Vehicular Cycling (VC) - Make Your Rules, Obey the Ones You Like.

It's been a while since this group has had something to chew on and I found this:

http://cycledallas.blogspot.com/2009/05/make-your-rules-obey-ones-you-like.html

Where they make a comparison that illegally painting a bike lane (on a road where bikes already belong) is like putting up your own 90mph speed limit sign.

That seems like an unfair comparison to me, I think it's more like putting up your own "25 saves lives" sign on a 25mph road as nothing is being encouraged that could not be legally done before.

So the question is what is the bigger transgression; bikeway advocates encouraging gorilla bike lanes or the VC exaggerating the harm of bike lanes?

If a lane is wide enough for a bike lane, it doesn't need to be striped.

So the question is what is the bigger transgression; bike-way advocates encouraging gorilla bike lanes or the VC exaggerating the harm of bike lanes?

Well, one of them is an illegal act of vandalism, attempting to force their desires on others. (Using the color of law with counterfeit traffic control devices, no less!) The other is an expressed opinion designed to persuade others to their point of view. (An activity that is protected by constitutional law.) Other than that I don't have any categorical issues with your question.

So the question is what is the bigger transgression; bikeway advocates encouraging gorilla bike lanes or the VC exaggerating the harm of bike lanes?
Six to one, half dozen to the other.

A pox on both their houses!

Keri said...
Paint your own marginalization.

As if we needed any more proof that pro-bike lane ideologues can be just as good at shooting themselves in the foot as Forester-inspired facilities haters are.

Ideology seem to go hand in hand with stupidity (not that that is a new or surprising observation).

There is an interesting article in the July Bicycling magazine about D.I.Y bike lanes and the results of such an endeavor. Yeah there was room to share the road before the BL... The city even determined that a BL should be there... but just never got around to it. The end result is that drivers leave cyclists room simply because the motorists now acknowledge the black paint that was used to erase the illegal BL.

Drivers respond to lines... it is that simple.

vehikular cyklists must not be familiar with the actions of 'civil disobedience'.

as if we needed any more proof that pro-bike lane ideologues can be just as good at shooting themselves in the foot as forester-inspired facilities haters are.

+1000

a couple of paragraphs - not the entire article either - that the original blogger left out of his criticism, Barry....





The Fletcher Drive bridge suddenly has a bike lane -- a homemade bike
lane, and an illegal one. The project is the result of weeks of planning
and years of frustration. Not including freeways, there are 12 bridges
that cross the Los Angeles River, and the three rogue bike-lane makers
are among the hundreds of cyclists who cross those bridges every day.
For more than a decade, an official document has existed that would
create bike facilities on four of those bridges. But to the region's
longtime riders, that proposal, like the entire municipal blueprint for
two-wheeled access along 6,400 miles of the city's roadways, is less a
plan than a catalog of unfulfilled promises. Hundreds of miles of bike
lanes, routes and paths have been okayed, but never built. The
bridges-high -- speed thoroughfares that are the only way to enter
downtown Los Angeles from the east -- are where those wayward vows turn
most deadly, the painters say.Not a single span within city limits has
a real bike lane.


Our real-time crossing felt just a bit less hard-boiled. Los Angeles has
nothing like a Brooklyn Bridge or a Golden Gate. Our bridges are
basically extensions of ordinary streets laid on propped-up roadbeds.
The problem is that in some of the most important ways they aren't
actually streets. Without traffic lights or intersections to naturally
slow traffic, vehicles quickly reach freeway speeds. The bridges have no
shoulders to offer safe refuge for bikes, just high curbs. As we rode,
we found ourselves constantly sandwiched between palisades of concrete
on one side and scores of speeding cars and trucks on the other. Some
vehicles gave us leeway. Some honked. Many-far too many passed within
terrifying inches. There are more than 50 traffic lanes on the 12
bridges, but not a single accommodation for bikes.

embolding mine

Have you been to Los Angeles, Barry?

And have you heard the story - tell me if you've heard this - about the civil disobedience that led to woonerfs in the Netherlands in the 1970s. They were, quite literally, streets that were torn up and turned into 'living yards' overnight by citizens upset over the traffic in their neighborhoods after some children were injured... the bulldozers that were sent to repair the "Damages" were resisted by citizens to RECLAIM THE STREETS from the autocentricity.

Woonerven have since caught on in many countries in Europe.

this type of civil disobedience that led to reclaiming the streets overseas is seen in america as well, just not so much involving cars and stuff....

Overseas, woonerven and tempo 30 zones, fascinating prioritizing of public spaces for different uses than Los Angeles pavement.

i think the biggest transgression is the failure to accommodate bicycling on freeway speed roads in Los Angeles and elsewhere in the country. hysteria against bicycling accommodation on public rights of way gets second place.

guerilla bike lanes, not so much a problem.

One thing that really impresses me here is a lot of our 35mph arterials in Baltimore are fairly well traveled by a diverse range of cyclists. But as you move out around the state the State Highway (SHA) roads with 35mph speed limits have a different "feel." For one there is the general acceptance of going 15mph over the speed limit so you have 50mph arterials on what should be 35mph. It is almost as if cars were doing a mass civil disobedience to protest against other users of the road. Which brings up an article I wrote: http://www.baltimorespokes.org/article.php?story=20090403080138909

On the VC side of things, having to find or just the desire to find more pleasant alternate routes then what the cars travel is a from of marginalization. On the bikeway advocate side of things, there seems to be a general acceptance of any width bike lane is a good thing, another form of marginalization.What is needed is a good civil disobedience campaign, which nether side has.

With the VC camp the whole "Take the lane" because we are allowed to. and the counter arguments, are not, are to... is not getting us anywhere.

I've been to Los Angeles in the late 1970's.

.... It is almost as if cars were doing a mass civil disobedience to protest against other users of the road. Which brings up an article I wrote: http://www.baltimorespokes.org/article.php?story=20090403080138909

On the VC side of things, having to find or just the desire to find more pleasant alternate routes then what the cars travel is a from of marginalization. On the bikeway advocate side of things, there seems to be a general acceptance of any width bike lane is a good thing, another form of marginalization.What is needed is a good civil disobedience campaign, which nether side has.

With the VC camp the whole "Take the lane" because we are allowed to. and the counter arguments, are not, are to... is not getting us anywhere.

I've been to Los Angeles in the late 1970's.

Barry, you think cyclists' desire to have a pleasant route is marginalizing? cyclists not wanting to mix it up with 50mph traffic and agressive motor vehicle traffic is marginalizing????

then yes, it is motor vehicle traffic that is marginalizing bicycle traffic. how to fix? slow the speeds, provide alternate routes, provide quality bike infrastructure.

'acceptance of any width bike lane as a good thing' is NOT a fair categorization of facilities advocacy & not even relevant to the topic.

then yes, it is motor vehicle traffic that is marginalizing bicycle traffic. how to fix? slow the speeds, provide alternate routes, provide quality bike infrastructure.

That is the question for the VC, how to fix or what to promote for the cause. I really don't think what's best for cars (only) is always the best thing for cyclists.

Some of my thinking of late has to do with transportation corridors, that concept only seems to capture cars and commuter rail and nothing else. Even most bus routes around here meander around locally, as do the good alternate on-road bike routes. It seems that there are lot of pieces floating around but not a comprehensive regional bike network.


'acceptance of any width bike lane as a good thing' is NOT a fair categorization of facilities advocacy.

Granted but at the same time there is a willingness to dump a fair amount of $$$/mile for trails and anything that costs more then paint for on-road bike consideration is totally balked at. Trails are very mixed in their ability to accommodate transportation well, yet are paid for largely by money that is "primarily for transportation purposes and not recreation."

So it seems to me with the VC crowd comfort takes a backseat to transportation and with the bikeway advocates transportation takes a backseat to comfort.

the FIRST step, barry, is for vehikular cyklists to recognize the validity of class preferred transportation infrastructure. The VC need to stop stonewalling and retarding rider share in this country with their shrill, dogged obstructionism.

Like in this specific case, from the blog you referenced in the OP - a Vehikular cyklist blog harping on guerilla lane striping in LA.

Cyclists should be able to unite, endorse, solidly back and recognize the validity of bike specific infrastructure on high speed arterial bridges across the Los Angeles River versus tossing around divisive, glib, inaccurate criticisms of populist bike activism.

Every rational cyclist should be able to endorse better bridge access for bicyclists, especially along high volume, high speed roadways.


Criticisms of activism for better bicyclist bridge access across the Los Angeles river.
Thanks, Barry, for highlighting the innacurate rhetoric of the vehikular cyklists movement.

Trails are very mixed in their ability to accommodate transportation well, yet are paid for largely by money that is "primarily for transportation purposes and not recreation."

So it seems to me with the VC crowd comfort takes a backseat to transportation and with the bikeway advocates transportation takes a backseat to comfort.

Any reference to your statement about the "recreational" vice transportation funding sources for bike trails?

Also what is the basis of your opinion about the VC crowd's concern for transportation? IMO their chief concern is wholly about themselves and their own cycling activities to the exclusion of anyone else who does not join the clique. That and the their irrational and hysterical fears of the government somehow interfering with the "efficiency" i.e. speed, of their bicycling activities of mostly club and sporting rides.

Any reference to your statement about the "recreational" vice transportation funding sources for bike trails?


Funding Sources for Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects

Bicycle and pedestrian projects are broadly eligible for funding from almost all the major Federal-aid highway, transit, safety, and other programs. Bicycle projects must be "principally for transportation, rather than recreation, purposes" and must be designed and located pursuant to the transportation plans required of States and Metropolitan Planning Organizations.
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bikeped/bp-broch.htm



Also what is the basis of your opinion about the VC crowd's concern for transportation? IMO their chief concern is wholly about themselves and their own cycling activities to the exclusion of anyone else who does not join the clique. That and the their irrational and hysterical fears of the government somehow interfering with the "efficiency" i.e. speed, of their bicycling activities of mostly club and sporting rides.

Which VC crowd are we talking about? The One? The Sacred Nine? Or a group much larger? If you want to make a case that VC is about recreation and not transportation we still have an irony:

Bikeway advocates using transportation funding for recreational facilities.
VC advocates using transportation infrastructure for recreational activities.

barry, before you hyperbowl (new verb) this right out of rational discussion,

WHAT do funding sources for bike/ped projects have to do with guerilla bike activism for better bridge access in LA, and its attendant vehikular cyklist criticisms?

are you trying to say that LA needs to apply for more funds to fix the poor bicyclist bridge access across the Los Angeles River?

why the false framing of an argument? how does your 'concern' about funding tie in with the OP?

let's try to focus on the original post, the topic at hand:

Poor bridge access for bicyclists across the Los Angeles River. Better bridge access has been planned but never delivered by the city. Concerned cycling activists are painting guerilla bikelanes to emphasize bike travel and safety across these high speed arterial bridges. Vehikular cyklings' inner circle of bliviots movement (see 'chainguard' group at Yahoo groups for representative sampling) are poking derision at the efforts of the activists.

discuss.

Bek, while some States may share similar issues in regards to bicycling advocacy, every state is different and I can only speak of my experience here in Maryland, if my comments rings true in some States then maybe my comments might be of help, if a particular State is different then sorry my experience will probably not be helpful. That is the nature of every State being different.

So in Maryland there is a great concern that all our funding is being "eaten away" by fund only trails policy and procedures. This is slowly changing but still we want to see a greater diverse mix of bicycle accommodations and considerations then what we are currently getting. This may be applicable to LA if they are funding trails but not the bridge accommodations.

Right now in Maryland it is eraser to fund a $100M trail then a $100K on-road improvement, this is not right. Would it be acceptable in Maryland to postpone one trail project and put in a 1,000 on-road projects, you bet.

If you want to make a case that VC is about recreation and not transportation we still have an irony:

Bikeway advocates using transportation funding for recreational facilities.
VC advocates using transportation infrastructure for recreational activities.

Note that your citation only refers to projects funded by Federal Aid.

I do believe that "irony" is the case. I don't particularly see the significance of such irony as much as come to the conclusion of "so what?"
Many users of transportation facilities use them for all sorts of needs to include driving as a recreational activitiy, or for driving to/from recreational activities.

In fact what is the significance of the source of funding of bicycle trails/facilities? A few of our VC comrades act as if a great fraud is being conducted by spending transportation dollars on bike facilities but have yet to cite any examples where anyone, anywhere has advaced that legal case beyond Internet ranting.

Which VC crowd are we talking about? The One? The Sacred Nine? Or a group much larger?

The VehicularCyclists™ who venture forth from the circle jerk of the ChainGuard list to post on BF similar over-the-top anti- bike facilities rhetoric and fabricated risk reduction results (and potential) of their prefered techniques.

The blog response is an over reaction, IMO. Clearly there is an underperforming municipal government that is somewhat derelict in their duties. The fake bike lane is a proportionate response/protest. That is, they didn't blow up a few buildings nor run down Wilshire rioting and burning cars calling for a road design that better accomodates cyclists.


Drivers respond to lines... it is that simple.

I concur. But they don't always respond in a positive manner.


One thing that really impresses me here is a lot of our 35mph arterials in Baltimore are fairly well traveled by a diverse range of cyclists. But as you move out around the state the State Highway (SHA) roads with 35mph speed limits have a different "feel." For one there is the general acceptance of going 15mph over the speed limit so you have 50mph arterials on what should be 35mph.

They have more than a different feel Barry. The environment can vary quite a bit -- I'm thinking of a few roads in Southern Maryland ridden with the Oxon Hill group. Consequently people consider the legal speed limit out of sync with their mental picture of a safe speed.


the FIRST step, barry, is for vehikular cyklists to recognize the validity of class preferred transportation infrastructure. The VC need to stop stonewalling and retarding rider share in this country with their shrill, dogged obstructionism.


Any reference to your statement about the "recreational" vice transportation funding sources for bike trails?

Also what is the basis of your opinion about the VC crowd's concern for transportation? IMO their chief concern is wholly about themselves and their own cycling activities to the exclusion of anyone else who does not join the clique. That and the their irrational and hysterical fears of the government somehow interfering with the "efficiency" i.e. speed, of their bicycling activities of mostly club and sporting rides.

"VC" is being used way too broadly here. If VC means John Forestor and a handful of people on Chainguard that follows him verbatum then you exclude a lot of people label themselves VC or think that there are some good points in VC rhetoric as well as a good overall strategy for cycling.

Note that it is pretty clear that there are extremists -- uber-VC and bike-lane-lemmings -- that pump out their irrational and hysterical fears for their own purposes. But unless one wants a discussion where everyone cherry picks comments by the wackos I think its best to get past our own biases, wonder whether there are some reasonable arguments against our positions and consider alternatives/compromises that move advocacy forward.


... in Maryland there is a great concern that all our funding is being "eaten away" by fund only trails policy and procedures. This is slowly changing but still we want to see a greater diverse mix of bicycle accommodations and considerations then what we are currently getting. This may be applicable to LA if they are funding trails but not the bridge accommodations.

Barry and I are geographically close but we are in different states. Here most bicycle funding originates from the annual transportation bill and these funds are allocated to both onroad and offroad projects. At least in the short run, one can view this as a fixed pie to be divided among projects. I recall that Arlington officials were looking for "ready-to-dig" bicycle projects elligible for the transportion infrastructure stimulus funds which ended up primarily being path maintenance.

"VC" is being used way too broadly here. If VC means John Forestor and a handful of people on Chainguard that follows him verbatum then you exclude a lot of people label themselves VC or think that there are some good points in VC rhetoric as well as a good overall strategy for cycling.

Note that it is pretty clear that there are extremists -- uber-VC and bike-lane-lemmings -- that pump out their irrational and hysterical fears for their own purposes. But unless one wants a discussion where everyone cherry picks comments by the wackos I think its best to get past our own biases, wonder whether there are some reasonable arguments against our positions and consider alternatives/compromises that move advocacy forward.

Invisible, I think in fact you are using the term VC too broadly. I doubt very many cyclists even know the term vehicular cyclist or would use the term to describe themselves or their cycling technique. Nor would many ever sit still for very long listening or reading the comments, books or training materials of the self proclaimed Vehicular Cyclists to bother cherry picking anything positive in that mess of rhetoric and over-the-top dogma.

In fact what is the significance of the source of funding of bicycle trails/facilities? A few of our VC comrades act as if a great fraud is being conducted by spending transportation dollars on bike facilities but have yet to cite any examples where anyone, anywhere has advaced that legal case beyond Internet ranting.

You of all people should know the power of Federal subsidies vs paying for things locally. And you are right no legal case has been brought (yet) that I am aware of but for my part I could not find a lawyer who practices/knowledgeable in this field.

Though I will add that M-NCPPC was planning on charging bike commuters to use a trail paid for by Federal Transportation money so I brought up this little tidbit of law and the proposal died.

..... I think its best to get past our own biases, wonder whether there are some reasonable arguments against our positions and consider alternatives/compromises that move advocacy forward.

invisiblehand, lets see some common ground right here in this thread.

Should high speed, high volume bridgeways have preferred class bicycling infrastructure? How should large cities (or small) accommodate bicycle traffic across a natural barrier like the Los Angeles River where significant volumes of motor vehicle traffic gets carried by relatively few bridgeways?

Any rational cyclist should be able to endorse better bicyclist bridge accommodation along high speed, high volume roadways.

You of all people should know the power of Federal subsidies vs paying for things locally. And you are right no legal case has been brought (yet) that I am aware of but for my part I could not find a lawyer who practices/knowledgeable in this field.

Though I will add that M-NCPPC was planning on charging bike commuters to use a trail paid for by Federal Transportation money so I brought up this little tidbit of law and the proposal died.

I am well aware that any if not all communities would prefer to use Federally supplied funds rather than their own resources. The advantages and disadvantages of trails and other facilities for cyclists should be the subject/issue for bicycling advocates.

The "issue" of recreation vice transportation purpose funding irregularities raised by some of the notorious VC zealots is just one more piece of "stuff" they throw against the wall to see what will stick in their anti bike facility campaign.

Invisible, I think in fact you are using the term VC too broadly.

In reference to the people that actually post on this forum ... that is quite likely since there is a huge selection bias. But in my own little world, the few places I visit regularly (the cyclists I meet), and the people that simply read posts, probably not.

invisiblehand, lets see some common ground right here in this thread.

Sure.

Under what conditions would you reject a bike lane/facility proposal on those same roads?


Should high speed, high volume bridgeways have preferred class bicycling infrastructure? How should large cities (or small) accommodate bicycle traffic across a natural barrier like the Los Angeles River where significant volumes of motor vehicle traffic gets carried by relatively few bridgeways?

Any rational cyclist should be able to endorse better bicyclist bridge accommodation along high speed, high volume roadways.

I think that in conversations with Gene, I already wrote that bike lanes that meet an acceptable standard -- roughly speaking, assuming reasonable maintenance, five feet wide with a good proportion outside the door zone if there is parking or four feet wide if there is no parking wuth "smart" intersections -- are a good solution for high speed arterials since the variability in lateral passing is probably less than with a WOL and it gives a cyclist an easy to filter up slot during peak hours such that he/she can maintain a more consistent speed. From what I recall while living in OC, those roads would fit the profile.

I think that we would all prefer measures that would slow down motorized traffic but, most likely, it is not politically feasible.

The "issue" of recreation vice transportation purpose funding irregularities raised by some of the notorious VC zealots is just one more piece of "stuff" they throw against the wall to see what will stick in their anti bike facility campaign.

I disagree that it is a nonissue since certain facilities are used in a manner more like a park making them far less conducive for transportation. If you care about getting around efficiently, then one would want those dollars to go to better road conditions for cyclists, IMO. Many use the dollars allocated to X as a measure of government action on particular issues. Moving the dollars around ex-post -- a somewhat common occurrence by my observation in government activities in general -- could be viewed as dishonest. Although others look at it as a positive attribute since conditions change such that you want government to be able to react to the biggest problem at hand.

Sure.

Under what conditions would you reject a bike lane/facility proposal on those same roads?

Sure. Right back at you...


I'd reject bicycling infrastructure that fails to
.... meet an acceptable standard -- roughly speaking, assuming reasonable maintenance, five feet wide with a good proportion outside the door zone if there is parking or four feet wide if there is no parking wuth "smart" intersections -- are a good solution for high speed arterials....

Seems like we're both in agreement.


Do you think rational bicyclists should accept, as part of a unified bicycling advocacy platform among both infrastructuralists and vehicularists alike(which are not mutually exclusive camps BTW) a goal of better arterial bridgeway accommodations including bike lanes that meet acceptable standards?

Do you think rational bicyclists should accept, as part of a unified bicycling advocacy platform among both infrastructuralists and vehicularists alike(which are not mutually exclusive camps BTW) a goal of better arterial bridgeway accommodations including bike lanes that meet acceptable standards?

Even Helmet Head agreed that there are certain instances where bike lanes were acceptable... he specifically cited such things as tunnels and bridges as prime examples.

Do you think rational bicyclists should accept, as part of a unified bicycling advocacy platform among both infrastructuralists and vehicularists alike(which are not mutually exclusive camps BTW) a goal of better arterial bridgeway accommodations including bike lanes that meet acceptable standards?

Hmmmm ... rational?

I would drop "rational" since you can take a population of perfectly rational people, subject them to the randomness of life and observe some extreme opinions at the end. For instance, SG in the main A&S forum made an initial guess of a puncture every 100-200 miles while riding on shoulders and bike lanes. Now, no offense intended SG if you read this, I think that estimate to project on the overall population is wildly high. But if you believe that estimate, then it may be completely rational to block bike lanes.

Getting passed bridges, I would generally be happier with traffic calming, better road design, and a somewhat increased LEO activity against aggressive driving; but as a practical measure, arterials are here to stay for the near future and a well designed facility generally makes things better, IMO.

I don't want to inturrupt a pissing match but...

Where are all these recreational trails supposedly funded by transportation funds and not used for transportation?

Until somebody gives specific examples, I'm gonna call "BS!"

As far as I can tell, such claims are mostly a crock of cow manure used by those who oppose bicycle facilities as a matter of policy.

Most of the off-road trails I've checked on recieve little or no transportation funds. They are funded by a variety of other means-- parks, recreation, conservation, etc. funds, special greenway districts, sometimes private donations. If there are transportation funds involved, they are relatively small.

About the only time transportation funds seem to come into play is when the trails are part of highway construction projects -- in which case the money spent on trails is generally a small part of the total cost.

I can give a very recent local example of this kind of small part of the total cost. MODOT is rebuilding the local commuter highway in St. Louis (I-64 to MODOT and the federal government but "highway farty" in a St. Louis accent (i.e. US40) -- to many locals, I-64 is a myth).

As part of the I-64 project, MODOT is rebuilding the intersection of I-64 with Hampton Avenue as it enters Forest Park (where the St. Louis Zoo is).

It just so happens that the Forest Park Bicycle Path crosses Hampton just north of I-64 (aside: the Forest Park Bicycle Path was opened as a bicycle path over a hundred years ago at the urging of bicyclists. Even though the FPBP has not been used continuosly as a bike path, it gives the lie to Forester's claims that bike paths are some kind of 1970s motorist conspiracy -- not that anybody with half a brain gives much creedence to Forester's claims).

As part of the rebuilding of the I-64 -- Hampton intersection, MODOT put the Forest Park Bicycle path in a tunnel under Hampton. Transportation funds were undoubtably involved. MODOT also built sidewalks and pedestrain overpasses and they're putting in soundwalls and all kinds of other good stuff. What are they supposed to do? Just pave the highway and screw everything else?

My point is that the cost of the Forest Park Bike Path tunnel is incedental to the reconstruction of I-64. How much of the total cost of the project was it?? What would it have cost to do something else? To claim it is a misuse of transportation funds is nonsense.

I am aware that nonsense is the stock and trade of some opponents of bicycle facilities like Forester and his deluded American Dream Coalition, automobile culture worshiping followers. Forester pretends he's not entirely opposed to all recreational bike paths but, then, he never met a bike path he likes and he's obviously not convinced of the practicality of any form of transportation other than the automobile. I have seen Forester complain about what he claims are transportation funds being used for recreational trails but Forester has zero credibility on such subjects (and, for that matter, most any other subject with the possible exception of the usefullness of coaster brakes).

Disclaimer: Transportation funds are used for white paint for on-road facilities (read "bike lanes"), and some of this money may be poorly used, but that's a different issue.

BTW: Before reconstruction, the Hampton Avenue, Wells Avenue, Forest Park Bike Path intersection was an absolute nightmare -- a hazard for bike path users if there ever was one. I was originally skeptical of the bike path tunnel but, now that I have actually ridden through it, I'm not complaining a whole lot. It's an improvement -- now all "they" need to do is bring the rest of the bike path up to a similar standard.

I ask again: Where are all these recreational trails supposedly funded by transportation funds and not used for transportation?

Forester has zero credibility on such subjects (and, for that matter, most any other subject with the possible exception of the usefullness of coaster brakes).

He's full of crap on that subject too; his "test" of a coaster brake bike was just another in a consistent pattern of Forester Brand "research" designed to reach a predetermined conclusion.

Hmmmm ... rational? I would drop "rational"....

fine.

Do you think { ** bicyclists should by and large accept, as part of a unified bicycling advocacy platform among both infrastructuralists and vehicularists alike(which are not mutually exclusive camps BTW) a goal of better arterial bridgeway accommodations including bike lanes that meet acceptable standards?




Focused on high speed, high volume arterial bridgeway accommodations for bicyclists now.....

should cycling's voice unifiy to lobby for better bridge access for bicycling?

The Vehikularist camp should be able to endorse, as a goal, better bridge access for bicyclists - including bike lanes- if they meet reasoned criteria.

standing in opposition to better bridge access for bicyclists is folly.

I don't want to inturrupt a pissing match but...

Where are all these recreational trails supposedly funded by transportation funds and not used for transportation?

Until somebody gives specific examples, I'm gonna call "BS!"

As far as I can tell, such claims are mostly a crock of cow manure used by those who oppose bicycle facilities as a matter of policy.

Most of the off-road trails I've checked on recieve little or no transportation funds. They are funded by a variety of other means-- parks, recreation, conservation, etc. funds, special greenway districts, sometimes private donations. If there are transportation funds involved, they are relatively small.

...

Disclaimer: Transportation funds are used for white paint for on-road facilities (read "bike lanes"), and some of this money may be poorly used, but that's a different issue.

...

I ask again: Where are all these recreational trails supposedly funded by transportation funds and not used for transportation?

Again I will note that there are differences between states, Maryland pays for its trails through TE money, other states can pay for trails through parks or other means.

For Maryland our issue is not an anti-trail one but to stress that TE money should be used principally for transportation and as such more attention needs to be placed on on-road accommodations and fixing gaps in the bike transportation network. We do not support MDOT's policy of funding only off road trails (with TE money.)


Facilities may include offroad trails; trailheads; bike parking; bike lane striping that is part of an offroad system; bike and pedestrian bridges; and underpasses.
http://www.sha.state.md.us/ImprovingOurCommunity/oppe/tep/tep_chap2.pdf

While we saw a change last year and some on-road accommodations were done it is still far short on what needs to be done and where it needs to be done. Too many cases of where people live a half mile from a trail and cannot comfortably bike there (assuming that these trails are for transportation then they should connect to the localities in which they serve.)

If you want a case we are very upset about it is on the East Coast Greenway on Belle Grove Rd http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Belle+Grove+Rd,+Brooklyn,+MD+21225&sll=39.294255,-76.614275&sspn=0.405986,0.617981&ie=UTF8&ll=39.226136,-76.622858&spn=0.025399,0.038624&z=15&layer=c&cbll=39.22622,-76.622786&panoid=9iiuAEU-2FTTyt1BfBYnWQ&cbp=12,213.43,,0,15.1
The link starts at a section of road as it was, then as you move forward you'll see they replaced the shoulder with a "lovely" off-road sidepath. Continue and the sidepath becomes a sidewalk complete with mail boxes and multiple driveways, again this was all nice bikable shoulders (like in the first frame) till they decided to give us off-road accommodations with TE money.

Could this "improvement" be used for transportation, I guess so. Is it the desired treatment "principally for transportation," no.

My problems with bike lanes can be seen in this video. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SV3gfabmrnc&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fcycledallas%2Eblogspot%2Ecom%2F2009%2F05%2Ftale%2Dof%2Dtwo%2Dstripings%2Ehtml&feature=player_embedded) Bike lanes concern me for a lot of other reasons. How well will we be seen? How will intersections be handled? Will cities "force" cyclists into lanes?

I don't have a problem with bike lanes and other infrastructure in certain contexts. But as an outright solution, as some propose? I'd rather see things like bike boulevards, like Portland and Berkley have built up, which are fairly easy to implement within many cities.

I don't have a problem with bike lanes and other infrastructure in certain contexts...

how do you feel about bike facilities on arterial bridgeways? do those meet your 'certain contexts' for bikelanes?

arterial bridgeway access in Los Angeles, guerilla bike activism, and vehikular criticism of said activism, is what this thread is about.

My problems with bike lanes can be seen in this video. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SV3gfabmrnc&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fcycledallas%2Eblogspot%2Ecom%2F2009%2F05%2Ftale%2Dof%2Dtwo%2Dstripings%2Ehtml&feature=player_embedded) Bike lanes concern me for a lot of other reasons. How well will we be seen? How will intersections be handled? Will cities "force" cyclists into lanes?

I don't have a problem with bike lanes and other infrastructure in certain contexts. But as an outright solution, as some propose? I'd rather see things like bike boulevards, like Portland and Berkley have built up, which are fairly easy to implement within many cities.

First off that is an overly narrow bike lane and I will assert not up to standards. I have a real issue with VC's riding like that in that type of facility, take the lane, dang nabit! Though I understand the point and a similar video was passed around here on the subject of 3' bike space and it helped make a point that 3' is not always a great idea. But I will assert this type of bike "facility" is no skin off my nose, if I don't like the space I take the lane just like I did before there was the stripe but now I have an option if I do like the space (typically for me is going up hill at 4-6mph) I have a comfortable space to retreat to.

Now a word for the other side: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XCqhFtcdPbk

[@bekologist]

I probably would not have an issue of them in that case. They can be one part of a wider range of solutions, including VC, that make cycling more accessible.

First off that is an overly narrow bike lane and I will assert not up to standards. I have a real issue with VC's riding like that in that type of facility, take the lane, dang nabit! Though I understand the point and a similar video was passed around here on the subject of 3' bike space and it helped make a point that 3' is not always a great idea. But I will assert this type of bike "facility" is no skin off my nose, if I don't like the space I take the lane just like I did before there was the stripe but now I have an option if I do like the space (typically for me is going up hill at 4-6mph) I have a comfortable space to retreat to.

Now a word for the other side: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XCqhFtcdPbk

I'll dig up the article that the video came from, but IIRC that was shot in Florida where it is illegal to come out of a bike lane if it is present. Someone correct me I am wrong. That is why I am hesitant about lanes being used-poor decision making by an elected body doing something they perceive as good which makes things worse.

First off that is an overly narrow bike lane and I will assert not up to standards. I have a real issue with VC's riding like that in that type of facility, take the lane, dang nabit! Though I understand the point and a similar video was passed around here on the subject of 3' bike space and it helped make a point that 3' is not always a great idea. But I will assert this type of bike "facility" is no skin off my nose, if I don't like the space I take the lane just like I did before there was the stripe but now I have an option if I do like the space (typically for me is going up hill at 4-6mph) I have a comfortable space to retreat to.

Now a word for the other side: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XCqhFtcdPbk

Well even that bike lane has some issues... I noticed the stencil for the bike lane barely fit in some places... and how about that drain grate?

The sad fact is that far too many bike lanes are an afterthought and are poorly implemented.

The flip side is that often without even a poor bike lane, people who could ride a bike (such as students) may not even attempt to ride on roads as shown in the video offered by politicalgeek (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SV3gfabmrnc&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fcycledallas.blogspot.com%2F2009%2F05%2Ftale-of-two-stripings.html&feature=player_embedded). Sure the lycra clad crowd will "take a lane" under those circumstances... but what about the rest of 2% of the population that rides a bike? Remember the lycra clad crowd is an even smaller percentage of that 2%.

The sad fact over and over again is that unless this mere 2% of transportation cyclists gets together with a unified voice and pushes for consistent roadway treatment, then substandard BL and worse will remain the order of the day.

sure, sure, sure,

I still think vehikular disdain for activism focused on better bridge accommodation for bicyclists crossing the LA river does bicyclists there a grave disservice -just like complaining about florida bike lane law in a thread about arterial bridgeway access in LA.

FWIW, Florida has a bunch, i mean a BUNCH, of causeway bridges that could and should be more accommodating for cyclists.....

floridia arterial bridgeways could become much more bicyclist friendly with bikelanes that meet reasonable criteria, the reasonable criteria outlined by invisiblehand above.

I think when looking at this whole situation one has to keep in mind that the city had approved the installation of a BL on the bridge, but had just not yet done it.


For more than a decade, an official document has existed that would create bike facilities on four of those bridges. But to the region's longtime riders, that proposal, like the entire municipal blueprint for two-wheeled access along 6,400 miles of the city's roadways, is less a plan than a catalog of unfulfilled promises. Hundreds of miles of bike lanes, routes and paths have been okayed, but never built. The bridges-high -- speed thoroughfares that are the only way to enter downtown Los Angeles from the east -- are where those wayward vows turn most deadly, the painters say. Not a single span within city limits has a real bike lane.

sure, sure, sure,

I still think vehikular disdain for activism focused on better bridge accommodation for bicyclists crossing the LA river does bicyclists there a grave disservice -just like complaining about florida bike lane law in a thread about arterial bridgeway access in LA.

FWIW, Florida has a bunch, i mean a BUNCH, of causeway bridges that could and should be more accommodating for cyclists.....

floridia arterial bridgeways could become much more bicyclist friendly with bikelanes that meet reasonable criteria, the reasonable criteria outlined by invisiblehand above.

So the question is what is the bigger transgression; bikeway advocates encouraging gorilla bike lanes or the VC exaggerating the harm of bike lanes?

Well that was the larger question offered at the start of this thread. I'm merely suggesting that there is a middle ground to be found between the 2 extremes.

So the question is what is the bigger transgression; bikeway advocates encouraging gorilla bike lanes or the VC exaggerating the harm of bike lanes?

Well that was the larger question offered at the start of this thread. I'm merely suggesting that there is a middle ground to be found between the 2 extremes.

I tend to agree... and I think this polarization within the cycling community has done far more harm to cycling in the US than anything else. As long as we remain so diametrically opposed, then we have no overall voice. United we stand, divided we fall.

fine.

Do you think { ** bicyclists should by and large accept, as part of a unified bicycling advocacy platform among both infrastructuralists and vehicularists alike(which are not mutually exclusive camps BTW) a goal of better arterial bridgeway accommodations including bike lanes that meet acceptable standards?




Focused on high speed, high volume arterial bridgeway accommodations for bicyclists now.....

should cycling's voice unifiy to lobby for better bridge access for bicycling?

The Vehikularist camp should be able to endorse, as a goal, better bridge access for bicyclists - including bike lanes- if they meet reasoned criteria.

standing in opposition to better bridge access for bicyclists is folly.

I would not waste time trying to get everyone on board. As some point, people will just have to disagree. And I don't think that you need a unified voice to get things done. You just need a good theory, some evidence, and a reasonable argument. Most people will jump on board or at the very least test the water.

Well even that bike lane has some issues... I noticed the stencil for the bike lane barely fit in some places... and how about that drain grate?

The sad fact is that far too many bike lanes are an afterthought and are poorly implemented.

The flip side is that often without even a poor bike lane, people who could ride a bike (such as students) may not even attempt to ride on roads as shown in the video offered by politicalgeek (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SV3gfabmrnc&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fcycledallas.blogspot.com%2F2009%2F05%2Ftale-of-two-stripings.html&feature=player_embedded). Sure the lycra clad crowd will "take a lane" under those circumstances... but what about the rest of 2% of the population that rides a bike? Remember the lycra clad crowd is an even smaller percentage of that 2%.

The sad fact over and over again is that unless this mere 2% of transportation cyclists gets together with a unified voice and pushes for consistent roadway treatment, then substandard BL and worse will remain the order of the day.

Gene, good eye! :thumb: But also note sections with a parked car fully contained in the bike lane. The point being I guess that there maybe places where even substandard bike lanes maybe desirable.

For me the problem with the before and after video is the VC cyclists road position has moved further right violating the principle of riding as if there was no stripe. I will assert for the non-VC their riding position before and after would be virtually unchanged meaning they would be getting the same junk with or without the stripe. I will also note for the lycra clad/fast/skinny tire folks avoiding debris and storm grates are a big deal (and tend to be more VC,) for the opposite side of the cycling community it is not that big of a deal so they tend to be further right in substandard curb lanes. I will also repeat what has been mentioned elsewhere that studies that we have do not make a distinction between VC and gutter bunnies but yet they found road riding is a lot safer then alternatives.

Locally I've started an initiative of "What gets measured gets done." Something I am thinking about is to track and count the number of occurrences of not conforming to AASHTO standards over the center line bike lane miles. With the idea being the occasional fill in a gap with something substandard may be OK but as a continued practice it really should stand out in the metrics.

It is really sad nowhere do they say since cars are typically 6' wide lets give them a 7' travel lane. Instead it is lets give them 12' travel lanes when really 10' should be the preferred width (http://ohbike.org/presentations/NHI-AAMinCROWMay26-09.pdf), yet with bike lanes taking a preferred 6' and cutting it in half and saying 3' is good enough is extremely perverse.

I will also repeat what has been mentioned elsewhere that studies that we have do not make a distinction between VC and gutter bunnies but yet they found road riding is a lot safer then alternatives.

Repeating a story that is often mentioned about studies and their "findings" doesn't make it any more valid. What studies did you have in mind and how was "safer" measured? All I've seen are bogus studies that tallied "crashes" and discussed "crash rates" with little or no consideration of the varying cyclist exposures to the hazards of road riding or its alternatives, and little or no consideration of degree of severity of injuries incurred from the vaguely defined "crashes."

jumpin jiminy!


....gutter bunnies The most effective way to reduce 'gutter bunny' behavior across those LA bridges is to install some quality & bonifide bike lanes, captain!

give the riders some accommodations, for gosh sakes. bicyclists that complain about bike activism about bike lanes on arterial bridgeways need a new perscription.

Repeating a story that is often mentioned about studies and their "findings" doesn't make it any more valid. What studies did you have in mind and how was "safer" measured? All I've seen are bogus studies that tallied "crashes" and discussed "crash rates" with little or no consideration of the varying cyclist exposures to the hazards of road riding or its alternatives, and little or no consideration of degree of severity of injuries incurred from the vaguely defined "crashes."

It's late and I have a cold, but there have been a few studies that classified cyclist injuries into (broad) categories as well as a tally for mortality. The one that comes off the top of my head is the Toronto study had a table with three columns that roughly translated into something like "boo-boo", "severe", "dead" ... or something like that.

The only study I can recall at the moment with something like rates is the Wachtel and Lewiston study. I recall that they modeled exposure over several years based on observations over a short period at a few intersections.

I was originally skeptical of the bike path tunnel but, now that I have actually ridden through it, I'm not complaining a whole lot.I hit 30 mph through the Forest Park Bike Path tunnel today without even half trying (a guy going the other way called me a stud).

I was carrying enough speed into the following section of the bike path to simulate John Forester's infamous self test. In keeping with the ridiculousness of the infinately arrogant Forester, I will claim that it was only by my incredible skill that I managed to stay on the path.

Crackpots amuse me.