Vehicular Cycling (VC) - Vehicular Cycling - a motorhead's wet dream?

What other form of cycling completely ignores the benefits of cycling in service of a deep love for traffic engineering standards? I can't think of any, can you?

The problem with being so deeply in love with traffic engineering (as it is practiced in the U.S.), is that this trade is completely circumscribed by the interests of private motorists.

How do traffic engineers measure a roadway?

Level Of Service, Average Daily Trips, Vehicle Miles Traveled, "mobility" (miles traveled, by car, in a set time period) to name just a few.

All of these measures have to do with the number, volume, and speed of private automobiles. No other type of measurements are used to design and plan a roadway. Well, they do use fatalities at crosswalks to eliminate pedestrian facilities, and fatalities on bike lanes to eliminate bike lanes, but you get the idea.

Vehicular Cycling ignores practical methods to affect a better regime of roadway planning in the U.S. - political and cultural change that will lead to a reworking of these car-based standards.

The whole thing reminds me of the inward turning self-improvement movements of the 1970's (after real change in this country was squashed by the government).

If nothing else, VC has turned some of the smartest and hard working cyclists in a generation into anti-human, anti-bike, snobs. They condescend the common man or woman (or child) that wants to safely ride around town to perform the same sort of utilitarian tasks people use their cars for now. I'm 29, and relatively fit - so I use what little I've learned from VC proponents to protect myself. This is like survival training for young men in the military, "Carry this large backpack of water and supplies on you at all times, as you'll need it to survive (young and old folks need not apply)."

This approach to cycling advocacy overlooks the benefits of cycling in a larger transportation planning regime, and it puts off people who don't want to (or simply cannot) ride on city streets averaging 18-25mph on a bike.

Of course. This is why VC alone will never lead to more than 1% of the country choosing the bicycle as a means of transportation. Every bike friendly city in the past 50 years has followed the same formula: reduce and restrict the automobile while increasing bike and public transport infrastructure. It's a proven, workable formula that's seen success all over Europe. Most "serious" cyclists in the US, however, insist on trying to push the square wheel of vehicular cycling. And unsurprisingly, we continue to fail each year while other cyclists in other countries follow the blueprint and take back their cities from the automobile. Our loss.

Yet time and again, the lone rear-view mirrored VC proponent shows up at community meetings and demands that bike lanes be removed from transportation plans.

This is so frustrating!

It sometimes feels like their solution to everything is, "Take my Road 1 course!"

I just had to vent, after reading so much inane banter about bike lanes being the work of satan.

Yawn.

Lol?

Typical anti-VC rant. A lot of name calling and nothing of substance.

Seems a little VC education might do you some good.

http://ubrayj02.blogspot.com/2005/12/goddamn-bikes.html#comments

I have to wonder how you people are riding to get anywhere without using vehicular cycling. It's must be one heck of a free-for-all out there in your towns and cities. Nothing wrong with cycle-specific lanes and paths if they get you where you want, but the problem is, the non-vehicular cyclists are not following normal or common-sense rules of the road on the lanes and paths either. This is why these are so dangerous to ride on if you're a "serious" cyclist (and no, riding dangerously fast in a permanent time-trial on a new Cervelo doesn't make you a serious cyclist). The people in those European cities that people like to give as an example are part of a civilization that is actually civilized. Bike lanes and paths work there because people ride their bikes more sensibly. There is a sense of being part of a community and the common good there. This isn't the case in the me-first and everyone-else-be-damned mentality so prevalent in North America.

of course. This is why vc alone will never lead to more than 1% of the country choosing the bicycle as a means of transportation. Every bike friendly city in the past 50 years has followed the same formula: Reduce and restrict the automobile while increasing bike and public transport infrastructure. It's a proven, workable formula that's seen success all over europe. Most "serious" cyclists in the us, however, insist on trying to push the square wheel of vehicular cycling. And unsurprisingly, we continue to fail each year while other cyclists in other countries follow the blueprint and take back their cities from the automobile. Our loss.

word.

What other form of cycling completely ignores the benefits of cycling in service of a deep love for traffic engineering standards? I can't think of any, can you?

The problem with being so deeply in love with traffic engineering (as it is practiced in the U.S.), is that this trade is completely circumscribed by the interests of private motorists.

How do traffic engineers measure a roadway?

Level Of Service, Average Daily Trips, Vehicle Miles Traveled, "mobility" (miles traveled, by car, in a set time period) to name just a few.

All of these measures have to do with the number, volume, and speed of private automobiles. No other type of measurements are used to design and plan a roadway. Well, they do use fatalities at crosswalks to eliminate pedestrian facilities, and fatalities on bike lanes to eliminate bike lanes, but you get the idea.

Vehicular Cycling ignores practical methods to affect a better regime of roadway planning in the U.S. - political and cultural change that will lead to a reworking of these car-based standards.

The whole thing reminds me of the inward turning self-improvement movements of the 1970's (after real change in this country was squashed by the government).

If nothing else, VC has turned some of the smartest and hard working cyclists in a generation into anti-human, anti-bike, snobs. They condescend the common man or woman (or child) that wants to safely ride around town to perform the same sort of utilitarian tasks people use their cars for now. I'm 29, and relatively fit - so I use what little I've learned from VC proponents to protect myself. This is like survival training for young men in the military, "Carry this large backpack of water and supplies on you at all times, as you'll need it to survive (young and old folks need not apply)."

This approach to cycling advocacy overlooks the benefits of cycling in a larger transportation planning regime, and it puts off people who don't want to (or simply cannot) ride on city streets averaging 18-25mph on a bike.
I feel that cyclists are not all the same (just take a look at this website!) So any attempt to put all cyclists into one box is futile.

But VC expanded my horizons in daily commuting. I'm grateful for that, but I also encourage a more open-minded, all-inclusive cycling philosophy that embraces as many options for cyclists as possible.

There really is no need for cyclists to war against each other, there are few who really understand us as it is.

(My daily commute is 30 miles round-trip in Atlanta, and I've been commuting for over a decade. I use a MUP for about 2 miles of that trip, homebound only, the other 28 miles on normal roadways ranging from 25 mph to 45 mph., VC-style and very enjoyable.)

ah, a representative from the 'one percent solution' club speaks out about his pleasures taking the lane in 45mph zones :rolleyes:


kowtowing to the current autocentricity thru the coping skills of vc is no way to build ridershare, unfortunately, littlebig.

and that's what the op was talking about. I'm sure we're all real proud of your lane taking ability though!

More name calling and forum member derision from Bek. Interesting how the 2 west coast bike shop guys (ubrayj02 and Bek) attitudes match up.

??????? derision...


what attitude? the one succinctly espoused by uke?


Every bike friendly city in the past 50 years has followed the same formula: reduce and restrict the automobile while increasing bike and public transport infrastructure. It's a proven, workable formula that's seen success all over Europe. Most "serious" cyclists in the US, however, insist on trying to push the square wheel of vehicular cycling. And unsurprisingly, we continue to fail each year while other cyclists in other countries follow the blueprint and take back their cities from the automobile. Our loss.

more like a 'firm grasp on reality', CBHI :rolleyes:

??????? derision...


what attitude? the one succinctly espoused by uke?



more like a 'firm grasp on reality', CBHI :rolleyes:
So now you wish to follow Uke, the sidewalk cyclist who has not even figured out just how dangerous that behavior is?

More name calling and forum member derision from Bek. Interesting how the 2 west coast bike shop guys (ubrayj02 and Bek) attitudes match up.

name calling? Uh, reaching a bit there CB... for what some personal vendatta?

Look the OP brought up a good point... that essentially roads are not designed with cyclists in mind... and vehicular cycling is simply a coping mechanism to deal with an autocentric environment.

If we ever expect cycling to gain widespread acceptance here in the States, people will have to perceive it as safe and easy as driving...

Vehicular cycling alone is not likely to bring about this scene in America.

http://www.ski-epic.com/amsterdam_bicycles/pr7s_amsterdam_bicycle_many.jpg

^^
Yet countries that were so bicycle freindly, like China, are switching to motor vehicles now that the people can afford them. Other cities were designed in the 16 century based on the ox cart.

So you wish to tear down our cities and convert them to ox cart designs, or would you rather people just become too poor to afford cars? Frankly, I prefer cycing at more then the 6-10 mph that most of those types of towns cyclist are able to travel.

Put in some safe bike paths, that is fine for cut throughs and recreation. But side paths and bike lanes that increase the danger to cyclist is just plain wrong.

^^
Yet countries that were so bicycle freindly, like China, are switching to motor vehicles now that the people can afford them.

I am willing to bet that the population of China never adopts the car to the same extent that the US has become dependent upon them. For instance, when I was in Hangzhou just a few years ago working in a brand new technical center with engineers there, I noticed that the placement of the buildings was such that no parking lots existed, nor was there room for parking lots. There were however lots and lots of bicycles. Frankly, they just do not plan for auto traffic. And with dense cities, while they can remodel as I outline below, it just doesn't make sense to not look at the lessons of both America and Europe and plan for people vice cars.



Other cities were designed in the 16 century based on the ox cart.


So was Boston, and most of the eastern seaboard of the US... yet those cities managed to be changed to allow the autocentric lifestyle of Americans to exist.

At the same time, many of those 16th century cities were bombed into rubble during a couple world wars... yet the countries (and people) determined that bicycles were effective enough transportation so that they did not adopt the "automania" of America.




So you wish to tear down our cities and convert them to ox cart designs, or would you rather people just become too poor to afford cars?


Such "conversion" happens all the time when a new freeway or Urban Renewal plan goes into effect... the key is designing for people, not just for cars. A recent survey of an east coast city (I believe Baltimore) discovered that over half of the expensive downtown square footage was devoted to autos rather than retail. That realization is causing a change in future plans.



Frankly, I prefer cycing at more then the 6-10 mph that most of those types of towns cyclist are able to travel.

Ah, the classic "I wanna go fast" argument... funny, motorists feel the same way when they are driving in the presence of cyclists. How about if we all learn to slow down for the conditions. Save your fast pace for cross town trips on well designed bikeways. Otherwise share the space and moderate your speed for the conditions.



Put in some safe bike paths, that is fine for cut throughs and recreation. But side paths and bike lanes that increase the danger to cyclist is just plain wrong.


Well designed facilities are the key... slapping down paint just anywhere is the wrong approach.

Ah, the classic "I wanna go fast" argument... funny, motorists feel the same way when they are driving in the presence of cyclists. How about if we all learn to slow down for the conditions. Save your fast pace for cross town trips on well designed bikeways. Otherwise share the space and moderate your speed for the conditions.Limiting cyclist to 6-10 mph will not encourage cycle commuting. My 20 miles one way commute would go from 70 minutes and end up taking 2-3 hours each way. No way am I (and most in these forums) going to spend 4-6 hours a day just to cycle commute.

How about you spend a month limiting your cycling speed to 6-10 mph, then report back to the forum on how much you enjoyed being limited to jogging speed.

Well designed facilities are the key... slapping down paint just anywhere is the wrong approach.Yet, that is pretty much all we have gotten from the bike lane advocates. They will not even work to fix the bad bike lanes. But they sure whine when other cyclist (especially those who support VC) oppose these bike lanes. I again point to the OP, Bek and Uke.

naw- thoughtful bike lane designs and poor bike lane remediation are both on the table of the accomodationalists, cbhi- what a load of strawman malarky you peddle.

fingerpointing :rolleyes: and why?

Limiting cyclist to 6-10 mph will not encourage cycle commuting. My 20 miles one way commute would go from 70 minutes and end up taking 2-3 hours each way. No way am I (and most in these forums) going to spend 4-6 hours a day just to cycle commute.

How about you spend a month limiting your cycling speed to 6-10 mph, then report back to the forum on how much you enjoyed being limited to jogging speed.

CB HI's argument that "if a bicyclist has to slow down anywhere, he'll have to reduce his speed everywhere to that lowest speed on his entire route" is, at best, quite silly, and is no different than a commuting motorist whining that if he should slow down to 20 mph when in a school zone he will have to slow down to 20 mph for his entire journey. Pathetic, pitiful or hysterically funny, take your pick.

Limiting cyclist to 6-10 mph will not encourage cycle commuting. My 20 miles one way commute would go from 70 minutes and end up taking 2-3 hours each way. No way am I (and most in these forums) going to spend 4-6 hours a day just to cycle commute.

How about you spend a month limiting your cycling speed to 6-10 mph, then report back to the forum on how much you enjoyed being limited to jogging speed.

Well slower speeds don't seem to have harmed folks in Europe or China... in fact they quite seem to enjoy moving at a safe and sane speed rather than dressing up like Lance and racing to work.

But How likely is it that your entire 20 mile route would be at that speed?

Further, with well designed wide bike paths, perhaps you could go your top speed for some large percentage of your commute without encountering traffic lights and other traffic, similar to what motorists on their highways enjoy. (or perhaps you'd encounter "rush hour" also like those motorists)

The other thing to consider is that the rest of the population may very well be encouraged to move at a low speed when commuting, but racer boy cyclists may just have to find their thrills at different times/places.

BTW for the record, my commute speed is at about 13MPH when I ride in the streets with traffic. (some of which includes bike lanes) My recreation speed on well designed paths is over 20MPH for the 20 miles of path available to me. (too bad the path doesn't go in the direction of my home)

Well slower speeds don't seem to have harmed folks in Europe or China... in fact they quite seem to enjoy moving at a safe and sane speed rather than dressing up like Lance and racing to work.

I love the way that you are able to speak for the entire bicycling populations of Europe and China.

I love the way that you are able to speak for the entire bicycling populations of Europe and China.

Just like CBHI speaks for all cyclists.
Limiting cyclist to 6-10 mph will not encourage cycle commuting.

Lets face it, when it comes to cycling for transportation, the mere 1% of Americans doing it by bike are nothing compared to those in various other nations that manage as much as 28% rider share for transportation.

So what is your suggestion for improving the picture here in America for cyclists? What wonderful suggestions do you have? Or are you here only to criticize?

CB HI's argument that "if a bicyclist has to slow down anywhere, he'll have to reduce his speed everywhere to that lowest speed on his entire route" is, at best, quite silly, and is no different than a commuting motorist whining that if he should slow down to 20 mph when in a school zone he will have to slow down to 20 mph for his entire journey. Pathetic, pitiful or hysterically funny, take your pick.Pure BS ILTB, I never said slowing in one area forces slow speeds everywhere. But since the paint and path crowd wants the slow style system everywhere, you should take up your complaint with them.

Yet countries that were so bicycle freindly, like China, are switching to motor vehicles now that the people can afford them. Other cities were designed in the 16 century based on the ox cart.

So you wish to tear down our cities and convert them to ox cart designs, or would you rather people just become too poor to afford cars?
So was Boston, and most of the eastern seaboard of the US... yet those cities managed to be changed to allow the autocentric lifestyle of Americans to exist. I was hoping that one of the Boston folks would have piped in on Boston history. Anyway, Boston was not even founded until the 17 century and took awhile to grow to the size of your favorite European cities. I do not think there were ever many ox carts in Boston. I believe they designed their initial roads for the faster horse rider and horse carriage.

Further, with well designed wide bike paths, perhaps you could go your top speed for some large percentage of your commute without encountering traffic lights and other traffic, similar to what motorists on their highways enjoy.Where are those European city bike paths/lanes like this that you describe. Another pipe dream?

Bike paths like these are fine, but they only occur in very limited areas, such as along waterways. Too few locations to be useful for most city cycle commuters.

Pure BS ILTB, I never said slowing in one area forces slow speeds everywhere. But since the paint and path crowd wants the slow style system everywhere, you should take up your complaint with them.

The BS is your hysterical construct/straw man argument/hot button labeling - "since the paint and path crowd wants the slow style system everywhere"? Any reference for the party platform of the alleged "paint and path crowd" and their desire for a "slow style system everywhere"?

Where are those European city bike paths/lanes like this that you describe. Another pipe dream?

Bike paths like these are fine, but they only occur in very limited areas, such as along waterways. Too few locations to be useful for most city cycle commuters.

In Europe, how about Oulu Finland. In San Diego, how about along highway 56.

In Oulu the bike paths (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vgUkNxUE0wc) serve all of the city, they are far from being limited. While it would be quite difficult to implement such a system in most US cities... we could and should have at least a network as extensive as the typical freeway system that criss-crosses must US cities. Other roads could be made dramatically friendlier to cyclists if there was any priority to do so. Fuel issues and trends toward greener cities can be the priority that makes that happen.

Self defeating attitudes can stop it.

See the Oulu link above for one example... and see this link(http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=343260&highlight=bike+heaven). See the pics below for a rare example from San Diego.

^^
You show 200 yards of park bike path in Oulu, Finland and a freeway side path in San Diego; neither of which is in the city core.

Thanks for proving my point.

The self defeating attitudes, come from the people claiming it is unsafe, too hard, too scary to commute by bicycle on the roads.

bike paths and on street bike infrastructure are popping up in cities across america, cbhi, and ridership is increasing here due to the infrastructure and the safety in numbers effect.

anecdotally, bike counts, census reports all indicate the better accomodated cities in america have greater rider participation here.

gene didn't prove your point :roflmao:

anecdotallyWhy not try and give some real evidence for once Bek.

We saw the biggest ridership increases when gas prices were the highest. Ridership seems to be dropping now that gas prices are dropping. Why not include that more likely anecdotal indicator in your conclusions.

Must be the answer that you did not want to hear.:rolleyes:

'seems to be dropping' :rolleyes: nice anecdote yourself! you've seen a lot of hard data about gas prices and dropping ridership I'm sure :roflmao:

I mention the repeated and repeated and repeated ancedotes lauded up about increased ridership... it's been in all the papers, duuuuuuude.... effects reported about often enough there's a pattern emerging about ridership and infrastructure.

you're MO is weak, scattered attempts to deny the efficacy of infrastructure in this forum, cbhi.... I have no interest in your aimless trolling all over the charts like a blind drunk captain ahab incensed about the white ( line ) whale.


if you choose to ignore reality, that's ignorance.

like the OP sounds, vc fails to build ridership while infrastructure is part and parcel of increased ridership in cities around the world.

'seems to be dropping' :rolleyes: nice anecdote yourself! you've seen a lot of hard data about gas prices and dropping ridership I'm sure :roflmao:Boy, that point flew right over your head.:roflmao2:

like the OP sounds, vc fails to build ridership while infrastructure is part and parcel of increased ridership in cities around the world.So the bike shop guys say, without any evidence, just demands that everyone believe them; otherwise they will call you ignorant.

That must have been your thesis paper, right bek?

vacuous prattle is not a point, cbhi.

here's the talking points of this thread-

vc fails to build ridership. and infrastructure is part and parcel of increased ridership, proven in cities around the world.

prattle on bek, prattle on

what ARE you blathering about? you think you're bringing some dissent to this thread??? :rolleyes: comedic pratfalls more like it!

vc fails to build ridership.

infrastructure is part and parcel of every city that has high bicyclist share; accomodationalism builds ridership, and a corresponding efffect of safer ridership in numbers is seen.

INFRASTRUCTURE IS PART AND PARCEL OF HIGH RIDER PARTICIPATION IN CITIES AROUND THE WORLD.

vc is a failure at building rider share and is nothing more than a coping mechanism to ride autocentric roadways.

Yet the increase in ridership came with continuing increases in gas prices. As proven this year and when gas prices dropped, so did ridership. Why do you refuse to acknowledge that.

unfortunately, your fallacious postulation doesn't jibe, at all, with the 40 years of the effects of accomodations in europe or the effects of infrastructure in this country prior to the 'gas price increase.'

weak.

what are you trying to say? That as more americans are forced out of their cars by rising gas prices, bicycling is easier for more people in cities that have an infrastructure rich streetscape like portland or seattle?

Or are you pointing out that European cities accomodating bicyclists have less worry over gas price fluxuations since 30-40 percent of the population cyclecommutes?

The positive effects of infrastructure is not tied to the price of gas! :roflmao: yet the lack of infrastructure helps keep ridership low in the USA, bruther.....

^^
You show 200 yards of park bike path in Oulu, Finland and a freeway side path in San Diego; neither of which is in the city core.

Thanks for proving my point.

The self defeating attitudes, come from the people claiming it is unsafe, too hard, too scary to commute by bicycle on the roads.

You must be from Missouri, eh?

200 yards of park path in Oulu eh... :rolleyes: Bet you didn't go to the thread I provided. Here I'll post it again to make it easy for you.

http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=343260

Go to that thread and read all about Finland. Read about the 36% rider share there. AND lest you let that "200 yards of path" confuse you... here is a map (http://kartta.ouka.fi/index_us.htm) of Oulu... take note of the paths, the dashed lines going everywhere. Zoom in and really take a look. Oh BTW, the city core of Oulu is a no car zone... so you won't find paths there. Just no cars. Lots of people, people on bikes, and various shops, but no cars.

Now regarding San Diego, indeed you are correct... while this is a very nice path, like many cities in the US, this path is of limited use due to it's very limited length. But perhaps you are aware that the US is auto centric...

On the other hand, laws were recently passed in California on two interesting measures; one was the adoption of Complete Streets. The other was a mandate that all traffic sensors must sense bicycles. Those are very recent changes.

BTW I do commute on local roads... on arterial roads with 55 and 65MPH speed limits. But the bottom line is that I doubt very sincerely that you would ever find "grandmothers," like I saw in Oulu, on the roads here in San Diego... I doubt very sincerely that you'll find the young girls and the rows and rows of bikes out in front of shops that I saw in Oulu, here in San Diego. Those 55 and 65MPH roads and other similar fast roads in San Diego and other places in the US just do not make for much cyclist comfort. Thus we have the pitiful 1-2% cyclist ridership in the US.

We have pretty parks... and some weekend bike riders that fill our pretty parks, but we have a very very tiny percent of people that would even consider riding a bike to a store.

In Oulu, they have far far more than "200 yards" of paths.

Why not try and give some real evidence for once Bek.

We saw the biggest ridership increases when gas prices were the highest. Ridership seems to be dropping now that gas prices are dropping. Why not include that more likely anecdotal indicator in your conclusions.

Must be the answer that you did not want to hear.:rolleyes:

Actually the ridership of public transit also went up, and officials of public transit are indicating that the passenger numbers seem to be holding in the face of decreased gas prices. (there is a public transit convention in San Diego taking place over the last 4 days... with lots of interviews on TV news... otherwise I'd post a link to this "data.")

The speculation by the transit folks is that commuters are wary of the changing gas prices and expect those prices to go back up again real soon... thus commuters are sticking to alternative commuting methods vice running back to their cars.

Now whether cycling is part of that "alternative commuting" picture or not in the face of harsh weather and unfriendly streets is a valid question. Only time will tell.

130,000 inhabitants in the entire province of Oulu

about the same population as Topeka city in Kansas

What is the population of San Diego or even Boston, and when do you plan on banning cars from downtown San Diego?

130,000 inhabitants in the entire province of Oulu

about the same population as Topeka city in Kansas

What is the population of San Diego or even Boston, and when do you plan on banning cars from downtown San Diego?

Hey getting right into that self defeating attitude, eh?

We don't need to ban cars from downtown... but things can be done to dramatically improve the cycling picture here.

Actually connecting bike paths would help, bike boulevards would help, even simple things like connecting ramps from streets to bike paths would help. Reducing speed limits would help. Bike parking would help. These are all little things, but they are also the little things that don't exist today.

Even Austin Texas did a far better job by providing real bike racks on nearly every corner downtown.

Nah CB, we don't need to start restricting cars downtown... however as we speak there is a festival on major street downtown, and guess what... no cars allowed. ;)

But consider that right now in any major city there are thousands and thousands of free parking spots for autos, but nothing for bikes.

Consider that in any major city motorists can zip from one end of town to another on a restricted roadway, yet cyclists are forced to stop at every light and stopsign along the way burning off inertia and using precious human power just to go to the next stop... and there are no restrictions to other vehicles on those route... just more cross traffic and sharing with anything else that has feet or wheels. One basic cross town bike highway could make all the difference in how fast a cyclist can cross town. (I ride that San Diego path at 20 MPH, but commuting in traffic I can't average any better than 13MPH).

All I am saying is that we can, as a nation, do a far far better job of encouraging cycling as a viable means of transportation...

Hey getting right into that self defeating attitude, eh?Not me, I enjoy cycling every day, how is that self defeating. If Bek and the other bike shop guy stopped trying to scare people into thinking they can't ride without bike lanes, there would be many more cyclist as well. Several of my co-workers and other people I know, started riding simply because they have seen me do it everyday.

We pushed and got our bike racks, they are even designed to look like a bicycle, adding to the sense that bikes belong. And it did not require any bike lane paint. During the gas increase when some switched from SUVs to mopeds and started taking over the bike racks; each bike rack got a sign saying "Bicycles Only" with a police threat to ticket mopeds illegally parked. http://www.khnl.com/Global/story.asp?S=9037480 I have not had a problem finding a bike rack to park at.

We designed our own fourth grade VC education that is still going strong. (Even brought over JF to help set it up).

And with beach parks, people have a place to shower and rinse the road grime off their bikes each morning, if they want. A laboratory deep sink works just fine for me to wash up on most days.

Many roads have been repaved recently, improving cycling far more than a paint strip ever could. Some of our repaved roads have new wide outside lanes, Outstanding.

Cyclist in my suburb got our only bike lane removed. It even appears that the planned bad bike lane on one of our major roads, at the freeway interchange, that is currently being rebuilt and repaved, will not get painted. Outstanding.

Yes, Honolulu has quite a ways to go. Many JAMs need a better education. Dangerous bike lanes need to be removed. The mandatory bike lane law needs to be revoked. Still too many streets that need repaved to improve conditions for cyclist, but progress in this are is being made. And both the state and city need to get off their butts and actually build the good bike paths that are included each of the master bike plans.

So you are far off base and knowingly disingenuous when you call me a self-defeatist because I do not like dangerous bike lanes.

Consider that in any major city motorists can zip from one end of town to another on a restricted roadway, yet cyclists are forced to stop at every light and stopsign along the way burning off inertia and using precious human power just to go to the next stop... and there are no restrictions to other vehicles on those route... just more cross traffic and sharing with anything else that has feet or wheels. One basic cross town bike highway could make all the difference in how fast a cyclist can cross town. (I ride that San Diego path at 20 MPH, but commuting in traffic I can't average any better than 13MPH).

All I am saying is that we can, as a nation, do a far far better job of encouraging cycling as a viable means of transportation...And dangerous bike lanes are not the way to do that. Any good bike path that you can get built, great. But how do you do that in the San Diego city core, at a reasonable cost? Is your plan to build hundreds of cycle over and underpasses throughout the city? Yeah, those new out of shape cyclist are going to ride all those bumps. Get more good bike paths built along freeways that will have very few intersections and peds will not want to use. Educate your motorist. But please stop demanding any old bike lane (Bek and OP), no matter how dangerous, just to convince the clueless to put their butt on a bike (increasing bike sales at the cost of cyclist safety). VCers favor good bike paths, provided that a mandatory use law does not come along with the path and the path is kept in good condition.

I understand CA has a very nice bike route called I-5, for much of its distance. We are still working in Hawaii to get 2 of our freeways opened to cyclist (H-2 and H-3).

But the bottom line is that I doubt very sincerely that you would ever find "grandmothers," like I saw in Oulu, on the roads here in San Diego... I doubt very sincerely that you'll find the young girls and the rows and rows of bikes out in front of shops that I saw in Oulu, here in San Diego. But you have already noted the answer to that, simply ban all cars and trucks in San Diego. Then you too can be like Oulu with lots of grandmothers riding bikes, because you have given them no other choice.

Why not try and give some real evidence for once Bek.


Anecdotes are as good evidence as any. Statistics, after all, are little more than collated anecdotes.

.. If Bek and the other bike shop guy stopped trying to scare people into thinking they can't ride without bike lanes..

:rolleyes: pathetic misrepresentation.

We designed our own fourth grade VC education that is still going strong. (Even brought over JF to help set it up). wait. only oahu, not maui or the big island, and less than 6,000 kids in the last two years. going strong? debateable.


Yes, Honolulu has quite a ways to go. yeah, no doubt. pretty low ridership despite some excellent climate for it. what gives, cbhi?

- don't worry, i can answer that because you obviously cannot do so honestly

It's too much autocentricity on the street grid of honolulu. and it's been proven in other cities how to reverse that, cbhi, dontchyaknow?