threat, as long as you're looking where you're going and not gazing in the mirror. A mirror is a 'nice to have'. Any riding style that makes mirror use necessary is a failure. Riding out in the lane when there's room to share, and only moving over after confirming that upcoming vehicles have seen and adjusted for you is pig-ignorant, and indicates an overestimation of the dangers of both passing and crossing traffic. But if you want to ride like a big scaredy-cat like Serge, feel free.

If there is no traffic, ride wherever you want. Makes absolutely no difference.

Just as with lane sharing, different people have a different view of "unreasonably obstructing traffic." One thing many cyclists get confused about from all the "keep right" adovocacy is that simply causing motorists to slow down is most definitely not illegal.

I often get motorists behind me that clearly have a different definition of what constitutes an 'unreasonable obstruction'. Ultimately, my safety comes down to me, and my own definition of what constitutes 'unreasonable' is the ultimate decider. I certainly don't base it on a whim - it's based on hard facts, primarily the available width of the pavement, and I will defend it in court if it comes to that.

It states quite clearly in our rules that 'simply driving slower than other traffic does not constitute an unreasonable obstruction'.

[Allister]

At least in California as a "slow vehicle" you're supposed to pull in to the side if more than 5 or so cars are backed up behind you and there's no passing lane. Similar behaviours apply in other countries to other slow moving traffic, e.g. farm vehicles.

I don't believe it's a law here, but I'd do it as a common courtesy anyway. I've never had to stop to let anyone pass, but I do move over, even briefly into a kerb-hugging position, to let people through if there's enough of a break in oncoming traffic to allow a pass. I don't even count 5 cars before doing this. I'll let any car through as soon as it's practicable. It's never been more than a few seconds wait for them, if they have to wait at all.

Of course, the conditions I ride in, I don't often encounter that situation. My commute is pretty much exclusively multi-laned roads, and my recreational rides where I ride on such narrow roads never get that much traffic. YMMV

[Allister]

I think it is impossible to answer outright the question: At what speed (differential) should one allow lane sharing? However, I don't think that motorist speed is immaterial to cyclists.

IMO, when lane sharing, motorist's relative speed is immaterial, more or less. My criteria for lane sharing is purely available width of usable pavement.

It's really only when moving into a lane claiming position, or when they move across you path that it becomes relevant. And then, speed is not the only consideration, the gaps between the vehicles are at least as big a factor in safe merging.

[Bekologist]

Don't you understand? Motorist speed is immaterial.

motorist speed is immaterial as a bicyclist sets up for a left turn? riding lane lines ambiguously between faster lanes of traffic is always going to be a vehicular road position?

As a vehicular cyclist, I'm taking the lane as I make lane changes; riding ambiguously between faster traffic is, to me, a most inferior lane positioning tactic and hardly vehicular.

[genec]

motorist speed is immaterial as a bicyclist sets up for a left turn? riding lane lines ambiguously between faster lanes of traffic is always going to be a vehicular road position?

As a vehicular cyclist, I'm taking the lane as I make lane changes; riding ambiguously between faster traffic is, to me, a most inferior lane positioning tactic and hardly vehicular.

But don't you see Bek, as long as you chose the "inferior position" of either riding well to the far right or riding on the lane stripes, then indeed motorist speed is irrelevant to a cyclist... thus John is correct; act inferior and use what ever road is left over (that motorists are not using) and indeed speed is irrelevant.

Now of course merging with traffic and acting like the driver of a vehicle (vice "road sneak")... well, that is another situation altogether... why even in my motorcar I have to adjust speed to merge with other vehicles...

[Allister]

... indeed speed is irreverent.


Slowliness is next to Godliness. ;)

(couldn't resist)

[The Human Car]

Slowliness is next to Godliness. ;)
:roflmao:

[genec]

Slowliness is next to Godliness. ;)

(couldn't resist)

Thanks, sometimes the fingers are faster then the brain. ;)

[John Forester]

But don't you see Bek, as long as you chose the "inferior position" of either riding well to the far right or riding on the lane stripes, then indeed motorist speed is irrelevant to a cyclist... thus John is correct; act inferior and use what ever road is left over (that motorists are not using) and indeed speed is irrelevant.

Now of course merging with traffic and acting like the driver of a vehicle (vice "road sneak")... well, that is another situation altogether... why even in my motorcar I have to adjust speed to merge with other vehicles...

Genec, you and Bekologist are imagining things that are not so and condemning me for the creations of your imaginations. That is only to be expected, after long experience with your postings that have, particularly those from Bekologist, been mendacious attempts to cover up the absence of any real basis for the bikeways that you love and to impugn the veracity of those who recognize their deficiencies and advocate the superior method of operation. You cannot argue reasonably, because there is no reasonable basis for what you desire, and you can oppose vehicular cycling only by making mendacious insinuations. The pair of you are fine spokesmen for an irrational cause.

[Bekologist]

no, john, NOT bikeways.

the inferiority laden lane positioning of your effective cycling techniques. bikeways have little to do with this threads' content. stop pulling your little pet diatribe into it.

[Ed Holland]

IMO, when lane sharing, motorist's relative speed is immaterial, more or less. My criteria for lane sharing is purely available width of usable pavement.

It's really only when moving into a lane claiming position, or when they move across you path that it becomes relevant. And then, speed is not the only consideration, the gaps between the vehicles are at least as big a factor in safe merging.

Good point.

[Ed Holland]

Genec, you and Bekologist are imagining things that are not so and condemning me for the creations of your imaginations. That is only to be expected, after long experience with your postings that have, particularly those from Bekologist, been mendacious attempts to cover up the absence of any real basis for the bikeways that you love and to impugn the veracity of those who recognize their deficiencies and advocate the superior method of operation. You cannot argue reasonably, because there is no reasonable basis for what you desire, and you can oppose vehicular cycling only by making mendacious insinuations. The pair of you are fine spokesmen for an irrational cause.

Surely, whatever ones viewpoint on "bikeways" might be, one cannot employ them exclusively to make a journey, and a living breathing road will be involved at some point? This being the case, it is good to know how to operate safely and predictably as a roadgoing vehicle.

Is this not a common aim of everyone here?

[Bekologist]

In honor of Serge, I 'd like to try and bring this thread back onto topic, which was 'replacing the old memes with the new/vc memes' I started these lists in another thread:

1. The main rule is: stay out of the way of cars.
2. Always assume you're invisible.
3. Bike lanes keep motorists from hitting cyclists.
4. Cyclists need their own separate space.

with VC memes:

1. Cyclists fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles.
2. Position yourself to be conspicuous and predictable.
3. Trust, but verify.
4. Ignore bike lane stripes - that is, decide where to ride as if the bike lane stripe is not there (which may or may not result in you riding in the bike lane, or even on the stripe, depending on conditions).
5. At junctions and intersections and their approaches, use destination positioning (left if going left, right if going right, in between if going straight).
6. Use speed positioning between junctions and intersections (slower traffic keeps right).



Now, I take issue with the supposed old/new vc split; There are bicycle safety material dating back to the 1950's about bicycle driving; several bike safety movies are viewable on U-tube that date back to the 1950's and deal with responsible riding and road use, bicycle driving and the like. To me, the notion of replacing an old bicycling cosmology with a new, suppossedly better cosmology is suspect. But, in the interests of honoring Serge's last thread, I think we should redirect the thread to its' original intent:

Replacing the old bicycling memes with the new bicycling memes.

If ec includes sharing narrow lanes as faster traffic overtakes on both sides of me, I want no part of that second class lane position.

old: ride the sides of narrow lanes and leave the onus on the motorists to pass safely.
new: embraces claiming lanes too narrow to be shared fairly unequivocacally.

old memes: ride road sneak in narrow lanes while turning left for the conveinence of motorists overtaking.
new memes: claim lanes too narrow to be safely shared. claim the lane while while crossing lanes to turn left, to aquire a safety pocket approaching left turns.

My criteria for safe lane sharing is more critical than a lot of you if riding like a road sneak in standard nonsharable lanes as motorists swarm around you is part of a vehicular cycling repetoire!

I want none of that! I want MORE space in what is considered a 'shareable' lane. 14 feet is not enough as a fast bicyclist, no thanks, I'll be riding 6-7 feet into standard & minimum WOLs lane on typical urban/suburban streets and taking most all of that, thank you very much! 18 feet, maybe I'll share with faster traffic.

I can't see the new vc memes endorsing second class positioning ideas of riding like a road sneak. I bet riding like a 'road sneak' could lead to dodging in and out of parked cars!

[Allister]

Genec, you and Bekologist are imagining things that are not so and condemning me for the creations of your imaginations. That is only to be expected, after long experience with your postings that have, particularly those from Bekologist, been mendacious attempts to cover up the absence of any real basis for the bikeways that you love and to impugn the veracity of those who recognize their deficiencies and advocate the superior method of operation. You cannot argue reasonably, because there is no reasonable basis for what you desire, and you can oppose vehicular cycling only by making mendacious insinuations. The pair of you are fine spokesmen for an irrational cause.

That's a bit rich. Mate, it's only your dogmatic refusal to see that's there's room in this wide, wonderful world for separate facilities and road riding that makes reasonable argument impossible.

[Bekologist]

effective cycling is fraught with inferiorities. forestor es is part of the OLD memes. the old memes of riding like a road sneak in narrow lanes so motorists can pass might lead to dodging in and out of the parked cars.

Failure to recognize well provided bicycling infrastructure is part of the old memes.
The new memes embraces adaptive cycling and well provided bikeways including bike lanes!

[Bekologist]

That's a bit rich. Mate, it's only your dogmatic refusal to see that's there's room in this wide, wonderful world for separate facilities and road riding that makes reasonable argument impossible.


Allister, john's use of 'bikeways' is disengenous. He's for (extremely) limited application of seperate facilites, but cannot and will not endorse on road, integrated bike facilities like well provided bike lanes along major arterials, or bike lanes that provide urban cyclists advantages in crowded urban streetscapes like the new ones in NYC.

He's for 'bikeways' but issues a blanket condemnation if they are integrated with general traffic flow with. maybe this is another hint of ec inferiority of the old memes, the inability to ride a bikeway integrated with other types of traffic! ;)


And its HILARIOUS! Everywhere I go in the USA, more and more effectively designed and implemented bike lanes on roads a vehicular cyclist can ride in without issue... the old vc memes better get on the bandwagon and figure out how to ride this stuff effectively, it isn't going away anytime soon.

[genec]

In honor of Serge, I 'd like to try and bring this thread back onto topic, which was 'replacing the old memes with the new/vc memes'

Now, I take issue with the supposed old/new vc split; There are bicycle safety material dating back to the 1950's about bicycle driving; several bike safety movies are viewable on U-tube that date back to the 1950's and deal with responsible riding and road use, bicycle driving and the like. To me, the notion of replacing an old bicycling cosmology with a new, suppossedly better cosmology is suspect. But, in the interests of honoring Serge's last thread, I think we should redirect the thread to its' original intent:

Replacing the old bicycling memes with the new bicycling memes.

If ec includes sharing narrow lanes as faster traffic overtakes on both sides of me, I want no part of that second class lane position.

old: ride the sides of narrow lanes and leave the onus on the motorists to pass safely.
new: embraces claiming lanes too narrow to be shared fairly unequivocacally.

old memes: ride road sneak in narrow lanes while turning left for the conveinence of motorists overtaking.
new memes: claim lanes too narrow to be safely shared. claim the lane while while crossing lanes to turn left, to aquire a safety pocket approaching left turns.

My criteria for safe lane sharing is more critical than a lot of you if riding like a road sneak in standard nonsharable lanes as motorists swarm around you is part of a vehicular cycling repetoire!

I want none of that! I want MORE space in what is considered a 'shareable' lane. 14 feet is not enough as a fast bicyclist, no thanks, I'll be riding 6-7 feet into standard & minimum WOLs lane on typical urban/suburban streets and taking most all of that, thank you very much! 18 feet, maybe I'll share with faster traffic.

I can't see the new vc memes endorsing second class positioning ideas of riding like a road sneak. I bet riding like a 'road sneak' could lead to dodging in and out of parked cars!

Nice on topic list Bek. And not a single mention of "dreaded bikeways." You forgot to mention "riding on the road stripes between lanes... "

old memes: riding on the stripes between lanes
new memes: what are you f*cking kidding... as 55MPH traffic zooms past you on either side, what you gotta death wish!! Signal and wait for traffic to slow and then move over and claim a lane.

[Ed Holland]

This is getting interesting again :)

[invisiblehand]

I want none of that! I want MORE space in what is considered a 'shareable' lane. 14 feet is not enough as a fast bicyclist, no thanks, I'll be riding 6-7 feet into standard & minimum WOLs lane on typical urban/suburban streets and taking most all of that, thank you very much! 18 feet, maybe I'll share with faster traffic.

(No sarcasm here ... these are real questions)

Really? Are you including a shoulder? I recall that you wrote that motorized speed is the primary concern here. How fast -- your guess is fine -- does traffic have to be to take a 15-foot lane in your opinion.

What happens when you do this on a 14/15-foot lane?

If you have time, it would be helpful to plop some google maps in your discussion.

[The Human Car]

... and to impugn the veracity of those who recognize their deficiencies and advocate the superior method of operation. You cannot argue reasonably, because there is no reasonable basis for what you desire, and you can oppose vehicular cycling only by making mendacious insinuations. The pair of you are fine spokesmen for an irrational cause.

This statement can be applied to both sides of the argument. The only "facts" presented on your side of the argument have been figments of your imagination and by making mendacious insinuations like above.

[The Human Car]

This being the case, it is good to know how to operate safely and predictably as a roadgoing vehicle.

Is this not a common aim of everyone here?

:roflmao: The common goal is how to best articulate: You are nuts if you ride too far right and your are nuts if you take the lane. :p

[genec]

:roflmao: The common goal is how to best articulate: You are nuts if you ride too far right and your are nuts if you take the lane. :p

So where does that leave us?

[The Human Car]

So where does that leave us?

Ummm, nuts who like to ride bikes??? [Hopefully with a bit of common sense.]

[John Forester]

In honor of Serge, I 'd like to try and bring this thread back onto topic, which was 'replacing the old memes with the new/vc memes'

Now, I take issue with the supposed old/new vc split; There are bicycle safety material dating back to the 1950's about bicycle driving; several bike safety movies are viewable on U-tube that date back to the 1950's and deal with responsible riding and road use, bicycle driving and the like. To me, the notion of replacing an old bicycling cosmology with a new, suppossedly better cosmology is suspect. But, in the interests of honoring Serge's last thread, I think we should redirect the thread to its' original intent:

Replacing the old bicycling memes with the new bicycling memes.

If ec includes sharing narrow lanes as faster traffic overtakes on both sides of me, I want no part of that second class lane position.

old: ride the sides of narrow lanes and leave the onus on the motorists to pass safely.
new: embraces claiming lanes too narrow to be shared fairly unequivocacally.

old memes: ride road sneak in narrow lanes while turning left for the conveinence of motorists overtaking.
new memes: claim lanes too narrow to be safely shared. claim the lane while while crossing lanes to turn left, to aquire a safety pocket approaching left turns.

My criteria for safe lane sharing is more critical than a lot of you if riding like a road sneak in standard nonsharable lanes as motorists swarm around you is part of a vehicular cycling repetoire!

I want none of that! I want MORE space in what is considered a 'shareable' lane. 14 feet is not enough as a fast bicyclist, no thanks, I'll be riding 6-7 feet into standard & minimum WOLs lane on typical urban/suburban streets and taking most all of that, thank you very much! 18 feet, maybe I'll share with faster traffic.

I can't see the new vc memes endorsing second class positioning ideas of riding like a road sneak. I bet riding like a 'road sneak' could lead to dodging in and out of parked cars!

I have been challenged when stating that you, Bekologist, have been making false statements about vehicular cycling or my cycling style. Your list of statements above proves my argument.

B: " If ec includes sharing narrow lanes as faster traffic overtakes on both sides of me, I want no part of that second class lane position." No vehicular cyclist whom I know has stated that position.

B: "ride the sides of narrow lanes and leave the onus on the motorists to pass safely." No vehicular cyclist whom I know has stated this position.

B: " old memes: ride road sneak in narrow lanes while turning left for the conveinence of motorists overtaking.
new memes: claim lanes too narrow to be safely shared. claim the lane while while crossing lanes to turn left, to aquire a safety pocket approaching left turns." No vehicular cyclist whom I know has made the first statement, and all have supported the latter.

B: "My criteria for safe lane sharing is more critical than a lot of you if riding like a road sneak in standard nonsharable lanes as motorists swarm around you is part of a vehicular cycling repetoire!" First, no vehicular cyclist whom I have known has stated B's first claim about riding like a road sneak in standard nonshareable lanes. Second, B's opinion clearly demonstrates that he is far more frightened about same-direction motor traffic than I am.

B: " I want none of that! I want MORE space in what is considered a 'shareable' lane. 14 feet is not enough as a fast bicyclist, no thanks, I'll be riding 6-7 feet into standard & minimum WOLs lane on typical urban/suburban streets and taking most all of that, thank you very much! 18 feet, maybe I'll share with faster traffic." More proof, more extreme proof, about B's exaggerated fear of same-direction motor traffic.

B: "I can't see the new vc memes endorsing second class positioning ideas of riding like a road sneak. I bet riding like a 'road sneak' could lead to dodging in and out of parked cars!" More of B's clearly false statements. No vehicular cyclist whom I know endorses second-class positioning; more accurately, they don't accept second-class status. No vehicular cyclist whom I know recommends dodging in and out of parked cars. My use of the phrase "road sneak" referred to only one move, that when intending to change lanes in traffic so much faster that negotiation is difficult, one waits for the gap to come along, which means preparing to change lanes earlier than one would in slower traffic.

Bekologist's own words demonstrate the extent to which he has taken phrases and misapplied them in exaggerated manner to denigrate vehicular cycling, or my cycling style, to advance his own ideology of bikeway advocacy. Bekologist's own words also demonstrate the exaggerated fear of same-direction motor traffic, which is the defining feature and motivation for bikeways advocacy. It is possible that he himself suffers from this exaggerated fear of same-direction motor traffic, but if he doesn't he is speaking for the public that does possess it, because he thinks that using that fear is the best way to reduce motoring. There's no guessing about that, for he has often enough written precisely that.

[Bekologist]

at what specific speed of passing traffic do you recommend vehicular cyclists go from claiming narrow lanes setting up for left turns, and riding like a road sneak between faster passing traffic?

why it is NOT inferior lane positioning between two 12 foot, standard (nonshareable) lane? dodging between faster streams of traffic on a bicycle is sure to be seen and reacted to as abberrant, unexpected, unvehicular traffic behavior.

I still think it could lead to staying out of the way of cars more and more, a slippery slope leading to dodging in and out of parked cars to share road space with overtaking traffic-

a related theory to johns' road sneak methods, i can see it now...
'dodge in and out of parked cars- the onus of safe passing is on the motorist, so what?'

[Bekologist]

(No sarcasm here ... these are real questions)

Really? Are you including a shoulder? I recall that you wrote that motorized speed is the primary concern here. How fast -- your guess is fine -- does traffic have to be to take a 15-foot lane in your opinion.

What happens when you do this on a 14/15-foot lane?

If you have time, it would be helpful to plop some google maps in your discussion.

Well. there's a LOT of variablities. of course.

one thing. 12 foot standard lanes are not shareable in my opinion except at very LOW speed differential, like congested city traffic, where the bicyclist is picking safe lines thru slower traffic.

14 foot, standard wide outside lanes without bike lanes, I'm not riding any closer than 4-6, often no less than 7 feet closer to the edge of the road, unless speeds of passing traffic exceeds 45mph or so. I would never share a twelve foot lane with faster traffic on both sides as I was preparing to turn left unless i've screwed up my lane positioning.

roads with shoulders or well provided bike lanes are, of course, a different story. But 14 foot lanes, I'm holding pretty firm in the middle of a 14 foot lane (the difference is very slight claiming a 12 footer from a 14 footer, if you all hadn't noticed) unless traffic starts to move over 45mph.


As lanes approach 16-18 foot lanes I feel comfortable riding 1-4 feet from the edge and sharing with faster traffic.

At the same time, there are plenty of situations I'm sharing narrow lanes with faster traffic. I live in a big city and bike commute and ride my bike for errands and recreation as well- 100-400 miles a week depending on season in all traffic, weather and road environments.

[The Human Car]

I have been challenged when stating that you, Bekologist, have been making false statements about vehicular cycling or my cycling style. Your list of statements above proves my argument.

B: " If ec includes sharing narrow lanes as faster traffic overtakes on both sides of me, I want no part of that second class lane position." No vehicular cyclist whom I know has stated that position.

B: "ride the sides of narrow lanes and leave the onus on the motorists to pass safely." No vehicular cyclist whom I know has stated this position.

B: " old memes: ride road sneak in narrow lanes while turning left for the conveinence of motorists overtaking.
new memes: claim lanes too narrow to be safely shared. claim the lane while while crossing lanes to turn left, to aquire a safety pocket approaching left turns." No vehicular cyclist whom I know has made the first statement, and all have supported the latter.

B: "My criteria for safe lane sharing is more critical than a lot of you if riding like a road sneak in standard nonsharable lanes as motorists swarm around you is part of a vehicular cycling repetoire!" First, no vehicular cyclist whom I have known has stated B's first claim about riding like a road sneak in standard nonshareable lanes. Second, B's opinion clearly demonstrates that he is far more frightened about same-direction motor traffic than I am.

B: " I want none of that! I want MORE space in what is considered a 'shareable' lane. 14 feet is not enough as a fast bicyclist, no thanks, I'll be riding 6-7 feet into standard & minimum WOLs lane on typical urban/suburban streets and taking most all of that, thank you very much! 18 feet, maybe I'll share with faster traffic." More proof, more extreme proof, about B's exaggerated fear of same-direction motor traffic.

B: "I can't see the new vc memes endorsing second class positioning ideas of riding like a road sneak. I bet riding like a 'road sneak' could lead to dodging in and out of parked cars!" More of B's clearly false statements. No vehicular cyclist whom I know endorses second-class positioning; more accurately, they don't accept second-class status. No vehicular cyclist whom I know recommends dodging in and out of parked cars. My use of the phrase "road sneak" referred to only one move, that when intending to change lanes in traffic so much faster that negotiation is difficult, one waits for the gap to come along, which means preparing to change lanes earlier than one would in slower traffic.

Bekologist's own words demonstrate the extent to which he has taken phrases and misapplied them in exaggerated manner to denigrate vehicular cycling, or my cycling style, to advance his own ideology of bikeway advocacy. Bekologist's own words also demonstrate the exaggerated fear of same-direction motor traffic, which is the defining feature and motivation for bikeways advocacy. It is possible that he himself suffers from this exaggerated fear of same-direction motor traffic, but if he doesn't he is speaking for the public that does possess it, because he thinks that using that fear is the best way to reduce motoring. There's no guessing about that, for he has often enough written precisely that.

This is so full of delusions it is almost unbelievable. Beck has been advancing the how and why he takes the lane and has not put forth any bikeway advocacy in this thread. You assert that because of fear of same-direction traffic he is taking the lane and riding with motoring traffic??? That conclusion is laughable.

You on the other hand seem to be advocating to stay out of motorists way irregardless of any safety concerns based solely on the fact because you have no fear. As if no fear of same-direction traffic is the ultimate goal even though one could ascribe problems of same-direction traffic to include (IMHO implied in Beck's posts) right-hooks, mirroring and unsafe passing distance as well as (NOT implied in Beck's posts) the fear of being rear-ended. Beck's riding style seems to account for all the legitimate safety concerns of the subclasses of problems with same-direction traffic while your riding style seems to only deal with the problem of being rear-ended. While that is not your stated intention you poo-poo Beck for his lack of concern of being rear-ended and being "overly" concerned about right-hooks and the safe passing distances of motorists. I personally find this very disingenuous on your part.

Personally I think both of you are scraping the bottom of the barrel to find fault with the other and have resorted to making things up and exaggerating things out of context.

[John Forester]

at what specific speed of passing traffic do you recommend vehicular cyclists go from claiming narrow lanes setting up for left turns, and riding like a road sneak between faster passing traffic?

why it is NOT inferior lane positioning between two 12 foot, standard (nonshareable) lane? dodging between faster streams of traffic on a bicycle is sure to be seen and reacted to as abberrant, unexpected, unvehicular traffic behavior.

I still think it could lead to staying out of the way of cars more and more, a slippery slope leading to dodging in and out of parked cars to share road space with overtaking traffic-

a related theory to johns' road sneak methods, i can see it now...
'dodge in and out of parked cars- the onus of safe passing is on the motorist, so what?'

More of Bekologist's imaginations and exaggerations are here depicted in his own words.

B: "at what specific speed of passing traffic do you recommend vehicular cyclists go from claiming narrow lanes setting up for left turns, and riding like a road sneak between faster passing traffic?" I do not make such a recommendation.

B: " why it is NOT inferior lane positioning between two 12 foot, standard (nonshareable) lane? dodging between faster streams of traffic on a bicycle is sure to be seen and reacted to as abberrant, unexpected, unvehicular traffic behavior." Just shows all of us how little you know about cycling in traffic. You assert as if it were truth a statement that has been proved false by a great deal of experience. The cyclist is not acting inferior; rather he is asserting his right to use width that is available to him provided that he obeys the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles. There is no dodging involved, either, contrary to your assertion. In many years of both cycling in this manner and observing it being done, and of seeing motorcyclists do it, I have never seen observed the car-drivers doing anything different, of acting in any way that they thought this "aberrant, unexpected, unvehicular traffic behavior."

B: " I still think it could lead to staying out of the way of cars more and more, a slippery slope leading to dodging in and out of parked cars to share road space with overtaking traffic-" That's your prediction based on your own peculiar view of vehicular cycling. There is no evidence that this has ever occurred, and the contrary evidence is that vehicular cyclists specifically discourage such dodging, recommending that cyclists keep a straight line.

B: " a related theory to johns' road sneak methods, i can see it now...
'dodge in and out of parked cars- the onus of safe passing is on the motorist, so what?" There is a proverb about not attributing to malice what can be produced by stupidity. Not even Bekologist could be so stupid as to make such a statement out of stupidity. The law about overtaking requires that the faster driver ensure that his overtaking movement is done safely, both for the safety of the slower driver and for the safety of all other nearby drivers. However, the overtaking law also requires that the slower driver not hinder the faster driver by changing course or increasing speed. As I have specifically written time after time, when discussing this and similar subjects, a driver who wishes to move laterally on the roadway, as when dodging in and out between parked cars, gives up his right to continue and must yield to overtaking traffic before moving laterally, as when intending to get around a parked car.

Bekologist's own words demonstrate that he cannot make the arguments he desires to make unless he grotesquely mischaracterizes his target.

[John Forester]

This statement can be applied to both sides of the argument. The only "facts" presented on your side of the argument have been figments of your imagination and by making mendacious insinuations like above.

I notice that you, Human Car, have not been able to produce data and reasoning supporting the concept that bikeways produce substantial transportational benefits to cyclists according to the standard transportational criteria of safety and convenience. Your arguments rely on other and indirect criteria. I have presented data and reasoning that demonstrate that bikeways are most unlikely to produce such benefits. Criticize those data and reasoning if you wish. Until then, I regard your statement that I have produced only figments of my imagination as being unsupported by any data. As for what you claim to be mendacious insinuations, I suggest that you provide a different analysis of the bikeway movement that demonstrates that I have lied about it. Go ahead, be our guest.

[genec]

I notice that you, Human Car, have not been able to produce data and reasoning supporting the concept that bikeways produce substantial transportational benefits to cyclists according to the standard transportational criteria of safety and convenience. Your arguments rely on other and indirect criteria. I have presented data and reasoning that demonstrate that bikeways are most unlikely to produce such benefits. Criticize those data and reasoning if you wish. Until then, I regard your statement that I have produced only figments of my imagination as being unsupported by any data. As for what you claim to be mendacious insinuations, I suggest that you provide a different analysis of the bikeway movement that demonstrates that I have lied about it. Go ahead, be our guest.

John, I don't how to break it gently to you... but this thread is NOT about bikeways... and in fact I believe you were the first one to mention bikeways...

Please refer to the opening post to see what this thread is all about, and try to keep it on topic.

[The Human Car]

I notice that you, Human Car, have not been able to produce data and reasoning supporting the concept that bikeways produce substantial transportational benefits to cyclists according to the standard transportational criteria of safety and convenience. Your arguments rely on other and indirect criteria. I have presented data and reasoning that demonstrate that bikeways are most unlikely to produce such benefits. Criticize those data and reasoning if you wish. Until then, I regard your statement that I have produced only figments of my imagination as being unsupported by any data. As for what you claim to be mendacious insinuations, I suggest that you provide a different analysis of the bikeway movement that demonstrates that I have lied about it. Go ahead, be our guest.

JF Lies:
I am a member of the bikeway movement.
Bike lanes are more dangerous then roads without bike lanes (no data to support this claim and by what ever reasoning that you use to make them more dangerous, I can use the same reasoning to make them safer but ONLY to make a case that there is no significant difference with or without bike lanes in regards to cyclists safety as that is what the data supports and no amount of fabrication on your part is going to change that.)
Whoever does not agree with JF is a bikeway advocate, no other choice is even remotely possible not even JF's stated compromise position is a valid consideration.
I need to produce data to assert a claim that I have never made.
JF can assert that WOLs and shoulders are desirable but if anyone else that agrees with that assertion they are a bikeway advocate and they need data to prove JF's assertion.

To a lesser extent:
Finding fault with Beck's riding style. You have some validity by defending your riding style to Beck but I strongly suspect if you were in Beck's shoes you would ride in a near similar fashion and if Beck was in your shoes he would ride in a similar fashion to you as well. This whole campaign of yours against other VC cyclists and their cyclists inferior road position by taking the lane is a new (to me) mind boggling position of yours.

If I could can I ask you a question? I understand and am empathetic with your issues against LAB but what about LAB Reform, are they a bunch of bikeway advocates as well? And what about the NCUTCD-BTC are they all a bunch of bikeway advocates also? No need to identify members but I am interested in a approximate ratio of those groups that you feel that you have no disagreements with.

[invisiblehand]

Well. there's a LOT of variablities. of course.

OK. I don't think that there is anything magical about 14 feet. And I agree that there are a lot of considerations for whether one should take the lane or not.

[John Forester]

This is so full of delusions it is almost unbelievable. Beck has been advancing the how and why he takes the lane and has not put forth any bikeway advocacy in this thread. You assert that because of fear of same-direction traffic he is taking the lane and riding with motoring traffic??? That conclusion is laughable.

You on the other hand seem to be advocating to stay out of motorists way irregardless of any safety concerns based solely on the fact because you have no fear. As if no fear of same-direction traffic is the ultimate goal even though one could ascribe problems of same-direction traffic to include (IMHO implied in Beck's posts) right-hooks, mirroring and unsafe passing distance as well as (NOT implied in Beck's posts) the fear of being rear-ended. Beck's riding style seems to account for all the legitimate safety concerns of the subclasses of problems with same-direction traffic while your riding style seems to only deal with the problem of being rear-ended. While that is not your stated intention you poo-poo Beck for his lack of concern of being rear-ended and being "overly" concerned about right-hooks and the safe passing distances of motorists. I personally find this very disingenuous on your part.

Personally I think both of you are scraping the bottom of the barrel to find fault with the other and have resorted to making things up and exaggerating things out of context.

You assert that Bekologist "has not put forth any bikeway advocacy in this thread." Yet he keeps on referring to bicycle infrastructure as being marvellous, by which he means bikeways. You can't have missed that refrain.

THC: "You assert that because of fear of same-direction traffic he [B] is taking the lane and riding with motoring traffic??? That conclusion is laughable." Surely you can read? I am objecting to B's denigration of my cycling style, in which, it is correct, he boasts about taking the lane, presumably under all conditions. However, B has made it painfully obvious that he is making this argument against my cycling style because he advocates taking the bike lane whenever possible.

You claim: "Beck's riding style seems to account for all the legitimate safety concerns of the subclasses of problems ..."
All I know about B's actual cycling style is what he writes in these discussions. You may know more, or not. But we all know that B has spent a great deal of time advocating bikeways, while largely neglecting the traffic problems associated with them. If he rides as he says, with no exaggerated fear of same-direction motor traffic, then what basis has he for advocating bikeways, in particular bike lanes?

You claim: "while your [meaning JF's] riding style seems to only deal with the problem of being rear-ended." Haven't you read my writings on cycling, writings that disprove the grotesque caricature that B chooses to present?

You claim: "While that is not your stated intention you poo-poo Beck for his lack of concern of being rear-ended and being "overly" concerned about right-hooks and the safe passing distances of motorists. I personally find this very disingenuous on your part." I ask again, can't you read? I never denigrate B for having a lack of concern for being rear-ended, and I never denigrate B for having excessive concern for right-hooks, or for safe passing distances of motorists. Rather, I have consistently stated that bike-lane advocates, such as B is, consistently exaggerate the concern of being rear-ended and being passed safely, and consistently underrate the proper concern for right-hook collisions.

You opine the following: "Personally I think both of you are scraping the bottom of the barrel to find fault with the other and have resorted to making things up and exaggerating things out of context."

That is a finely impartial opinion, but it does not reflect the facts of the discussion. It is obvious that the source of this particular part of the controversy is the bike lane issue, which is part of the overall bikeway issue. B loves bike lanes, I love vehicular cycling instead. B has chosen to attack me because I am one of the most intellectually capable advocates of vehicular cycling on roadways instead of cyclist-inferiority cycling on bike lanes. However, the facts and reasoning are not evenly balanced on each side. Here is a resume of the facts and reasoning regarding the controversy.

1: Bike lanes were created and designed by motorists for the purpose of keeping cyclists to the side of the roadway. One argument is that this was for the convenience of motorists; the other argument is that this was for the safety of cyclists. If bike lanes had a safety quality, it was only to serve as protection against same-direction motor traffic.These designs were embodied in the government's program regarding bicycle transportation and the laws associated thereto. These are historical facts, well documented.

2: At the time that the bike-lane standard was designed, there were no data supporting the safety argument; indeed the date available (the first Cross study) disproved it as far as its data went.

3: Just after the government's bikeway designs had been created, the first statistically robust study of car-bike collisions, their type, mechanisms, and contributing causes (the second Cross study), was published. This study demonstrated that bike lanes had the possibility of reducing car-bike collisions by a very small amount, and the equal possibility of increasing car-bike collisions by a slightly greater amount.

2: Bike lane designs have not changed much since the original designs, and they still, if obeyed, keep cyclists at the edge of the roadway.

3: The other safety argument advanced for bike lanes was that they made cycling much safer for beginning cyclists who do not have vehicular-cycling skills. That is, bike lanes enable safe cycling by those without, or who do not use, vehicular-cycling skills. No bike-lane advocate has tried to demonstrate this claim, and analysis of the skills required for safe cycling show that vehicular-cycling skills are required whether or not there is a bike-lane system.

4: The other major criterion for personal transportation, other than safety, is convenience. No bike-lane advocate has tried to demonstrate the claim that bike-lanes make cycling more convenient than does the road system itself, because bike lanes are part of the roadway.

5: Vehicular cycling, operating according to the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles, has been shown to present reasonable countermeasures against the major causes of car-bike collisions. This should be expected, because the rules of the road have been developed by practical experience to prevent collisions between drivers. Furthermore, those cyclists who are most likely to operate in this manner have distinctly lower car-bike collision rates than the general cycling public, few of whom who operate in the vehicular manner.

6: Some bike-lane advocates argue that vehicular-cycling skills are unattainable by the general public; others argue simply that learning vehicular-cycling skills, or the use of those skills, is unpopular. The first argument has been amply disproved. The second is correct, but the fact that vehicular cycling is unpopular does not invalidate it as the best method for getting around town by bicycle.

7: The facts that bike lanes are popular while vehicular cycling is unpopular, despite the weight of the evidence in favor of vehicular cycling, demonstrates that some irrational factor is operating when considering cycling from a cyclist's viewpoint, though that may be a rational factor when considering cycling from the motorist's viewpoint.

8: Surveys of public opinion regarding these issues show that the public generally believes that bike lanes make cycling safe, make cycling safe for beginners, and give cyclists a legitimate place on a roadway. These views are all false. When considering these characteristics in greater detail, the safety argument boils down to protection from same-direction motor traffic. Casualties to cyclists caused by same-direction motor traffic constitute only a tiny fraction of all casualties to cyclists, and only a very small proportion of car-bike collisions that occur in urban areas in daylight.

9: Bike-lane advocates are, by the weight of the evidence, reduced to two arguments. The first of these arguments is that of correlation. Bike-lane advocates look at societies in which there is the combination of high bicycle mode share, low cyclist collision rate, and strong governmental programs regarding bicycle transportation. It so happens that these governmental programs almost all include a bike-lane program. Bike-lane advocates then make two arguments. The first is that the bike-lane program produced the high modal share and the low collision rate. The second argument is that if America produced such a bike-lane program similar results would be produced here. The scientific defects in these two arguments based on correlations should be obvious to all.

10: The second argument used by the bike-lane advocates is simply that people like bike lanes and we don't question their reasons. In other words, we accept whatever superstitions people hold.

11: It must be obvious that bike-lane advocates have very strong motivation to advocate their cause despite the absence of reasonable support for it and the facts and reason that form the weight of the evidence against it. I think it most reasonable to conclude that they do not spend this great amount of time and effort merely to protect themselves while cycling. I think that if they thought that cycling was as dangerous as their arguments indicate, they would simply not cycle themselves. I think that the most reasonable explanation for their continued intensive effort in advocacy of bike lanes and of bike paths is what they hope to be the potential reduction of motoring by persuading motorists that bikeways make cycling safe. That ties in with the correlation arguments, also, in that these advocates think that if supposedly safe bikeways were generally available many motorists would transfer many trips from motoring to bicycling, just as they think has occurred in Europe.

12: The combination of very strong motivation with the absence of arguments based on data and reason has led bike-lane advocates, and other bikeway advocates, to use arguments that are based on exaggeration, malice, misrepresentation, and other practices not acceptable in either polite society or in technical discussions.

[The Human Car]

Two comments on JF's post in #194 which is (almost) totally off topic.
JF Lies:
I am a member of the bikeway movement....

and I would like to second and reinforce this comment:

John, I don't how to break it gently to you... but this thread is NOT about bikeways... and in fact I believe you were the first one to mention bikeways...

Please refer to the opening post to see what this thread is all about, and try to keep it on topic.

If you want to discuss bikeways with me please start another thread or respond to my old posts in other threads.

Lastly, for an engineer you seem to use a lot of inexact overly generalized terms, if you mean bike lane then say bike lane not bikeways.

[The Human Car]

THC: "You assert that because of fear of same-direction traffic he [B] is taking the lane and riding with motoring traffic??? That conclusion is laughable."
Surely you can read? I am objecting to B's denigration of my cycling style, in which, it is correct, he boasts about taking the lane, presumably under all conditions. However, B has made it painfully obvious that he is making this argument against my cycling style because he advocates taking the bike lane whenever possible.

Summary: Since B is advocating taking the lane when you do not, he therefore is advocating taking the bike lane whenever possible.

Sorry, I think you are reading much too much into B's statements and has resulted in a flight of fantasy on your part.

You claim: "While that is not your stated intention you poo-poo Beck for his lack of concern of being rear-ended and being "overly" concerned about right-hooks and the safe passing distances of motorists. I personally find this very disingenuous on your part." I ask again, can't you read? I never denigrate B for having a lack of concern for being rear-ended, and I never denigrate B for having excessive concern for right-hooks, or for safe passing distances of motorists. Rather, I have consistently stated that bike-lane advocates, such as B is, consistently exaggerate the concern of being rear-ended and being passed safely, and consistently underrate the proper concern for right-hook collisions.

Summary: By B taking the lane and not riding far right he is exaggerate the concern of being rear-ended and being passed safely, and consistently underrate the proper concern for right-hook collisions.

I'm sorry but I do have to ask can't you you read? This is one of the most illogical arguments and back-a55-word arguments I have heard you present and unfortunately I feel compiled to break it down for you so you understand. When one is afraid of same direction they stay out of traffic's way (as you did in your example) and if no fear of same direction traffic they take the lane (as B did in his example.) When one shows "proper" concern for right-hooks they take the lane (as B did in his example) and if they do not show "proper" concern they ride to the far right (as you did in your example.) I'll agree B is overly picking on you for that example, but in return you are overly picking on him.

This may come to a surprise to you that even bike lane advocates discuss how to ride safely in the absence of bike lanes. Just because B is a bike lane advocate does not mean when he is riding without bike lanes he is doing it all wrong.

Edit: I will also note no matter how wrong a person generally is they do get a thing right from time to time, that goes for B as well as you. Personally I think when a person is right (or near right) that should be acknowledged as a simple matter of courtesy and help keeping the forum decor.

[Bekologist]

thank you.

[The Human Car]

This maybe of interest: http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=6468065&postcount=24

[The Human Car]

thank you.

You're welcome but since I am in a "mood" I for one would appreciate if you could at least start off your conversations with JF with a bit more civil tone. I understand where you are coming from but still, it might help things to be a bit nicer here and all I am asking is just make an effort at the start.

Finally can we get back to the topic without bike lanes? I though it was somewhat interesting, an excerpt from the op:


The main effort is to replace the old memes, like
The main rule is: stay out of the way of cars.
Always assume you're invisible.
Bike lanes keep motorists from hitting cyclists.
Cyclists need their own separate space.with VC memes:
Cyclists fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles.
Position yourself to be conspicuous and predictable.
Trust, but verify.
Ignore bike lane stripes - that is, decide where to ride as if the bike lane stripe is not there (which may or may not result in you riding in the bike lane, or even on the stripe, depending on conditions).
At junctions and intersections and their approaches, use destination positioning (left if going left, right if going right, in between if going straight).



Let's try to identify all of the old memes we're trying to replace, and the new memes we're trying to replace them with.


To start, here is another old meme that needs to be tossed: There is often/usually one particular appropriate lateral position for bicyclists to use, largely independent of the current situation and conditions. (note that this is part of the basis for bike lanes and sharrows).

The new VC meme is: The appropriate lateral position for bicyclists often varies based on the current situation and conditions.

[Allister]

You assert that Bekologist "has not put forth any bikeway advocacy in this thread." Yet he keeps on referring to bicycle infrastructure as being marvellous, by which he means bikeways. You can't have missed that refrain.

THC: "You assert that because of fear of same-direction traffic he [B] is taking the lane and riding with motoring traffic??? That conclusion is laughable." Surely you can read? I am objecting to B's denigration of my cycling style, in which, it is correct, he boasts about taking the lane, presumably under all conditions. However, B has made it painfully obvious that he is making this argument against my cycling style because he advocates taking the bike lane whenever possible.

You claim: "Beck's riding style seems to account for all the legitimate safety concerns of the subclasses of problems ..."
All I know about B's actual cycling style is what he writes in these discussions. You may know more, or not. But we all know that B has spent a great deal of time advocating bikeways, while largely neglecting the traffic problems associated with them. If he rides as he says, with no exaggerated fear of same-direction motor traffic, then what basis has he for advocating bikeways, in particular bike lanes?

You claim: "while your [meaning JF's] riding style seems to only deal with the problem of being rear-ended." Haven't you read my writings on cycling, writings that disprove the grotesque caricature that B chooses to present?

You claim: "While that is not your stated intention you poo-poo Beck for his lack of concern of being rear-ended and being "overly" concerned about right-hooks and the safe passing distances of motorists. I personally find this very disingenuous on your part." I ask again, can't you read? I never denigrate B for having a lack of concern for being rear-ended, and I never denigrate B for having excessive concern for right-hooks, or for safe passing distances of motorists. Rather, I have consistently stated that bike-lane advocates, such as B is, consistently exaggerate the concern of being rear-ended and being passed safely, and consistently underrate the proper concern for right-hook collisions.

You opine the following: "Personally I think both of you are scraping the bottom of the barrel to find fault with the other and have resorted to making things up and exaggerating things out of context."

That is a finely impartial opinion, but it does not reflect the facts of the discussion. It is obvious that the source of this particular part of the controversy is the bike lane issue, which is part of the overall bikeway issue. B loves bike lanes, I love vehicular cycling instead. B has chosen to attack me because I am one of the most intellectually capable advocates of vehicular cycling on roadways instead of cyclist-inferiority cycling on bike lanes. However, the facts and reasoning are not evenly balanced on each side. Here is a resume of the facts and reasoning regarding the controversy.

1: Bike lanes were created and designed by motorists for the purpose of keeping cyclists to the side of the roadway. One argument is that this was for the convenience of motorists; the other argument is that this was for the safety of cyclists. If bike lanes had a safety quality, it was only to serve as protection against same-direction motor traffic.These designs were embodied in the government's program regarding bicycle transportation and the laws associated thereto. These are historical facts, well documented.

2: At the time that the bike-lane standard was designed, there were no data supporting the safety argument; indeed the date available (the first Cross study) disproved it as far as its data went.

3: Just after the government's bikeway designs had been created, the first statistically robust study of car-bike collisions, their type, mechanisms, and contributing causes (the second Cross study), was published. This study demonstrated that bike lanes had the possibility of reducing car-bike collisions by a very small amount, and the equal possibility of increasing car-bike collisions by a slightly greater amount.

2: Bike lane designs have not changed much since the original designs, and they still, if obeyed, keep cyclists at the edge of the roadway.

3: The other safety argument advanced for bike lanes was that they made cycling much safer for beginning cyclists who do not have vehicular-cycling skills. That is, bike lanes enable safe cycling by those without, or who do not use, vehicular-cycling skills. No bike-lane advocate has tried to demonstrate this claim, and analysis of the skills required for safe cycling show that vehicular-cycling skills are required whether or not there is a bike-lane system.

4: The other major criterion for personal transportation, other than safety, is convenience. No bike-lane advocate has tried to demonstrate the claim that bike-lanes make cycling more convenient than does the road system itself, because bike lanes are part of the roadway.

5: Vehicular cycling, operating according to the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles, has been shown to present reasonable countermeasures against the major causes of car-bike collisions. This should be expected, because the rules of the road have been developed by practical experience to prevent collisions between drivers. Furthermore, those cyclists who are most likely to operate in this manner have distinctly lower car-bike collision rates than the general cycling public, few of whom who operate in the vehicular manner.

6: Some bike-lane advocates argue that vehicular-cycling skills are unattainable by the general public; others argue simply that learning vehicular-cycling skills, or the use of those skills, is unpopular. The first argument has been amply disproved. The second is correct, but the fact that vehicular cycling is unpopular does not invalidate it as the best method for getting around town by bicycle.

7: The facts that bike lanes are popular while vehicular cycling is unpopular, despite the weight of the evidence in favor of vehicular cycling, demonstrates that some irrational factor is operating when considering cycling from a cyclist's viewpoint, though that may be a rational factor when considering cycling from the motorist's viewpoint.

8: Surveys of public opinion regarding these issues show that the public generally believes that bike lanes make cycling safe, make cycling safe for beginners, and give cyclists a legitimate place on a roadway. These views are all false. When considering these characteristics in greater detail, the safety argument boils down to protection from same-direction motor traffic. Casualties to cyclists caused by same-direction motor traffic constitute only a tiny fraction of all casualties to cyclists, and only a very small proportion of car-bike collisions that occur in urban areas in daylight.

9: Bike-lane advocates are, by the weight of the evidence, reduced to two arguments. The first of these arguments is that of correlation. Bike-lane advocates look at societies in which there is the combination of high bicycle mode share, low cyclist collision rate, and strong governmental programs regarding bicycle transportation. It so happens that these governmental programs almost all include a bike-lane program. Bike-lane advocates then make two arguments. The first is that the bike-lane program produced the high modal share and the low collision rate. The second argument is that if America produced such a bike-lane program similar results would be produced here. The scientific defects in these two arguments based on correlations should be obvious to all.

10: The second argument used by the bike-lane advocates is simply that people like bike lanes and we don't question their reasons. In other words, we accept whatever superstitions people hold.

11: It must be obvious that bike-lane advocates have very strong motivation to advocate their cause despite the absence of reasonable support for it and the facts and reason that form the weight of the evidence against it. I think it most reasonable to conclude that they do not spend this great amount of time and effort merely to protect themselves while cycling. I think that if they thought that cycling was as dangerous as their arguments indicate, they would simply not cycle themselves. I think that the most reasonable explanation for their continued intensive effort in advocacy of bike lanes and of bike paths is what they hope to be the potential reduction of motoring by persuading motorists that bikeways make cycling safe. That ties in with the correlation arguments, also, in that these advocates think that if supposedly safe bikeways were generally available many motorists would transfer many trips from motoring to bicycling, just as they think has occurred in Europe.

12: The combination of very strong motivation with the absence of arguments based on data and reason has led bike-lane advocates, and other bikeway advocates, to use arguments that are based on exaggeration, malice, misrepresentation, and other practices not acceptable in either polite society or in technical discussions.

too long: didn't read

Don't you have anything better to do?