Advocacy & Safety - Cyclists: Vehicles or Accelerated Pedestrians?

The current facilities movement is trying to reclassify bicyclists from vehicles to accelerated pedestrians, and force them to ride in dangerous sidepaths located between the curb and parked cars. The new Portland Master Plan Maps (http://www.portlandonline.com/transportation/index.cfm?&c=44672) are full of proposed examples of this.

The thing is, the current growth of cycling in Portland itself provides ample testimony that these dangerous sidepaths are not required for 'encouragement', the last two sunny spring days has brought all sorts of cyclists, young and old, skilled and unskilled, out into the streets and parks, and they're doing just fine without the proposed cycle tracks.

Integration, not segregation is going to be the key to the success of cycling in the US; you can't just take a Dutch design and plop it down in a US city and expect it to work, hell, they don't even work that good in Holland, right hooks and difficult intersections are still a problem there.

The current facilities movement is trying to reclassify bicyclists from vehicles to accelerated pedestrians, ......


Randya, has portland gone weird, or something? What is in the water out there! What the hell is an accelerated pedestrian? If I am hitting my brakes, am I a decelerated pedestrian? Cyclists travel on smooth wheels, so we could be called continuous pedestrians (in the calculus sense of the word); which makes walkers digital pedestrians, and runners (who leave the surface of the earth briefly) intermittent pedestrians.

Bicycles are not 'vehicles,' to me. That is used for motorized transport which includes safety devices, warning lights and signals, etc. If a bike is not a vehicle...what is it? IT is a ......drum roll please... a bike!

roughstuff

Well the worlds fastest pedestrians can move faster than the average cyclist usually does

Well the worlds fastest pedestrians can move faster than the average cyclist usually does

But the worlds fastest cyclist moves faster than the average car does

Cyclists aren't vehicles... they're people who drive vehicles, or at least have all the rights and responsibilities of someone who drives a vehicle. Not all states consider bicycles to be vehicles in their legal definitions of such, but all grant cyclists the same rights and responsibilities as any other drivers. That's state law in all 50 states, DC, and the territories.

The whole cyclist-inferiority thing (mandatory bike lane or side path rules, as well as the FRAP rule in certain places) comes from the ability of a community to write and enforce more stringent rules against certain types of vehicles...

Bicycles are pretty versatile. They are low-speed vehicles, best suited for streets with a 25-30 mph speed limit. They can adapt to being accelerated pedestrians on sidewalks and crowded MUPs. They are not very well-suited for expressways or highways -- I won't tell people not to ride on them, but I don't think many would choose to if they had other options.

But the worlds fastest cyclist moves faster than the average car does

And the world's fastest car is faster than a helicopter.

A bicyclist moving at walking or jogging speed on a sidewalk or road shoulder is arguably an accelerated pedestrian riding a velocipede. However, a bicyclist moving at a slow to moderate motor vehicle speed on a roadway is a vehicle driver. We are indeed in our own category, and one of the beauties of bicycling is this ability to quick-change between pedestrian and vehicular behavior, as conditions of the moment demand.

The crucial issue in the integration/segregation debate is the defense of our fundamental right to use public roads in a vehicular fashion. If a given bicyclist wants to use a cycletrack or other sidepath and to function essentially as a stop-look-and-listen pedestrian at every intersection or driveway, so be it, but please do not expect me to do the same in all circumstances, because if I am going 15 to 20 mph, I am generally better off taking the right lane than setting myself up for a right hook.

In its consistently anti-pedestrian and anti-bicyclist wisdom, CalTrans has just completed the new Solana Beach Lomas Santa Fe / I-5 underpass, complete with dedicated cycletracks and sidewalks which move bicyclists and pedestrians along the far/invisible side of the bridge columns and then promptly dump them into the inside corners of the freeway's fast, sweeping onramps.

My proposal to the powers that be is: if the city wants to experiment with cycle tracks, a non-MUTCD approved design treatment, they should exempt the cycle tracks and all of their experimental designs (including the already-installed bike boxes) from required compliance with ORS 814.420, the mandatory bike lane/sidepath statute. Even better, the city should be actively lobbying for repeal of ORS 814.420 at the state level, and should not install any cycle tracks until such time as the repeal is effective.

Seems in the past, that I remember the ChainGuard Crowd and ardent VCers warning that government, motorist and even many cyclist would some day attempt exactly this foolishness.

I guess that day has most definitely come.

Seems in the past, that I remember the ChainGuard Crowd and ardent VCers warning that government, motorist and even many cyclist would some day attempt exactly this foolishness.

I guess that day has most definitely come.

well then you better polish up your best civic speechifying voice and send in your comments. Don't be a rude dick like John Forester if you want them to listen to you.

And the world's fastest car is faster than a helicopter.

and Superman is faster than a speeding bullet...especially when he ain't had any in a while.




it had to be said

I always thought an accelerated pedestrian was one who just got hit by a car.

If you guys let them reclassify bikes into something other than vehicles, you realize you are pretty much screwed and Portland will quickly transform from a cycling utopia to a cycling laughing stock.

If you guys let them reclassify bikes into something other than vehicles, you realize you are pretty much screwed and Portland will quickly transform from a cycling utopia to a cycling laughing stock.

PM me if you want to know who to send your comments to

No worries, Portland will probably run out of money before it completes most of the lame **** it has planned :D

well then you better polish up your best civic speechifying voice and send in your comments. Don't be a rude dick like John Forester if you want them to listen to you.If you want to keep up the venom against Forester, then you have already lost your battle.

Are Portland cycling advocates losing sight of the big picture?

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3609/3408369155_74893a7467.jpg

If you want to keep up the venom against Forester, then you have already lost your battle.

Forester is his own worst enemy. He needs lessons in public relations. He would have more allies if he didn't have such a disagreeable personality.

Are Portland cycling advocates losing sight of the big picture?

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3609/3408369155_74893a7467.jpg

hey, we've already got that, without having a bunch of poorly designed segregated facilities shoved down our throats.

:)

Forester is his own worst enemy. He needs lessons in public relations. He would have more allies if he didn't have such a disagreeable personality.You preach, but you do not listen. As there have been similar comments about you here in BFs.

If we are talking about acceleration and not velocity/speed, then I think one would be hard pressed to find an everyday vehicle that could out-accelerate a pedestrian. Pretty low top-end, I suppose but that super-low torque drivetrain makes for pretty damn quick changes in speed. Up or down, for that matter.

jim

Integration, not segregation is going to be the key to the success of cycling in the US; you can't just take a Dutch design and plop it down in a US city and expect it to work, hell, they don't even work that good in Holland, right hooks and difficult intersections are still a problem there.

Right hooks and difficult intersections are a problem no matter where you go. You're not going to solve them without making separate elevated ramps for pedestrians, bicycles, and motor vehicles (and while we're at it, why not separate roadways for emergency vehicles?).

One of the better layouts I've experienced was in Heidelberg, Germany, and even though I've been told it's not very good by German standards, it fundamentally doesn't appear to be too much different from the Dutch principles. Peds, bikes, and cars all have their separate facilities. The bike-specific lanes are often technically on the sidewalk but are heavily marked as being for bikes, even with a flush line of brick as a separator and different, or painted, pavement. At intersections, cars, peds, and bikes each have their own signals; in some cases, both cars and bikes are made to wait for pedestrians.

I really don't see what the problem is with such a setup. Everyone gets to where they're going and does so in a reasonable amount of safety. I'm good at negotiating busy traffic here, but I never had to do it over there.

Right hooks and difficult intersections are a problem no matter where you go. You're not going to solve them without making separate elevated ramps for pedestrians, bicycles, and motor vehicles (and while we're at it, why not separate roadways for emergency vehicles?).

One of the better layouts I've experienced was in Heidelberg, Germany, and even though I've been told it's not very good by German standards, it fundamentally doesn't appear to be too much different from the Dutch principles. Peds, bikes, and cars all have their separate facilities. The bike-specific lanes are often technically on the sidewalk but are heavily marked as being for bikes, even with a flush line of brick as a separator and different, or painted, pavement. At intersections, cars, peds, and bikes each have their own signals; in some cases, both cars and bikes are made to wait for pedestrians.

I really don't see what the problem is with such a setup. Everyone gets to where they're going and does so in a reasonable amount of safety. I'm good at negotiating busy traffic here, but I never had to do it over there.

The problem with such a setup is that it depends on motorists paying attention. In Germany and other European countries, motorists have an automatic responsibility with regard to "vulnerable road users" that does not exist in America. Here in the US, the motorist feels they are king of the road and that their car is their rolling castle. That mentality allows for the distraction of everything from cell phones to DVD players with little recourse in the event of motorist misbehavior.

You preach, but you do not listen. As there have been similar comments about you here in BFs.

Yeah, but Randya hardly is a public figure representing cycling.

Forester does as much to ruin the public image of cycling as he does to promote it. :mad:

The current facilities movement is trying to reclassify bicyclists from vehicles to accelerated pedestrians, and force them to ride in dangerous sidepaths located between the curb and parked cars. The new Portland Master Plan Maps (http://www.portlandonline.com/transportation/index.cfm?&c=44672) are full of proposed examples of this.

Randya, I looked at your cited references and saw no use of the phrase "accelerated pedestrians" or any verbiage that inferred such a proposed "reclassified" status for bicyclists. Is that your own $50 fightin' phrase/battle cry or someone else's?

The problem with such a setup is that it depends on motorists paying attention.

They don't need to pay any more attention than on a road with only car-specific signals.

You preach, but you do not listen. As there have been similar comments about you here in BFs.

I never said I was perfect, but then again I don't claim to be the international spokesperson for Vehicular Cycling either.

They don't need to pay any more attention than on a road with only car-specific signals.

You forget that most motorists overlook those forms of signage as well.

-Kurt

"Most" don't overlook stoplights.

Actually, the most-overlooked signals I've seen in this city are green lights. Drivers will stop as expected, get out their phone, text something, and only look up when the driver behind them gets impatient about waiting at a green light.

Randya, I looked at your cited references and saw no use of the phrase "accelerated pedestrians" or any verbiage that inferred such a proposed "reclassified" status for bicyclists. Is that your own $50 fightin' phrase/battle cry or someone else's?
from this discussion on BikePortland.org: http://bikeportland.org/2009/03/23/cycle-track-coming-to-north-park-blocks/

relevant posts from the thread comments section:
http://bikeportland.org/2009/03/23/cycle-track-coming-to-north-park-blocks/#comment-1202787
http://bikeportland.org/2009/03/23/cycle-track-coming-to-north-park-blocks/#comment-1204671

They don't need to pay any more attention than on a road with only car-specific signals.

And 40,000 deaths a year show that motorists don't do that well either. (not to mention the countless injury only collisions)

I have nothing against well designed facilities, but there is a huge difference in what may work best in Europe and what works well here.

Anything that depends on motorists paying attention is doomed to fail... and sadly, anything that gives comfort to cyclists, while expecting motorists to pay attention, is dangerous for cyclists. Cyclists need a bit of paranoia to overcome the "I own the road" mentality of American motorists. Sadly.

About the only thing that will really work for cyclists both from a pure comfort standpoint and from a safety standpoint is separate and isolated bike paths and well traffic calmed bike boulevards... and even the latter have faults.

Anything else, while it may encourage folks to get out and ride, also has the stigma of setting up cyclists for collisions, should the cyclist become complacent with the design of that facility.

Bike lanes for instance, while I like them from the standpoint that they do encourage cycling, and they do indicate that cyclists should be on the streets, not the sidewalks, are designed for the convenience of motorists.

Okay, so tell me that both a cyclist that has the cyclist-specific signal AND a driver that has the car-specific signal will miss them completely.

I never said I was perfect, but then again I don't claim to be the international spokesperson for Vehicular Cycling either.Please post the quote in which Forester claimed "to be the international spokesperson for Vehicular Cycling".

From Forester's web site.
"Forester is the father of the vehicular cycling concept."

Yeah, but Randya hardly is a public figure representing cycling.

Forester does as much to ruin the public image of cycling as he does to promote it. :mad:Forester has done far more for cycling on Oahu with his help in setting up the HBL BikeEd training program for fourth graders:thumb: than any of your supposed damage to cycling.

Just because Forester and Serge see no need for YOUR favorite projects, does not mean they are damaging cycling. Their points are currently being validated by the Portland continuing movement that cyclist do not belong on the roadway.

Please post the quote in which Forester claimed "to be the international spokesperson for Vehicular Cycling".


From Forester's web site.
"Forester is the father of the vehicular cycling concept."Which is an accurate statement and quite different from claimed "to be the international spokesperson for Vehicular Cycling".

from this discussion on BikePortland.org: http://bikeportland.org/2009/03/23/cycle-track-coming-to-north-park-blocks/

relevant posts from the thread comments section:
http://bikeportland.org/2009/03/23/cycle-track-coming-to-north-park-blocks/#comment-1202787
http://bikeportland.org/2009/03/23/cycle-track-coming-to-north-park-blocks/#comment-1204671

So the phrase comes from someone actually opposed to the so-called "current facilities movement" in Portland, paraphrasing some unspecified Dutch group talking about something over there. Got it.

So the phrase comes from somebody actually opposed to the so-called "current facilities movement" in Portland paraphrasing somebody supposedly in Holland talking about something over there. Got it.

actually, both sides seem to agree on this phrase. did you read both posts?

actually, both sides seem to agree on this phrase. did you read both posts?

Actually I didn't read anybody describing any effort to "reclassify" Portland cyclists as some sort of "accelerated pedestrians." Just some guys who enjoy using a good buzz word.

Forester has done far more for cycling on Oahu with his help in setting up the HBL BikeEd training program for fourth graders:thumb: than any of your supposed damage to cycling.

Just because Forester and Serge see no need for YOUR favorite projects, does not mean they are damaging cycling. Their points are currently being validated by the Portland continuing movement that cyclist do not belong on the roadway.

Just to remind readers of this thread... What is the Modal Share for cyclists on Oahu? The Modal Share for cyclists in Portland is over 6%, well over the national average of just under 1%

Until portland delivers door to door cyclepaths for every address, i suspect portland isn't looking to 'reclassify' bicyclists.

repurposing some public rights of way for more exclusive use by bicycle traffic is more like what's going on. cyclists will still ride on the streets in Portland!

If anything, crash rates significantly higher than class 2 bikeways along similar types of streets may turn portland off converting a lot of roadspace to class 1 bikeways but I'd put money on the move to accommodate even more citizenry on bicycles that will lead to more, greater conversions of public road space.

Portland could easily triple the width of existing bike lanes, add some bike specific signals and remove a lane of traffic on multiple routes across town in the creation of quite accommodating hybrid class1/class 2 'bikeways' of a new, american version.

I see portland getting a 'Green Wave' timed street. most close in routes are pretty manageable and the hills make wave timing impractical but somewhere there's got to be a suitable route for bicycle wave timing.


Have many of you guys ridden in Portland lately?

Just to remind readers of this thread... What is the Modal Share for cyclists on Oahu? The Modal Share for cyclists in Portland is over 6%, well over the national average of just under 1%Just to remind people that threads like that also noted the differences in topography, winds, distances commuters must travel and Portland's terrible parking that play a significant part in the difference. And Oahu is about double the national modal share, even given the disadvantages noted in those threads.

Seems you are implying these bad bike facilities of Portland are the way to go, Gene. Is that really the implication you want to leave here?

Just to remind people that threads like that also noted the differences in topography, winds, distances commuters must travel and Portland's terrible parking that play a significant part in the difference. And Oahu is about double the national modal share, even given the disadvantages noted in those threads.

Seems you are implying these bad bike facilities of Portland are the way to go, Gene. Is that really the implication you want to leave here?

No. Bad bike facilities are bad no matter where they are. But are you implying that all of Portland's facilities are bad? :innocent:

What I do want to imply is that Portland is doing something that the rest of the nation is not doing... and they are getting results from their actions. And making adjustments. Tuning the system. Even NYC has realized that adjustments have to be made, and an auto centric environment, in which cyclists "act like drivers" may not be the best answer.

No place that has relied on "vehicular cycling" or "education" alone has near the cyclist modal share results of what Portland has been able to generate.

That doesn't mean I condone all of their "experiments;" but at the same time, the actions in Portland are quite a bit more successful at getting people on bikes, even in cold, rainy weather. Compare that to the wonderful climate of places like Oahu or even a bright sunny place like San Diego, where modal share is terribly low, and one has to wonder if "Forester magic" really delivers. Also, I don't believe the distances within the city of Honolulu are vastly different from that of any other major US city... and yet something seems to be working for Portland. And Davis, and Boulder. Something that even Oahu isn't able to replicate.

Gee, I wonder what it could be. :rolleyes:

At least those folks in Portland are trying something that is getting increasingly positive results.

Honolulu has great climate for bicycling, a bike master plan, bikelanes, and a city council that officially recognizes the deluterious effects traffic congestion has on their quality of life.

if Honolulu lacks the political will to encourage cycling like portland or other cities in america or around the world, their ridership rates will remain stunted by poor traffic management and design of public rights of way.

Portland has changed their streetscape, the results are an amazing modal share for big cities in america and is looking to further raise the bar of bikeability of their city.

vehikular cyklists' HAVE to complain about Class1 bikeways being installed on city streets previously emphasized for automobile traffic. Coz EVERYONE'S bike drives like a CAR, remember? ;)

No matter how beautiful the weather is, bike-friendliness still won't happen without an increase in infrastructure (which isn't just well-designed bike lanes, but also pubtrans like metro, trains, buses, etc) and a decrease in cars (whether by number or by where, when, and how fast they're allowed to go). Make excuses in one city and follow the formula in another, and the second city will have more new cyclists every time you compare the two.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3639/3409171398_03c70f15c5.jpg

No matter how beautiful the weather is, bike-friendliness still won't happen without an increase in infrastructure (which isn't just well-designed bike lanes, but also pubtrans like metro, trains, buses, etc) and a decrease in cars (whether by number or by where, when, and how fast they're allowed to go). Make excuses in one city and follow the formula in another, and the second city will have more new cyclists every time you compare the two.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3639/3409171398_03c70f15c5.jpg

Somehow this seems to elude those that worship Forester.

Forester has never claimed to want to encourage people to bike. His claims and focus are geared toward those folks that love cycling for the sake of cycling. With that in mind, he does have some good ideas about how to use a bike in an auto centric environment. But he also praises the auto, and has exclaimed his love of the auto here on BF.

The reality is that our auto centric society has lead to an incredible change in the design of our cities; lead to the generally overweight American; and has fostered our heavy dependence on foreign oil. We simply need to find and encourage alternatives to the overpowered single passenger auto for some segments of our transit needs. Cycling for short distances offers the same passenger independence as the auto, without the long list of drawbacks that the auto brings. We need to encourage cycling in our cities. This latter area is where Forester and his ilk fall short.

Cycling in Portland clearly works best on the 'pre-automobile' street grid in the inner city areas. Little or no infrastrucure is required to accomodate cyclists in these parts of town, and the recent growth in cycling in Portland has been despite, and not because of, construction of bike-specific accomodations; yet the city insists on building 'improvements' anyway, most of which, if examined closely, are not really about promoting cycling, but rather, are focused on preventing cyclists from inconveniencing motorists.

Meanwhile, every new state highway or 'modern' road overlaid on the inner city street grid during the past 50 years, or developed in the 'post-automobile' fringes of town, is a miserable experience for cyclists regardless of the amount of bike accomodations planned or installed.

Most of the bike infrastructure that Portland is so famous for has been installed in an attempt to bridge the gap between the old and the new road systems, and yet the places where the old and new road systems interact, such as at highway interchanges, continue to be some of the most unsafe and bicycle-unfriendly places to ride.

Also, I don't believe the distances within the city of Honolulu are vastly different from that of any other major US city... and yet something seems to be working for Portland. Gene, you seem to want to forget housing cost. True inner city distances may be the same, but a moderate condo in Honolulu cost $3,000,000.oo and up. You were shown that in the threads you like to reference, but ignore that fact. To buy a townhouse for under $400,000.oo you would need to live about 20+ miles from Honolulu. How many Portland cyclist commute 40 to 100 miles each day? How many Portland residents that payed over 3 million for their home commute by bicycle?

So, how long do you want to rehash old threads that you have forgotten the facts of?:rolleyes:

And Davis, and Boulder. Something that even Oahu isn't able to replicate.

Gee, I wonder what it could be. :rolleyes:

Now Gene wants to equite small college town demographics with major cities.:rolleyes:
And somehow, he cannot see the difference. Gene, maybe your sollution is to make average americans as poor as college students.:lol:

Gene, you seem to want to forget housing cost. True inner city distances may be the same, but a moderate condo in Honolulu cost $3,000,000.oo and up. You were shown that in the threads you like to reference, but ignore that fact. To buy a townhouse for under $400,000.oo you would need to live about 20+ miles from Honolulu. How many Portland cyclist commute 40 to 100 miles each day? How many Portland residents that payed over 3 million for their home commute by bicycle?

So, how long do you want to rehash old threads that you have forgotten the facts of?:rolleyes:

I rehash them over and over as long as there are new discussions and new readers. So basically you are saying that only the poor ride bikes? Funny, as Forester plainly discusses that professional folks tend to be the most prolific regular cyclists.

Are you saying that if you have a 3 million dollar condo downtown you are not likely to ride a bike?

Very odd that. I wonder who buys 7 thousand dollar bikes?