Vehicular Cycling (VC) - I grew up riding in bike lanes and paths in the Netherlands

but when a bike would hold up traffic in these urban areas patrick thinks don't need bike infrastructure, the cyclist should leave the road entirely for the conveinence of motorists.

bikes also should also not be riding on higher speed roads.

and communities shouldn't plan for bikes by adding bike lanes in urban areas, just paths.

got it. :rolleyes:

here's the catch, patrick:

cities that have bike master plans and are building bike lanes in urban areas embrace on-street 'vehicular cycling' as fundament in their bicycle transportation planning.

No, for bicyclists on rural roads there could be a number of facilities, in particular, a "pull out" for a length that would allow the queue of motorcars behind the cyclist to pass, not forcing the cyclist to pull over and stop completely. Think of it as a kind of "passing lane" for motorcars on facilities designed for bicycle use.

People shouldn't be riding their bicycles on dangerous roads. Since bicycle transportation planning is near ZERO in the United States, this would mean almost EVERY SINGLE high speed road. The most dangerous of roads are those that are designed for both high speed and volume. Paths are needed to avoid those kinds of roads, not urban streets that carry lower volumes of traffic at lower speeds.

Oh freakin please. I DID grow up here and I have been riding all of those 'dangerous' roads my whole life. If I waited around for transportation engineers to provide alternatives to those roads to get me where I want to go, I'd have 4 days of cycling experience rather than 4 decades.

We deal with reality sir, because you Utopians have thus far failed to deliver Utopia and we got places to go, things to do and people to see.

No, for bicyclists on rural roads there could be a number of facilities, in particular, a "pull out" for a length that would allow the queue of motorcars behind the cyclist to pass, not forcing the cyclist to pull over and stop completely. Think of it as a kind of "passing lane" for motorcars on facilities designed for bicycle use.

People shouldn't be riding their bicycles on dangerous roads. Since bicycle transportation planning is near ZERO in the United States, this would mean almost EVERY SINGLE high speed road. The most dangerous of roads are those that are designed for both high speed and volume. Paths are needed to avoid those kinds of roads, not urban streets that carry lower volumes of traffic at lower speeds.

Where are you getting your measures of risk? What measures of risk are you using?

Where are you getting your measures of risk? What measures of risk are you using?

For example:

http://www.enhancements.org/download/trb/1538-011.PDF

For example:

http://www.enhancements.org/download/trb/1538-011.PDF

Ahhhh ... well then without a bunch of caveats on your part ... we really don't need to worry about the connection between any of these statements and reality; i.e., the risk associated with walking, cycling, and so on. IMO, you glossed over a nontrivial aspect of the transportation story, the meaning of these metrics and whether they are adequate proxies for how you use them.

http://www.nycbikemaps.com/maps/manhattan-bike-map/

My question is: why are there bike lanes in Manhattan, NYC?

OMG! Are you serious?!- Have you ridden in NYC? This thread and Patrick's "logic" is absolutely astounding. If you are indeed a transportation planner no wonder you are so poorly paid.

There are a couple of threads running based on a recent NYTimes article about how Manhattan has changed with bike infrastructure- take a look at them. As someone who has ridden extensively in NYC and lived in Rotterdam and ridden through much of the Netherlands there are a number of similarities between NYC and cities like Amsterdam that have more to do how those cities work and need to work as shared living spaces than just the fact that NYC was originally settled by the Dutch.

And your information and interpretation of information is all over the map. You say you've "never heard of a cyclist" being hit in a "come from behind" collision with an automobile and then site a study showing hundreds of just such collisions- "Group D" in the Washington State study you posted as a link- did you even read that study?

And as most of the other posters seem to be pointing out to you- we ride on all kinds of roads in the US. We may not always like it and some of us, like me, are even willing to admit we avoid some roads and consider them "dangerous" but you extend it into a kind of high pitched unrealistic hyperbole.

There are so many holes in your logic. It's almost not worth it to sift through your posts to point them out. And oddly enough some of what you say occasionally makes sense :rolleyes: making it all the harder to discern your meaning.

I'm sorry but before I can take this thread seriously and have some respect for your implied "expertise" as a traffic planner and former resident of the Netherlands I'll need more evidence you've actually thought this stuff through.

Oh freakin please. I DID grow up here and I have been riding all of those 'dangerous' roads my whole life. If I waited around for transportation engineers to provide alternatives to those roads to get me where I want to go, I'd have 4 days of cycling experience rather than 4 decades.

We deal with reality sir, because you Utopians have thus far failed to deliver Utopia and we got places to go, things to do and people to see.

+1000

Sad, but true.

However... don't stop trying for the good stuff... heck, somebody may be listening.

I'm just pulling this number out of my ass, but on the roads you're suggesting bicycle-specific infrastructure is NEEDED in order to make them acceptable routes the size of the bicycling demographic will be approaching 0%. I don't think anyone will deny that they'd love to have a private highway laid outside of the cities for them (and considering the traffic volume it'll have, it's going to be pretty damn near "private"), but it's not going to happen on this continent.

Well, if you ever wanted to see what goes on inside the head of one of these doofuses that are employed as "traffic planners" - this thread is the place...


People shouldn't be riding their bicycles on dangerous roads. Since bicycle transportation planning is near ZERO in the United States, this would mean almost EVERY SINGLE high speed road. The most dangerous of roads are those that are designed for both high speed and volume. Paths are needed to avoid those kinds of roads, not urban streets that carry lower volumes of traffic at lower speeds.

Two requests before I put you straight onto my ignore list:

#1: Definition of "dangerous" and "high speed road" in the context above.
#2: By what holy right do you feel yourself empowered to tell someone where they can and can't ride?
#3: Do you consider yourself a "more experienced" cyclist then the people here?

-Kurt

P.S.: With the logic in your quote above, please explain the logistics of those who have been hit on "safe," "low-speed roads."

I'm just pulling this number out of my ass, but on the roads you're suggesting bicycle-specific infrastructure is NEEDED in order to make them acceptable routes the size of the bicycling demographic will be approaching 0%. I don't think anyone will deny that they'd love to have a private highway laid outside of the cities for them (and considering the traffic volume it'll have, it's going to be pretty damn near "private"), but it's not going to happen on this continent.

Just a quick question... do you really believe that if there were nice cycling infrastructure out there; "bike highways" for instance, that the ridership would be near zero?

Around here such infrastructure does get used, but since the "network" is so incomplete, there are still vast disconnects that discourage everyday use by everyday people. But I find it somewhat amusing that people DO go out of their way to seek nice well designed paths... even driving to go get to a place where they can use said infrastructure, I that I have to wonder what might happen if it were as ubiquitous and easy to access as the US freeways system, albeit scaled for a cyclists in a city.

Of course it is pretty much a pipe dream, at least in my lifetime... but still, I wonder.

Well, if you ever wanted to see what goes on inside the head of one of these doofuses that are employed as "traffic planners" - this thread is the place...



Two requests before I put you straight onto my ignore list:

#1: Definition of "dangerous" and "high speed road" in the context above.
#2: By what holy right do you feel yourself empowered to tell someone where they can and can't ride?
#3: Do you consider yourself a "more experienced" cyclist then the people here?

-Kurt

P.S.: With the logic in your quote above, please explain the logistics of those who have been hit on "safe," "low-speed roads."


Hey what if no one told you where to ride, but there was a really great system of well designed, good cycling paths that rivaled the US freeway system, scaled for cyclists and well interconnected in your city... do you think you might choose to use it?

Hey what if no one told you where to ride, but there was a really great system of well designed, good cycling paths that rivaled the US freeway system, scaled for cyclists and well interconnected in your city... do you think you might choose to use it?

Depends on the definition of "great."

Right now, I'm more concerned about the OP getting any of his scramblebrain ideas to fruition wherever he may work...

-Kurt

Depends on the definition of "great."

-Kurt


Oh about 10-12 feet wide, stripe down the middle, on ramps and off ramps that meet cross streets, wide radius turns so 20MPH is easily maintained, good sight lines, above or below grade at road crossings so there is no reason to stop, traffic circles where multiple paths merge, signs indicating destinations and distances... you know, the sort of thing that we DON'T normally see in America, but that does exist in a few other countries. Oh, also, smooth and well maintained, and with no pedestrians (who should be on parallel sidewalks). Does that cover "great?"

Just a quick question... do you really believe that if there were nice cycling infrastructure out there; "bike highways" for instance, that the ridership would be near zero?

Around here such infrastructure does get used, but since the "network" is so incomplete, there are still vast disconnects that discourage everyday use by everyday people. But I find it somewhat amusing that people DO go out of their way to seek nice well designed paths... even driving to go get to a place where they can use said infrastructure, I that I have to wonder what might happen if it were as ubiquitous and easy to access as the US freeways system, albeit scaled for a cyclists in a city.

Of course it is pretty much a pipe dream, at least in my lifetime... but still, I wonder.

Oh I didn't say it would remain zero (and by "0%" I meant of the total population, not amongst cyclists. 1% of N. America is a hell of a lot of people), I meant that it's the number of people already out there that Patrick is suggesting shouldn't be sharing the current highways with automobiles.
Once you get out into the country, I imagine the distances involved in taking detours to get to bike-specific highways would make them impractical for most commuting/utility cycling. I'm sure people on tour wouldn't think twice about it.

Oh I didn't say it would remain zero (and by "0%" I meant of the total population, not amongst cyclists. 1% of N. America is a hell of a lot of people), I meant that it's the number of people already out there that Patrick is suggesting shouldn't be sharing the current highways with automobiles.
Once you get out into the country, I imagine the distances involved in taking detours to get to bike-specific highways would make them impractical for most commuting/utility cycling. I'm sure people on tour wouldn't think twice about it.

I honestly don't believe the distances in country areas and the current low traffic on farm roads would require such bike-specific highways. Having toured between cities and ridden many back roads... I really tend to agree with you.

No, for bicyclists on rural roads there could be a number of facilities, in particular, a "pull out" for a length that would allow the queue of motorcars behind the cyclist to pass, not forcing the cyclist to pull over and stop completely. Think of it as a kind of "passing lane" for motorcars on facilities designed for bicycle use.



BTW those types of pull outs do exist on some of the various San Juan islands in Washington. They are clearly marked as "bicycle pullout" in areas that are uphill on relatively narrow roads.

BTW those types of pull outs do exist on some of the various San Juan islands in Washington. They are clearly marked as "bicycle pullout" in areas that are uphill on relatively narrow roads.

methinks the OP has vanished from BF. His short lived splash in A & S seems to have ended with post #54 in this thread. I fear we may have scared him off.

Have we?

Patrick... uh, Patrick....:innocent:

methinks the OP has vanished from BF. His short lived splash in A & S seems to have ended with post #54 in this thread. I fear we may have scared him off.

Hopefully, both from A&S and from traffic planning for cyclists.

-Kurt

Building separate bicycling facilities, i.e. "paths", in dense urban areas in the U.S. Really? Where?

Oh, they exist. The path below is an extension of the Pinellas Trail right into downtown. It's silly. Last year, there was another lane and a bicycle lane. The city has since placed islands/medians in the previous traffic lane and built the trail to the right of the median. Here's the icing on the cake. This road is a one way street. The path, of course, is meant for two way travel.

http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&hs=cpv&q=300%201st%20ave%20south%20st.%20petersburg%2C%20fl&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=il

Building separate bicycling facilities, i.e. "paths", in dense urban areas in the U.S. Really? Where?

Anywhere that it is determined that two new freeway lanes can be added. Funny that TWO new freeway lanes are "easy" to do, but there is never enough room for a much narrower bike path.

Anywhere that it is determined that two new freeway lanes can be added. Funny that TWO new freeway lanes are "easy" to do, but there is never enough room for a much narrower bike path.

Are new freeway lanes still being added anywhere in the U.S. within dense urban areas? I thought that with rare exception that hasn't happened in decades in the U.S. Enlighten me.

Are new freeway lanes still being added anywhere in the U.S. within dense urban areas? I thought that with rare exception that hasn't happened in decades in the U.S. Enlighten me.

Heck, they just added 4 new lanes to the local freeway in my area at the 5/805 junction... and within just just a few hundred yards, determined that the bike path could not be completed due to being on the edge of endangered species ground.

Then there was the Big Dig in Boston not too long ago... Finished in Dec 2007.

Heck, they just added 4 new lanes to the local freeway in my area at the 5/805 junction... and within just just a few hundred yards, determined that the bike path could not be completed due to being on the edge of endangered species ground.

Then there was the Big Dig in Boston not too long ago... Finished in Dec 2007.

An intersection or two was widened and the Big Dig in Boston, is that it for the lane widening program in dense urban areas?

An intersection or two was widened and the Big Dig in Boston, is that it for the lane widening program in dense urban areas?


I doubt it, but I am not going to search the internet to please your nay saying whining.

Since the majority of the time you simply dispute everything and everybody, you have no real point, do you, Oblio.

I doubt it, but I am not going to search the internet to please your nay saying whining.

Since the majority of the time you simply dispute everything and everybody, you have no real point, do you, Oblio.

My point is that you ( and others) blithly post about the existance/relevance to cycling of a virtually non existant program/policy/probability of significant lane widening taking place of city streets or freeways in dense urban areas of US Cities. My point is that it ain't likely anywhere, anytime soon and that you are dreaming.

My point is that you ( and others) blithly post about the existance/relevance to cycling of a virtually non existant program/policy/probability of significant lane widening taking place of city streets or freeways in dense urban areas of US Cities. My point is that it ain't likely anywhere, anytime soon and that you are dreaming.

Uh, I specifically mentioned freeways... and such projects are going on constantly... and usually involve some eminent domain... enough to add at least two lanes to freeways.

A simple google search returns these projects.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ei=g8O_Sev_C5nMsAPv9tEv&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=freeway+widening+projects+in+the+usa&spell=1

To say that such things are NOT happening is wrong, and the evidence is quite obvious if one happens to drive freeways in any major city.

However what it really comes down to is the overwhelming "progress" in cities that focuses on only inefficient automobile use as the only form of transportation within the cities... however marginal, if any focus was geared toward the bicycle as regular transportation, the offset of even a few percent decrease in auto traffic can render such highway projects moot.

But transportation dollars are NOT typically spent on cycling as a means of transit (primarily park and rec funds are used for simple paths) yet queuing theory and actual demonstrations (such as the LA Olympics) have shown that freeway traffic relief can be achieved by only marginal changes in percent of that traffic.

Such marginal changes can be achieved by encouraging other forms of transit such as cycling and the use of mass transit.

Cycling, like the use of the individual auto, offers the advantage of individual time and destination travel... with cycling actually offering direct door to door service.

Highway traffic studies, on the other hand, show only marginal and declining improvements for each additional added lane on a typical freeway.

If you want specific citing go read "Traffic: Why We Drive the Way We Do (and What It Says About Us)" by Tom Vanderbilt. It is probably in a local library near you.