Vehicular Cycling (VC) - Other Agendas

bicycle advocates' view that bicycle transportation is dull and unpleasant...

that truly is an extraordinary analysis of the collective american bicycling advocate.

Can you come up with anything more substantial of a plan for Denver to try and quintuple its workforce bike commuter participation in a decade?


......For example, from known stuff, I might well suggest closing several major universities in other cities and moving them to Denver. Care to do that? Furthermore, the strongest factors in bicycle transportation volume, outside such as university students, are social and very difficult to predict. American cycling, and American bicycle transportation, have had a history far more redolent of fad than of utility. This makes prediction on the basis of bikeways, or of road improvements, rather inaccurate.

Moving major universities to Denver is the most substantive plan you can come up with to quintuple the amount of workforce commuting by bicycle to 10 percent of daily commuter trips, john?

otherwise, it's too difficult to come up with any ideas to bring denver bike commuting up to 10 percent trip share.

I see. :rolleyes:

What insights from a bonifide bicycling traffic engineer.

call off the brainstorming, john. I'm sure Denver's been looking for that type of foresight and progressive thinking regards to changing transportation patterns.

Some extraordinary ideas. impressive!

Actually, this thread is becoming interesting again :)

Our various, nonexclusive motivations for cycling are rather well pointed out by danarnold. I wonder, in various places in the US, what proportion of transportational cycle journeys are made by "cycle enthusiasts" i.e. they use the bike because they are into cycling? it would be interesting to contrast this with Copenhagen, Davis etc. where there are varying degrees of cycle culture. In our beloved Copenhagen example, people ride bikes precisely because it is not unusual, Similarly this is the case in some English cities. Few of those I know in Oxford are enthusiasts that regularly pursue cycling as a pastime... but they ride to work all the same.

I talk to a LOT of bicyclists.

and a lot of people around here are getting into bicycling FOR the transportational value in it. the majority of bicyclists i talk to are recreationalists, but a significant percent are getting into it just for commuting or running errands, etc. This, of course, is in a city with quite robust on street bike infrastructure and refinements of the plan moving forward to best facilitate lawful road bicycling behavior.

barriers to everyday cycling participation drop as public bike specific infrastructure becomes more robust in communities and entire countries. John Pucher frmaes this quite succinctly in his works on world bicycling trends.

this phenomenon is a well established, 'common knowledge' correlation documented in international bicyclist demographics.

I suggest America is experiencing the formation of that trend as many communities develop and implement bike master plans that rebalance the roadways to more equitably favor bicycling as transportation.

Please provide reasonable data to support your claims about the teaching of motorists and their view of motoring as a big video game. Without reasonable data, I find your claim to have negligible credibility.

Please provide reasonable data to support your claims about the Copenhagen cycling being childish. Without reasonable data, I find your claim to have negligible credibility.

but if there is a more independent person in the field of bicycle issues, I'd like to know his name.

Independent:
1) Free from external control and constraint
2) Not controlled by a party or interest*group

We have some locals (Bobby for one) who use logical deductive reasoning to reach the conclusion that riding against traffic is the safest way to ride and since there is no special interest group out promoting wrong way riding I'd say Bobby has won the more independent award.

Seriously though, I'll agree that things should not be a simple matter of popularity but diametrically, declaring a winner of a debate based on convincing the fewest numbers is even more absurd.

Very interesting that you chose to bring that up. I was banned for accurately describing the particular views stated by a person. But, so far as I know, nobody else in this group has been banned for making the numerous, least supported, false suppositions that pass for discussion in this group. I suspect that there is a management bias operating.

And there is the further difficulty in discussions that operate such as this. The reasoning of many participants is closely bound to their unstated presumptions, and it is difficult to understand the reasoning without understanding the unstated presumptions. The most obvious example concerns the public appeal of bike lanes. I, at least, provide two explanations of this appeal. One is that bike lanes reduce the fear of same-direction motor traffic. The other is that bike lanes provide a legitimate place for cycling. The fear is greatly exaggerated when compared to the other accidents to cyclists, the second is legally false. I trace both of these back to the cyclist-inferiority phobia created by the decades-long delivery of bike-safety propaganda by motorists interested in their own convenience and power. Most participants object strongly to my analysis, presumably because it tends to upset their applecarts, but without the evidence to support their objections. However, it is difficult to have deep discussions about bicycling affairs without considering the psychological factors that are so determinative in the minds of so many.

The bottom line here is that Forester and his admiring Toady argue that Forester's straw man arguments about other cyclists' motivations, needs and desires, where he fabricates all sorts of "unstated presumptions" "fears" and "phobias" for other cyclists, are "warranted assumptions". Anyone who doesn't nod or post in agreement about these unsubstantiated theories cooked up by Forester and accept them as Gospel are considered as pandering to "incompetent" or "unsafe" cycling.


At best, they are hopeless and their fabrications about other cyclists will be ignored by decision makers.

Very interesting that you chose to bring that up. I was banned for accurately describing the particular views stated by a person. But, so far as I know, nobody else in this group has been banned for making the numerous, least supported, false suppositions that pass for discussion in this group. I suspect that there is a management bias operating.

And there is the further difficulty in discussions that operate such as this. The reasoning of many participants is closely bound to their unstated presumptions, and it is difficult to understand the reasoning without understanding the unstated presumptions. The most obvious example concerns the public appeal of bike lanes. I, at least, provide two explanations of this appeal. One is that bike lanes reduce the fear of same-direction motor traffic. The other is that bike lanes provide a legitimate place for cycling. The fear is greatly exaggerated when compared to the other accidents to cyclists, the second is legally false. I trace both of these back to the cyclist-inferiority phobia created by the decades-long delivery of bike-safety propaganda by motorists interested in their own convenience and power. Most participants object strongly to my analysis, presumably because it tends to upset their applecarts, but without the evidence to support their objections. However, it is difficult to have deep discussions about bicycling affairs without considering the psychological factors that are so determinative in the minds of so many.

And there is the further difficulty in people that operate such as this. The reasoning of JF is closely bound to their unstated presumptions, and it is difficult to understand the reasoning without understanding the unstated presumptions. The most obvious example concerns the appeal of JF to accurately describing the particular views stated by a person (aka as insulting a person.) I, at least, provide two explanations of this appeal. One is insulting people is always necessary when no logical argument exist. The other is insulting people makes made up concepts seem legitimate. JF object strongly to my analysis, presumably because it tends to upset his applecarts, but without the evidence to support his objections. However, it is difficult to have deep discussions about bicycling affairs without considering the psychological factors of JF's need "to accurately describing the particular views stated by a person."


The point: If the above logic is sound, then JF's anti-bike lane argument is sound, if there is the flaw in the logic above then there is a flaw in JF's anti-bike lane argument.

Originally Posted by Ed Holland
"Actually, this thread is becoming interesting again

Our various, nonexclusive motivations for cycling are rather well pointed out by danarnold. I wonder, in various places in the US, what proportion of transportational cycle journeys are made by "cycle enthusiasts" i.e. they use the bike because they are into cycling? it would be interesting to contrast this with Copenhagen, Davis etc. where there are varying degrees of cycle culture. In our beloved Copenhagen example, people ride bikes precisely because it is not unusual, Similarly this is the case in some English cities. Few of those I know in Oxford are enthusiasts that regularly pursue cycling as a pastime... but they ride to work all the same."

I talk to a LOT of bicyclists.

and a lot of people around here are getting into bicycling FOR the transportational value in it. the majority of bicyclists i talk to are recreationalists, but a significant percent are getting into it just for commuting or running errands, etc....

I think this, talking to people about cycling, helps. Seeing people cycling and talking to them about it, can foster more cycling.

I have dozens of colleagues who occaisionally to rarely ride their bikes. Some have bikes hanging on a garage wall with deflated tires and cobwebs.

Merely talking about it wasn't working too quickly, so I'm organizing a race or fun ride. These are highly competitive people, most of whom would like to lose weight and improve their fitness and all of whom see the value of cycling, but just need a little push. Some are like me, folks who took it seriously years ago, but stopped riding for various reasons.

I'm going to talk to my favorite bike shop see if they will sponsor this by loaning demo road bikes to those who are candidates to buy new. Also, we may get law enforcement and media involved to promote education of cyclists' right to the road and the very basics about cycling, such as staying off sidewalks, riding with, not against traffic, and so forth.

Let me know if you have ideas on organizing something like this.

Independent:
1) Free from external control and constraint
2) Not controlled by a party or interest*group

We have some locals (Bobby for one) who use logical deductive reasoning to reach the conclusion that riding against traffic is the safest way to ride and since there is no special interest group out promoting wrong way riding I'd say Bobby has won the more independent award.

Seriously though, I'll agree that things should not be a simple matter of popularity but diametrically, declaring a winner of a debate based on convincing the fewest numbers is even more absurd.

:) Has someone suggested 'winners' be declared by lowest share of the vote? Yes, that would be absurd.

New ideas, such as wrong way riding, are usually held by a tiny minority at first. The popularity of the idea may grow based on its value, utility or lack of resistance. It may also grow based on the persuasiveness and 'cult of personality' that might develop due to the leaders' charisma, thus a truly bad idea can become popular.

I agree popularity alone is a poor measure of value.

you missed the part about cyclist uptake as barriers to participation drops in communities. this isn't the results of a few enthusiasts talking about bicycling. it won't hurt, but talk alone, as you have seen with co-workers of yours, is not enough.


I mention my talking to a lot of cyclists as being on the pulse of the cycling population in a city that facilitates bicycling with bikeways planning and roadway enhancements that favor bicyclists mode of travel. barriers to cycling participation are dropping and all manner of people, NOT 'highly competitive types,' 'cycling enthusiasts' or Cary NC's 'weekend club riders' are dipping in and becoming bonifide tranportational bicyclists. The demographic encompasses a wide age and socioeconomic spectrum. From doctors to nursing students to the barista proletariat to the high tech mom with two kids to the little old lady that owns the german deli, people of all types are jumping on bikes as transportation as this city better facilitates bicycling.

these are 'the confluence is no coincidence' results from active, proactive bikeways planning to encourage lawful road bicycling.


I think this, talking to people about cycling, helps. Seeing people cycling and talking to them about it, can foster more cycling.

I have dozens of colleagues who occaisionally to rarely ride their bikes. Some have bikes hanging on a garage wall with deflated tires and cobwebs.

Merely talking about it wasn't working too quickly, so I'm organizing a race or fun ride

Yippie! a race!

maybe Denver could use that as part of a plan to quintuple workforce rider share in a decade.... John F, what does your bicycle transportation engineering mind think of that strategy? combine moving some major universities there with staging a big race between them?

The point: If the above logic is sound, then JF's anti-bike lane argument is sound, if there is the flaw in the logic above then there is a flaw in JF's anti-bike lane argument.

OK let's discuss the logic...

First the argument:


And there is the further difficulty in discussions that operate such as this. The reasoning of many participants is closely bound to their unstated presumptions, and it is difficult to understand the reasoning without understanding the unstated presumptions. The most obvious example concerns the public appeal of bike lanes. I, at least, provide two explanations of this appeal. One is that bike lanes reduce the fear of same-direction motor traffic. The other is that bike lanes provide a legitimate place for cycling. The fear is greatly exaggerated when compared to the other accidents to cyclists, the second is legally false. I trace both of these back to the cyclist-inferiority phobia created by the decades-long delivery of bike-safety propaganda by motorists interested in their own convenience and power. Most participants object strongly to my analysis, presumably because it tends to upset their applecarts, but without the evidence to support their objections. However, it is difficult to have deep discussions about bicycling affairs without considering the psychological factors that are so determinative in the minds of so many.

Now lets look at the argument... First and foremost JF is correct in that the motoring community wants to drive in the smoothest fastest manner possible. This is evidenced by the 85 percentile rule and the FRAP laws that pertain to motor traffic. Motorists are further "trained" in this manner by the interstate freeway system (childish driving... to parody his terms). Motorists want unrestricted travel to their destination... cyclists sharing the roadway, especially taking the lane, act as "restrictions" if you will to fast smooth flow. Motorists are already taught to "stay between the lines," so traffic engineers, using the tools available to them, simply created new lanes for slower traffic, much as they have done for years on interstates, and mountain passes. Hardly the stuff of "propaganda;" more the stuff of doing business the same old way.

Now regarding this issue of "cyclist-inferiority phobia created by the decades-long delivery of bike-safety propaganda by motorists interested in their own convenience and power" it hardly jives with history of bicycle safety as presented in the early 60s by the movie One Got Fat. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQgAMkMmsfg) Further, I know of no such "danger from behind" propaganda that is outlined (however subtly) in any handbook given out by any state agency. Even state laws driver handbooks outline riding a bike in a fully vehicular manner.

Bike lanes do not stem from fear of rear end collisions, but merely a desire to ensure a fast smooth traffic flow while recognizing the dynamic speed difference between bicycles and automobiles.

Now I am aware that in the '50s it was quite common for parents to teach new cyclists to face traffic... but is this due to the aforementioned "propaganda" or the common practice of having pedestrians face traffic? Parents also train young cyclists to ride on sidewalks.

The other issue is that if there were a widespread campaign to "promote" fear from the rear, why is it that mirrors were never standard CPSC mandated safety equipment, as are wheel reflectors, which are intended to protect cyclists from side impacts. (thus acknowledging that side impacts are a larger issue than "fear from the rear.")

Frankly, the whole bike lane design approach stems from the common roadway engineering practice of "adding a lane" as is commonly done when a highway becomes congested.

I talk to a LOT of bicyclists.

and a lot of people around here are getting into bicycling FOR the transportational value in it. the majority of bicyclists i talk to are recreationalists, but a significant percent are getting into it just for commuting or running errands, etc. This, of course, is in a city with quite robust on street bike infrastructure and refinements of the plan moving forward to best facilitate lawful road bicycling behavior.

barriers to everyday cycling participation drop as public bike specific infrastructure becomes more robust in communities and entire countries. John Pucher frmaes this quite succinctly in his works on world bicycling trends.

this phenomenon is a well established, 'common knowledge' correlation documented in international bicyclist demographics.

I suggest America is experiencing the formation of that trend as many communities develop and implement bike master plans that rebalance the roadways to more equitably favor bicycling as transportation.


Interesting, thanks Bek. From my limited observations, I think that is a pretty good picture of the trend, and also influences. Urban & suburban facilities do raise the profile of cycling as a means of transport and I think that has value - even if (debatably) their significance diminishes as cyclists become more experienced. :p

Bike lanes do not stem from fear of rear end collisions, but merely a desire to ensure a fast smooth traffic flow while recognizing the dynamic speed difference between bicycles and automobiles.

Hmmmm ... we'll have to disagree here. Anecdotally, I think cyclists want bike lanes because they are afraid of getting hit from the rear by the "dynamic speed difference" you mention. There is some effect from not wishing to inconvenience others and to avoid harassment too. They like the ability to filter up, but I think more experienced cyclists are the ones that recognize that perk.

Anecdotally, I think cyclists want bike lanes because they are afraid of getting hit from the rear by the "dynamic speed difference" you mention. There is some effect from not wishing to inconvenience others and to avoid harassment too. They like the ability to filter up, but I think more experienced cyclists are the ones that recognize that perk.


I'd say also that some cyclists like bike lanes because they feel that it lessens the sense that they must compete in an unfair battle with motor traffic for road space.

Hmmmm ... we'll have to disagree here. Anecdotally, I think cyclists want bike lanes because they are afraid of getting hit from the rear by the "dynamic speed difference" you mention. There is some effect from not wishing to inconvenience others and to avoid harassment too. They like the ability to filter up, but I think more experienced cyclists are the ones that recognize that perk.

While some newbie cyclists may have that fear, they don't paint the bike lanes... traffic engineers came up with the designs and have instituted them, and similar designs are used frequently for motor traffic on mountain grades, primarily to expedite the flow of traffic.

Personally I like the filter up ability, especially in stop and go motor traffic situations.

I'd say also that some cyclists like bike lanes because they feel that it lessens the sense that they must compete in an unfair battle with motor traffic for road space.

I'm not sure how this differs from a desire for well defined lateral road space because of the fear from behind.


While some newbie cyclists may have that fear, they don't paint the bike lanes... traffic engineers came up with the designs and have instituted them, and similar designs are used frequently for motor traffic on mountain grades, primarily to expedite the flow of traffic.

I would argue that almost all cyclists have that fear while a few do not. A big component of why the lines are painted, originates in the belief that ordinary cyclists want them and that people who do not presently cycle would cycle with them.

Ed, Gene ... "most cyclists" are far more casual than the people on the forum.

[EDIT] Just to be clear, I don't have a survey or anything of the sort on the topic. This is simply a conclusion from random conversations with people.

Hmmmm ... we'll have to disagree here. Anecdotally, I think cyclists want bike lanes because they are afraid of getting hit from the rear by the "dynamic speed difference" you mention.

There is a difference between being concerned/aware of a hazard, and being "afraid" of the hazard. Many of are aware of the hazards we encounter daily and respond in a rational manner; all without fear or being "afraid"

This distinction appears lost on those who embrace Forester's psycho babble and Forester Brand Hazard Analysis about "irrational fear" of low risk (as determined by Forester) hazards. This Forester determined and derisively used "irrational fear" label is allegedly the unspoken motivation of all cyclists but those few whom Forester considers "competent" and suitably opposed to bike lanes or any other accommodation pooh-poohed by Forester.

I'm not sure how this differs from a desire for well defined lateral road space because of the fear from behind.

I would argue that almost all cyclists have that fear while a few do not. A big component of why the lines are painted, originates in the belief that ordinary cyclists want them and that people who do not presently cycle would cycle with them.

Ed, Gene ... "most cyclists" are far more casual than the people on the forum.

[EDIT] Just to be clear, I don't have a survey or anything of the sort on the topic. This is simply a conclusion from random conversations with people.

Right, but "most cyclists" are not likely to lobby for bike lanes... "Most cyclists" have little to any advocacy leanings.

If the fear from the rear was as strong a "motorist propaganda" issue as JF states, there should be other indicators from the motoring community... such as handbooks outlining the issue, or mandated mirrors? Where are these other indicators of the nanny state?

This is why I fall back on traffic engineers' "best practices..." the latter which we see all the time demonstrated as the typical "just add another lane" practice.

Remember traffic engineers are working to expedite traffic... and from that, all sorts of somewhat controversial practices have been conjured up, such as Right Turn on Red, and the 85 percentile rule, the basic speed rule... none of which contribute to the safety of road users.

RTOR laws were enacted in western states long before there was any gas crisis... some 50 years ago in some cases, so again, it is for expediting traffic, not for safety nor "saving gas."

Few of those I know in Oxford are enthusiasts that regularly pursue cycling as a pastime... but they ride to work all the same.

i certainly don't pursue it as a passtime outside of commuting in the traditional sense, i.e. as a recreational roadie or racer or whatever; but I do pursue it outside of commuting, mostly on urban social rides, formerly with Critical Mass (:eek:), currently on group rides with Shift, ZooBomb, Dropouts, North Freak, Pedalpalooza, Tour de Fat, etc. If I was in LA I would probably be riding with the Midnight Ridazz or equivalent.

I'm not sure how this differs from a desire for well defined lateral road space because of the fear from behind.



I would argue that almost all cyclists have that fear while a few do not. A big component of why the lines are painted, originates in the belief that ordinary cyclists want them and that people who do not presently cycle would cycle with them.

Ed, Gene ... "most cyclists" are far more casual than the people on the forum.

[EDIT] Just to be clear, I don't have a survey or anything of the sort on the topic. This is simply a conclusion from random conversations with people.

Most cyclists are certainly more casual than those here in A&S/VC. Moreover, they find a way to use their bikes that is comfortable (and usually safe) for them.

Our discussion here covers a lot of ground, though it does, at times, feel like preaching to the choir. A choir composed of religions with conflicting ideologies :D

We discuss advocacy, facilities, cycling, commuting etc. but most of us do our best work, I suspect, by simply riding a bike, appearing confident in the process and providing an example that it can be done without fear. I'd probably make a still better "example advocate" if I didn't have this absurd fondness for lycra and funky bike shoes...

Right, but "most cyclists" are not likely to lobby for bike lanes... "Most cyclists" have little to any advocacy leanings.


Going back to ChipSeal's original post complaint there are also those who are not cyclists who advocate for bike lanes and paths, green streets, etc. Locally an environmental organization I had been involved with advocates for them as part of making for a 'greener more sustainable' city. Until recently not one of these advocates cycles for transportation and their recreational cycling is limited to taking the kids out once in a while on local neighborhood streets. Oh, yeah, but they would cycle if 'it was possible.'

certainly, a lot of advocates are motivated primarily around 'reducing barriers to cycling for non-cyclists', meaning primarily lanes and paths. I do not dispute this claim, nor do I think will Bek or others here. I see nothing particularly wrong with this but do have problems with some of the designs proposed and will freely speak out for or against various proposals based on the quality of the engineering design.

certainly, a lot of advocates are motivated primarily around 'reducing barriers to cycling for non-cyclists', meaning primarily lanes and paths. I do not dispute this claim, nor do I think will Bek or others here. I see nothing particularly wrong with this but do have problems with some of the designs proposed and will freely speak out for or against various proposals based on the quality of the engineering design.

I concurr. I've written to the council a number of times regarding bad facilities encountered. One such occasion was the bike facility frenzy that came about as a result of the reorganisation of traffic around Oxford, a few years ago. Previously pleasent and easy to use roads were blighted with some of the worst measures I've ever seen, yet in other locations different designs yielded a better result. I let them know how I felt about the "bad" ones a couple of times, once after falling (literally) foul of the stupid raised "Junction tables" that had been built with over agressive ramps.

Going back to ChipSeal's original post complaint there are also those who are not cyclists who advocate for bike lanes and paths, green streets, etc. Locally an environmental organization I had been involved with advocates for them as part of making for a 'greener more sustainable' city. Until recently not one of these advocates cycles for transportation and their recreational cycling is limited to taking the kids out once in a while on local neighborhood streets. Oh, yeah, but they would cycle if 'it was possible.'

True, but bike lanes as a "solution" have been around longer than these "complete street" folks... those folks have just picked up on what seems to work without understanding why.

Frankly most streets they want "fixed" have few problems... with perhaps the exception of a lack of sidewalk.

Basically we are talking about a chicken and egg problem. JF opines that there is a dark conspiracy by motorists; a "decades-long delivery of bike-safety propaganda by motorists interested in their own convenience" that has created the concept of bike lanes... I find this laughable due to the lack of any other such evidence. Yet there is consistent evidence of lanes for slower traffic demonstrated in various applications that traffic engineers use readily.

Frankly while I tend to agree that the motorists want us out of the way... it comes down to simple selfishness... motorists want any "obstruction" out of the way... legal road users or not. But I see no evidence of any "bike-safety propaganda..." in fact, I see just the opposite in safety films and official literature.

Now if someone can present anything besides and beyond JFs own drummed up "cyclist inferiority syndrome" to support his claims, well then we can evaluate and discuss this further...

There is a difference between being concerned/aware of a hazard, and being "afraid" of the hazard. Many of are aware of the hazards we encounter daily and respond in a rational manner; all without fear or being "afraid".

I think that there is a difference between a rational and irrational fear. What you describe still sounds like fear to me; but just a rational, controlled response to fear.


Right, but "most cyclists" are not likely to lobby for bike lanes... "Most cyclists" have little to any advocacy leanings.

If the fear from the rear was as strong a "motorist propaganda" issue as JF states, there should be other indicators from the motoring community... such as handbooks outlining the issue, or mandated mirrors? Where are these other indicators of the nanny state?

This is why I fall back on traffic engineers' "best practices..." the latter which we see all the time demonstrated as the typical "just add another lane" practice.

Remember traffic engineers are working to expedite traffic... and from that, all sorts of somewhat controversial practices have been conjured up, such as Right Turn on Red, and the 85 percentile rule, the basic speed rule... none of which contribute to the safety of road users.

RTOR laws were enacted in western states long before there was any gas crisis... some 50 years ago in some cases, so again, it is for expediting traffic, not for safety nor "saving gas."

In large, I don't think that the number of cyclists and they way they ride warrants a response from the motoring community. Consequently, I think most bike engineering projects originate from well-intentioned people trying to appeal to the non-enthusist cycling community.

Fear from getting struck from behind is perfectly understandable. A lot people, from what I gather, rather be in "control" of the situation even if it means doing so at a greater risk.

In large, I don't think that the number of cyclists and they way they ride warrants a response from the motoring community. Consequently, I think most bike engineering projects originate from well-intentioned people trying to appeal to the non-enthusist cycling community.



Sure, but the design and implementation of BL is done by traffic engineers, not cyclists with a paint can. These guys are going to copy or emulate known similar projects. (I as an engineer tend to do the same thing in my professional life... avoid re-inventing the wheel...) Even the Portland bike boxes are a copy of designs tried in Europe.

So again it comes down to chicken and egg... are BL a result of "motorist driven propaganda" as JF opines, or the result of traffic engineers simply going with what seems to work in other areas (truck passing ramps).

Basically we are talking about a chicken and egg problem. JF opines that there is a dark conspiracy by motorists; a "decades-long delivery of bike-safety propaganda by motorists interested in their own convenience" that has created the concept of bike lanes... I find this laughable due to the lack of any other such evidence. Yet there is consistent evidence of lanes for slower traffic demonstrated in various applications that traffic engineers use readily.

Frankly while I tend to agree that the motorists want us out of the way... it comes down to simple selfishness... motorists want any "obstruction" out of the way... legal road users or not. But I see no evidence of any "bike-safety propaganda..." in fact, I see just the opposite in safety films and official literature.


Locally I find that non-cycling motorists support bike lane striping more than the engineers do. Consider the motorists who post comments on news stories about bicyclist incidents. They want the cyclists out of the way by any means possible, including direct threats and promotion of social taboos about cycling in ordinary travel lanes. These taboos end up learned and shared by parents who buy bicycles for their children. Those parents further the cause for bike lane striping by demanding separate lanes for their children, to discourage their children from wandering in the way of the bloodthirsty bike-haters.

By contrast, the local engineers have been fairly rational about their thinking on the merits of striping. They do in in response to popular demand rather than as a safety or convenience measure.

A much more obvious conspiracy, in my opinion, has been the war waged by traffic engineers against pedestrians. Traffic engineers talk openly about ways to deliberately discourage pedestrians from using routes on which the engineers want to increase motor vehicle speeds or volumes. Their most often employed tactics include omission of sidewalks, omission of ped sensors and signals, and even construction of fences and other barriers. These on roads with a high density of pedestrian trip endpoints.

True, but bike lanes as a "solution" have been around longer than these "complete street" folks... those folks have just picked up on what seems to work without understanding why.

Frankly most streets they want "fixed" have few problems... with perhaps the exception of a lack of sidewalk.

Basically we are talking about a chicken and egg problem. JF opines that there is a dark conspiracy by motorists; a "decades-long delivery of bike-safety propaganda by motorists interested in their own convenience" that has created the concept of bike lanes... I find this laughable due to the lack of any other such evidence. Yet there is consistent evidence of lanes for slower traffic demonstrated in various applications that traffic engineers use readily.

Frankly while I tend to agree that the motorists want us out of the way... it comes down to simple selfishness... motorists want any "obstruction" out of the way... legal road users or not. But I see no evidence of any "bike-safety propaganda..." in fact, I see just the opposite in safety films and official literature.

Now if someone can present anything besides and beyond JFs own drummed up "cyclist inferiority syndrome" to support his claims, well then we can evaluate and discuss this further...

Genec, you dispute the origin of American bikeway design standards, done by motorists making the official argument that cyclist safety demanded that cyclists stay right, as the bike lanes were laid out, but also, quite obviously, creating a system that made motoring more convenient. That's history, Genec, well documented at the time in official reports. You choose not to believe this? Such a contrary opinion needs to be supported by better documentation that exists. You have provided nothing except your own desire.

It is true that, through the work of vehicular cyclists, the old-style "bike-safety" instruction no longer is circulated, but it was circulated for years and provided the psychological justification for the bikeway program. And, the accepted feelings generated by what was done still exist, as is demonstrated by the widespread exaggeration of the danger of being hit from the rear, and by the plethora of research directed only at the motorist overtaking cyclist movement.

I wonder, in various places in the US, what proportion of transportational cycle journeys are made by "cycle enthusiasts" i.e. they use the bike because they are into cycling? it would be interesting to contrast this with Copenhagen, Davis etc. where there are varying degrees of cycle culture. In our beloved Copenhagen example, people ride bikes precisely because it is not unusual, Similarly this is the case in some English cities. Few of those I know in Oxford are enthusiasts that regularly pursue cycling as a pastime... but they ride to work all the same.

Local conditions will vary greatly, and not due to attitudes or climate, but due to land use and availability of parking.

Areas surrounding colleges have the highest bicycle mode share in the US due to scarcity or expense of parking, short travel distance, and the adaptability and frugality of the student demographic. Dense urban areas often have similar conditions. Bicycles are often more practical than automobile use in these areas, and people choose what is practical.

In a technology-business-driven suburb like where I live, an increasing number of affluent professionals are riding to work for fitness, enjoyment, and as a protest against problems associated with fossil fuels. These "enthusiasts" appear to outnumber the low-income cyclists and the cyclists unable to obtain licenses. There are also cyclists under 16, but they are seen only outside of normal commute times due to long distances to schools due to factors such as school diversity policies, and a high degree of parental transportation after school.

So, here, affluent cyclists and parents have the greatest impact on bicycle transportation planning. The cycling enthusiasts demand clean, wide roadway pavement and contiguity of routes over long distances, while parents tend to advocate for mostly near-neighborhood recreational facilities that they believe will be outside the flow of motor traffic. The avid cycle commuters advocate most strongly for more width on arterials, good street connectivity and redundancy, detection by traffic signals, etc.

http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=9596875&postcount=822

Nearly there ;)

that truly is an extraordinary analysis of the collective american bicycling advocate.

Can you come up with anything more substantial of a plan for Denver to try and quintuple its workforce bike commuter participation in a decade?



Moving major universities to Denver is the most substantive plan you can come up with to quintuple the amount of workforce commuting by bicycle to 10 percent of daily commuter trips, john?

otherwise, it's too difficult to come up with any ideas to bring denver bike commuting up to 10 percent trip share.

I see. :rolleyes:

What insights from a bonifide bicycling traffic engineer.

call off the brainstorming, john. I'm sure Denver's been looking for that type of foresight and progressive thinking regards to changing transportation patterns.

Some extraordinary ideas. impressive!

I provided the honest engineering answer to your question of how to quintuple Denver's bicycle modal share in ten years. The honest answer was that I don't know, and, furthermore, nobody knows that answer, and it is difficult to work out reasonable methods because they depend more on emotions than on facilities, at least within the practical realm. As impractical I list flattening Denver and rebuilding it like Amsterdam, but the probable result of such a change would more likely to drive Denver's economy elsewhere than to have it remain in the old location rebuilt to be like Amsterdam.

I repeat, Bekologist, you are nothing more than a flaming ideologue who places your ideology above what is known today.

Genec, you dispute the origin of American bikeway design standards, done by motorists making the official argument that cyclist safety demanded that cyclists stay right, as the bike lanes were laid out, but also, quite obviously, creating a system that made motoring more convenient. That's history, Genec, well documented at the time in official reports. You choose not to believe this? Such a contrary opinion needs to be supported by better documentation that exists. You have provided nothing except your own desire.

Although you addressed Gene ...

I believe your historical account John. Moreover, to put my comments below in a better context, I have zero experience in large-scale transportation meetings dealing with areas outside Arlington. So other than simply traveling, cycling, chatting and reading, my experience is strictly local.

Personally, I never see -- or hear about through second-hand information -- any motoring group actively lobbying for bikelanes or bikeways to speed motorized traffic around bicycles. At least no motoring group big enough for a local paper/blog to write about their actions enough for me to catch the article. Although, I certainly read electronic comments in the editorial section from individuals along those lines. So I think that they are out there; I just have a hard time believing that they matter.

If I had to guess, I would think that there are more people/groups who think that bicycles should be banned from certain roads than be accommodated, but that is another issue.

Now I agree with Gene that traffic engineers probably have maximum motorized traffic flows in mind; i.e., getting cyclists out of the way of motorists. Although, it is not clear to me that it is their primary motivation for adding bike facilities/engineering to roads.

I'll be interested to read Barry's comments since he is active on a bigger (statewide) scale. Given his LCI number, I think you might know Allen Muchnick. I see him once a month and will talk to him about this during the next meeting.

EDIT: I should add that Arlington is quite the liberal place despite appearances. So I don't believe that my experiences here are typical.

http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=9596875&postcount=822

Nearly there ;)

If Bek and I agree, you know it's happening. ;)

Genec, you dispute the origin of American bikeway design standards, done by motorists making the official argument that cyclist safety demanded that cyclists stay right, as the bike lanes were laid out, but also, quite obviously, creating a system that made motoring more convenient. That's history, Genec, well documented at the time in official reports. You choose not to believe this? Such a contrary opinion needs to be supported by better documentation that exists. You have provided nothing except your own desire.

It is true that, through the work of vehicular cyclists, the old-style "bike-safety" instruction no longer is circulated, but it was circulated for years and provided the psychological justification for the bikeway program. And, the accepted feelings generated by what was done still exist, as is demonstrated by the widespread exaggeration of the danger of being hit from the rear, and by the plethora of research directed only at the motorist overtaking cyclist movement.

Sorry John, but you have provided nothing more than your own opinion regarding the history of design of BL and your interpretation of said aforementioned "official reports." Can you provide just one scrap of evidence of these "official reports" that hint of this great "decades-long delivery of bike-safety propaganda by motorists?" Something other than your writings? For all I know such "official reports" contain nothing more than your expressed opinion at some California state meeting... with no other corroborative evidence of said "propaganda" by any other attendees.

In other words, is it possible that you introduced the whole concept of "cyclist inferiority" and it was documented as such, but there is no other corroboration by any other person, official or otherwise?

I on the other hand have pointed to evidence such as the official state handouts that outline cyclists use of the roadways... and a 1963 safety film that also outlines how cyclists should use the roadway. None of which are consistent with your claim of "decades-long delivery of bike-safety propaganda."

Clearly I do acknowledge that motorists want us out of the way... but that is pretty evident... individual motorists want everyone out of their way.

So, here, affluent cyclists and parents have the greatest impact on bicycle transportation planning. The cycling enthusiasts demand clean, wide roadway pavement and contiguity of routes over long distances, while parents tend to advocate for mostly near-neighborhood recreational facilities that they believe will be outside the flow of motor traffic. The avid cycle commuters advocate most strongly for more width on arterials, good street connectivity and redundancy, detection by traffic signals, etc.

I spent five years in the Triangle. Although, almost all of my experience was in Durham and Chapel Hill. In several aspects, the advocacy and communities around here are comparable.

And there is the further difficulty in people that operate such as this. The reasoning of JF is closely bound to their unstated presumptions, and it is difficult to understand the reasoning without understanding the unstated presumptions. The most obvious example concerns the appeal of JF to accurately describing the particular views stated by a person (aka as insulting a person.) I, at least, provide two explanations of this appeal. One is insulting people is always necessary when no logical argument exist. The other is insulting people makes made up concepts seem legitimate. JF object strongly to my analysis, presumably because it tends to upset his applecarts, but without the evidence to support his objections. However, it is difficult to have deep discussions about bicycling affairs without considering the psychological factors of JF's need "to accurately describing the particular views stated by a person."


The point: If the above logic is sound, then JF's anti-bike lane argument is sound, if there is the flaw in the logic above then there is a flaw in JF's anti-bike lane argument.

The last paragraph is not valid logic, but let that pass for discussion of the paragraph on which it is based. Human Car claims that my reasoning is closely bound to my unstated presumptions. That is false, for I have frequently stated my presumptions.

These are that vehicular cycling is the best way for cyclists to operate on our present highways, and that the highway designs, operating laws, and social conventions should be consonant with that principle. That cyclists on transportational trips have the same motivations as those of other travelers on similar trips, and strong among these motivations are short trip duration. Those are my presumptions.

However, our society has chosen to treat cyclists differently from my presumptions. It is therefore important, necessary, to discover and to state why society has chosen its different course. The fact is that society has chosen its different course because of the influence of motorists. Motorists first acted indirectly, by making the public frightened of vehicular cycling and substituting cyclist-inferiority cycling, and then, when political power allowed, to create the bikeway system that produced physical facilities that implemented the cyclist-inferiority style of cycling. This is history. Those who choose to believe that history is other than it is, without being able to provide any contrary evidence, let along evidence that outweighs that which already exists, are misled by their ideology.

Please provide reasonable data to support your claims about the Copenhagen cycling being childish. Without reasonable data, I find your claim to have negligible credibility.

Certainly. The bikeway system of Copenhagen is set up so that cyclists do not have to negotiate (in the broader sense) motor traffic, they do not have to exercise traffic judgment. Cyclists stay to the right, out of motorists' way, and the conflict points created by this system are managed by traffic signals that provide separate phases for cyclists and motorists. Aside from the fact that Copenhagen provides cycle tracks and signal phases to support this method of operation, it the the same system that was taught in America for so long as "bike-safety", in which the cyclist was relieved from the responsibility for using judgment about traffic by, primarily, staying far right, and, secondarily, by operating as if his left arm signal gave him the right of way to turn. Both systems equally childish in that they assume that the cyclist should not need to exercise traffic judgment.

Sorry John, but you have provided nothing more than your own opinion regarding the history of design of BL and your interpretation of said aforementioned "official reports." Can you provide just one scrap of evidence of these "official reports" that hint of this great "decades-long delivery of bike-safety propaganda by motorists?" Something other than your writings? For all I know such "official reports" contain nothing more than your expressed opinion at some California state meeting... with no other corroborative evidence of said "propaganda" by any other attendees.

In other words, is it possible that you introduced the whole concept of "cyclist inferiority" and it was documented as such, but there is no other corroboration by any other person, official or otherwise?

I on the other hand have pointed to evidence such as the official state handouts that outline cyclists use of the roadways... and a 1963 safety film that also outlines how cyclists should use the roadway. None of which are consistent with your claim of "decades-long delivery of bike-safety propaganda."

Clearly I do acknowledge that motorists want us out of the way... but that is pretty evident... individual motorists want everyone out of their way.

For official reports, start with:

SCR 47 STATEWIDE BICYCLE COMMITTEE, Final Report, February 10, 1975. This tells how the bikeway laws were recommended to the California Legislature. Note that I was a full member of the committee, representing the California Association of Bicycling Organizations.

Planning and Design Criteria for Bikeways in California, June 30, 1978, Caltrans. This gives the original of the second set of standard designs, the first set issued. Note that the CABO representative has been changed to John Finley Scott, while I was the president of CABO. John Finley was always a close associate of mine, up to his death three years ago, and we agreed on almost everything.

While these are official reports, they clearly indicate that cyclists opposed much of what was being done.

I once had boxes of work that I presented to these committees. Not sure where that is today, but my work has been consistent from then until today.

Your belief that cyclist-inferiority propaganda was directly presented to either of these committees is false. By the time that these committees met, the superstition of cyclist inferiority was so ingrained into the personnel that there was no need to present it. The repeated statements that bike lanes made cycling safe, made by most of the committee members themselves, were challenged only by the cyclist members, me on the laws committee, and John Finley and myself on the facilities committee.

The original bikeway design standards are:

BIKEWAY PLANNING CRITERIA AND GUIDELINES, April 1972; STATE OF CALIFORNIA BUSINESS AND TRANSPORTATION AGENCY, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS, DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS; Requested by ASSEMBLY CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 26, 1971 REGULAR SESSION; Prepared by INSTITUTE OF TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC ENGINEERING, SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING AND APPLIED SCIENCE, UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, LOS ANGELES, UCLA-ENG-7224

While these existed, they are not mentioned in the report of the Bicycle Facilities Committee, because they were never issued. They presented a Dutch style system, and they were never issued because, once I discovered that they were the base for the proposed bikeway laws, cyclists objected strongly to their danger to cyclists operating by the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles.

Much of this was reported statewide at the time by the California cyclist press.

I did not have to invent the concept that cyclists are inferior to motorists. That has existed in the vehicle codes of the various states (UVC 1944). Neither did I have to invent the cyclist-incapability concept. The motorists who created the bikeway laws and the bikeway designs often said that they were not worried about we "professional" (meaning, amateur, of course) cyclists who knew how to operate in traffic. They produced the laws and the bikeways, so they said, out of concern for the safety of cyclists who did not, could not, know proper traffic cycling.

Although you addressed Gene ...

I believe your historical account John. Moreover, to put my comments below in a better context, I have zero experience in large-scale transportation meetings dealing with areas outside Arlington. So other than simply traveling, cycling, chatting and reading, my experience is strictly local.

Personally, I never see -- or hear about through second-hand information -- any motoring group actively lobbying for bikelanes or bikeways to speed motorized traffic around bicycles. At least no motoring group big enough for a local paper/blog to write about their actions enough for me to catch the article. Although, I certainly read electronic comments in the editorial section from individuals along those lines. So I think that they are out there; I just have a hard time believing that they matter.

If I had to guess, I would think that there are more people/groups who think that bicycles should be banned from certain roads than be accommodated, but that is another issue.

Now I agree with Gene that traffic engineers probably have maximum motorized traffic flows in mind; i.e., getting cyclists out of the way of motorists. Although, it is not clear to me that it is their primary motivation for adding bike facilities/engineering to roads.

I'll be interested to read Barry's comments since he is active on a bigger (statewide) scale. Given his LCI number, I think you might know Allen Muchnick. I see him once a month and will talk to him about this during the next meeting.

EDIT: I should add that Arlington is quite the liberal place despite appearances. So I don't believe that my experiences here are typical.

My reply addresses only one paragraph of the above, that stating that motoring groups do not go to public meetings to present arguments for bike lanes or bikeways to speed motorists around bicycle traffic. As I have written so many times before, even at the birth of bikeway programs this was recognized as a politically losing presentation. The bikeway designers always used the bike-safety argument, but as these arguments were countered by experienced cyclists without the bikeway designers changing their aim, it became obvious, although never admitted, that motorist convenience had to be the underlying argument. Once the anti-motoring environmentalists jumped on the bikeway bandwagon, the motoring lobby has never needed to argue for bikeways; their opposition does it for them. That doesn't mean that the votes don't exist because the arguments are not openly proposed (not often, at least). Reading the newspaper columns demonstrates how widespread is the view that bicycles are supposed to get out of the way of cars, as they phrase it.

OK let's discuss the logic...

First the argument:


Now lets look at the argument... First and foremost JF is correct in that the motoring community wants to drive in the smoothest fastest manner possible. This is evidenced by the 85 percentile rule and the FRAP laws that pertain to motor traffic. Motorists are further "trained" in this manner by the interstate freeway system (childish driving... to parody his terms). Motorists want unrestricted travel to their destination... cyclists sharing the roadway, especially taking the lane, act as "restrictions" if you will to fast smooth flow. Motorists are already taught to "stay between the lines," so traffic engineers, using the tools available to them, simply created new lanes for slower traffic, much as they have done for years on interstates, and mountain passes. Hardly the stuff of "propaganda;" more the stuff of doing business the same old way.

Now regarding this issue of "cyclist-inferiority phobia created by the decades-long delivery of bike-safety propaganda by motorists interested in their own convenience and power" it hardly jives with history of bicycle safety as presented in the early 60s by the movie One Got Fat. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQgAMkMmsfg) Further, I know of no such "danger from behind" propaganda that is outlined (however subtly) in any handbook given out by any state agency. Even state laws driver handbooks outline riding a bike in a fully vehicular manner.

Bike lanes do not stem from fear of rear end collisions, but merely a desire to ensure a fast smooth traffic flow while recognizing the dynamic speed difference between bicycles and automobiles.

Now I am aware that in the '50s it was quite common for parents to teach new cyclists to face traffic... but is this due to the aforementioned "propaganda" or the common practice of having pedestrians face traffic? Parents also train young cyclists to ride on sidewalks.

The other issue is that if there were a widespread campaign to "promote" fear from the rear, why is it that mirrors were never standard CPSC mandated safety equipment, as are wheel reflectors, which are intended to protect cyclists from side impacts. (thus acknowledging that side impacts are a larger issue than "fear from the rear.")

Frankly, the whole bike lane design approach stems from the common roadway engineering practice of "adding a lane" as is commonly done when a highway becomes congested.

You claim that One Got Fat does not promote cyclist-inferiority cycling. However, look at what goes on. There are examples and examples of behavior that is contrary to the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles. Neither the authors, nor most viewers, seem to notice these; these viewers concentrate on the truly foolish actions that the authors criticize. Therefore, I say that One Got Fat is an example of the non-vehicular nature of supposed bike-safety training of the time, because, unnoticed, it presented so many non-vehicular acts.

Genec says that he sees no "fear from behind" material being handed out now. There have been great improvements, but, very simply, the argument that staying far right (however that is defined) promotes safety is just that. The safety material, even the old safety material, never directly promoted fear of same-direction motor traffic. However, it instructed cyclists to stay far right (however that was defined), and it emphasized that the instruction was provided to make cycling safe. The fact that this type of instruction produced fear of same-direction motor traffic, even though it never said so openly, is demonstrated by the fact that that fear, today. is the driving motivation for the bikeway program.

OK let's discuss the logic...

much snipped
The other issue is that if there were a widespread campaign to "promote" fear from the rear, why is it that mirrors were never standard CPSC mandated safety equipment, as are wheel reflectors, which are intended to protect cyclists from side impacts. (thus acknowledging that side impacts are a larger issue than "fear from the rear.")



There is absolutely no point in trying to argue logically from the CPSC requirements. These were adopted from the Bicycle Manufacturers' Association specification for its products, BMA/6. The CPSC 10-reflector system was taken over from that, and its reflectors improved somewhat, in order to prevent a requirement for a headlamp. Hell, BMA has sent its lawyers to meeting after meeting, at first trying to repeal the state requirements for headlamps when cycling at night, subsequently, after abject failure with the first, to keep the CPSC requirements in force despite the evidence that they are insufficient.

There was no consideration of bicycle-mounted mirrors (head-mounted mirrors would not have been within the scope of a bicycle design law) for various reasons. One would be the general poor operation of such. Another would be the failure to consider methods for cyclists to avoid collisions, in daylight or at night. The rationale for the 10 reflectors was precisely this. At whatever angle a headlamp beam might strike the bicycle, at least one reflector would be positioned to return a beam. The "proof" of the validity of this concept was a demonstration held by the BMA on the CPSC's driveway one night. Headlamp beams were shone along the driveway, while a bicycle rotated slowly in the path of the headlamp beams. Persons sitting in the driver's set of the vehicle, were able to see that there was always at least one reflector returning a beam. There was no consideration of the traffic effect of this demonstration; it was assumed by the incompetents on the CPSC staff that this was all that was required, even though the contrary had been recognized for about seventy years; even my mother, born in 1903 of a cycling family, recognized the CPSC's error the moment she learned of it.

You claim that One Got Fat does not promote cyclist-inferiority cycling. However, look at what goes on. There are examples and examples of behavior that is contrary to the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles. Neither the authors, nor most viewers, seem to notice these; these viewers concentrate on the truly foolish actions that the authors criticize. Therefore, I say that One Got Fat is an example of the non-vehicular nature of supposed bike-safety training of the time, because, unnoticed, it presented so many non-vehicular acts.

Genec says that he sees no "fear from behind" material being handed out now. There have been great improvements, but, very simply, the argument that staying far right (however that is defined) promotes safety is just that. The safety material, even the old safety material, never directly promoted fear of same-direction motor traffic. However, it instructed cyclists to stay far right (however that was defined), and it emphasized that the instruction was provided to make cycling safe. The fact that this type of instruction produced fear of same-direction motor traffic, even though it never said so openly, is demonstrated by the fact that that fear, today. is the driving motivation for the bikeway program.

John, I believe you yourself promote a "stay far right" agenda... you have stated here on BF in fact that cyclists can even act as "road sneaks" and you have also stated that cyclists can ride on the lines between traffic... all "stay out of the way" tactics. How do you explain this?

John, I believe you yourself promote a "stay far right" agenda... you have stated here on BF in fact that cyclists can even act as "road sneaks" and you have also stated that cyclists can ride on the lines between traffic... all "stay out of the way" tactics. How do you explain this?

I do not promote a stay far right agenda. I oppose such agendas. I have described my practice, when changing lanes on streets with several 12-foot lanes, of cycling on the lane line while motorists go by on each side. Under these conditions there's clearly room for all. I clearly do not do so for fear of same-direction motor traffic; I do so because I am not afraid of same-direction motor traffic. I see no point in delaying faster traffic when there is no safety need to do so; I have no ideology of the type that you, Genec, appear to support, that vehicular cycling requires taking full lanes when there is no need to do so.

As for road sneaks, yes, if one intends to turn left somewhere ahead along such a road as described above, it pays to look at the behavior of the platoons of traffic and make your leftward movements between platoons. There's no ideology in that, just convenience.

You seem to hope, Genec, that your playing semantic games will coerce me into making some foolish ideological statement. Quit while you're not so far behind.

I do not promote a stay far right agenda. I oppose such agendas. I have described my practice, when changing lanes on streets with several 12-foot lanes, of cycling on the lane line while motorists go by on each side. Under these conditions there's clearly room for all. I clearly do not do so for fear of same-direction motor traffic; I do so because I am not afraid of same-direction motor traffic. I see no point in delaying faster traffic when there is no safety need to do so; I have no ideology of the type that you, Genec, appear to support, that vehicular cycling requires taking full lanes when there is no need to do so.

As for road sneaks, yes, if one intends to turn left somewhere ahead along such a road as described above, it pays to look at the behavior of the platoons of traffic and make your leftward movements between platoons. There's no ideology in that, just convenience.

You seem to hope, Genec, that your playing semantic games will coerce me into making some foolish ideological statement. Quit while you're not so far behind.

As I said it was a belief... apparently wrong, although your comment about not delaying faster traffic sure smacks of the same agenda that would encourage "far right." So if you are not riding far right, and you are not taking a lane... where the heck are you on the road?

As far as your belief that I appear to support taking full lanes when there is no need to do so... no, you have misread me. I have no compunction about taking a lane when I need to, but I have no political agenda to take a lane otherwise. I do take the lane (specifically the right car tire track) when there are cars parked along side the road and there is no other place to be... I do not ride in door zones... especially since I readily move at or over 18MPH on flats and to hit an opening door at that speed would hurt. I do not ride on the lane lines as you describe, as I feel it sends a message of unpredictability.

These days in Portland there is a huge motorist opposition to new bike lanes because many in the motoring public view bike lanes as special projects for cyclists who don't pay to use the roads, and motorists see their space on the road shrinking as a result.

As I said it was a belief... apparently wrong, although your comment about not delaying faster traffic sure smacks of the same agenda that would encourage "far right." So if you are not riding far right, and you are not taking a lane... where the heck are you on the road?

As far as your belief that I appear to support taking full lanes when there is no need to do so... no, you have misread me. I have no compunction about taking a lane when I need to, but I have no political agenda to take a lane otherwise. I do take the lane (specifically the right car tire track) when there are cars parked along side the road and there is no other place to be... I do not ride in door zones... especially since I readily move at or over 18MPH on flats and to hit an opening door at that speed would hurt. I do not ride on the lane lines as you describe, as I feel it sends a message of unpredictability.

Your wording appears to support your belief that I have some kind of far right or other lateral positioning agenda. An agenda of that type is not something that one needs to have. I ride wherever is suitable for that location at that time and to suit my travel purpose and direction of travel. But yes, I see no need to delay faster traffic when there is no safety or legal need to adopt a position that does. If you want to call that an agenda, that's just ordinary politeness. I have found no indication that motorists overtaking me when I am riding a lane line have any thought that I am likely to make an unpredictable move. They just come past me in the ordinary way.

The last paragraph is not valid logic, but let that pass for discussion of the paragraph on which it is based. Human Car claims that my reasoning is closely bound to my unstated presumptions. That is false, for I have frequently stated my presumptions.

These are that vehicular cycling is the best way for cyclists to operate on our present highways, and that the highway designs, operating laws, and social conventions should be consonant with that principle. That cyclists on transportational trips have the same motivations as those of other travelers on similar trips, and strong among these motivations are short trip duration. Those are my presumptions.

However, our society has chosen to treat cyclists differently from my presumptions. It is therefore important, necessary, to discover and to state why society has chosen its different course. The fact is that society has chosen its different course because of the influence of motorists. Motorists first acted indirectly, by making the public frightened of vehicular cycling and substituting cyclist-inferiority cycling, and then, when political power allowed, to create the bikeway system that produced physical facilities that implemented the cyclist-inferiority style of cycling. This is history. Those who choose to believe that history is other than it is, without being able to provide any contrary evidence, let along evidence that outweighs that which already exists, are misled by their ideology.

John, thanks for being a good sport about this but my point is if all that is required to prove something is not good is a couple of points, conspiracy theories, made up psychosis then anything can be proven to be not good, under such a system its not even a challenging mental exercise, the logic you use to reach your conclusions is a joke.

While I'll assert that using insults is not a good or persuasive argument form, reasonableness would also put forth that it is human nature to express frustration with those that disagree with us. So while you sort of are the Don Rickles of logical arguments there is some reasonableness to your use of insults (mostly.) Likewise with bike lanes there is a reasonableness aspect that you have failed to acknowledge.

To assert that I should be upset by the fact that painted lines have outlined my normal path on roads that I frequent is totally lost on me. Does any change in the road scape have disadvantages and advantages, sure but disallowing any listing of advantages because of conspiracy theories, made up psychosis and the purpose of the thing can never change from its historical creation event has no bases in sound logic. These tools are simply the act of a desperate illogical argument.

John, thanks for being a good sport about this but my point is if all that is required to prove something is not good is a couple of points, conspiracy theories, made up psychosis then anything can be proven to be not good, under such a system its not even a challenging mental exercise, the logic you use to reach your conclusions is a joke.

While I'll assert that using insults is not a good or persuasive argument form, reasonableness would also put forth that it is human nature to express frustration with those that disagree with us. So while you sort of are the Don Rickles of logical arguments there is some reasonableness to your use of insults (mostly.) Likewise with bike lanes there is a reasonableness aspect that you have failed to acknowledge.

To assert that I should be upset by the fact that painted lines have outlined my normal path on roads that I frequent is totally lost on me. Does any change in the road scape have disadvantages and advantages, sure but disallowing any listing of advantages because of conspiracy theories, made up psychosis and the purpose of the thing can never change from its historical creation event has no bases in sound logic. These tools are simply the act of a desperate illogical argument.

great post but as usual it will either all be lost on or ignored by JF

Your wording appears to support your belief that I have some kind of far right or other lateral positioning agenda. An agenda of that type is not something that one needs to have. I ride wherever is suitable for that location at that time and to suit my travel purpose and direction of travel. But yes, I see no need to delay faster traffic when there is no safety or legal need to adopt a position that does. If you want to call that an agenda, that's just ordinary politeness. I have found no indication that motorists overtaking me when I am riding a lane line have any thought that I am likely to make an unpredictable move. They just come past me in the ordinary way.

I can't disagree with politeness, and I expect the same from motorists. Your qualifiers of safety and legality are the same as mine... which most of the time puts me along the right edge of the roadway. However, as I mentioned I have no issues with taking the lane when I feel it is the safest thing to do.

What I don't understand is your statement that you are not riding to the right... (and I don't mean curb hugging) then what, do you fly? Perhaps "agenda" is too strong a word, but the bottom line is that you ride somewhere, and apparently work to be "courteous" and not take a lane, that leaves you on the right.

And no matter how you look at it... by riding to the right, you are confirming motorists notion that cyclists should be "out of the way."

Now tell me how this differs from the view motorists have that cyclists should be out of the way?

Certainly. The bikeway system of Copenhagen is set up so that cyclists do not have to negotiate (in the broader sense) motor traffic, they do not have to exercise traffic judgment. Cyclists stay to the right, out of motorists' way, and the conflict points created by this system are managed by traffic signals that provide separate phases for cyclists and motorists. Aside from the fact that Copenhagen provides cycle tracks and signal phases to support this method of operation, it the the same system that was taught in America for so long as "bike-safety", in which the cyclist was relieved from the responsibility for using judgment about traffic by, primarily, staying far right, and, secondarily, by operating as if his left arm signal gave him the right of way to turn. Both systems equally childish in that they assume that the cyclist should not need to exercise traffic judgment.

While this is not data these are the points that you offer to prove childish cycling (reworded slightly):

do not have to negotiate mixed traffic use (same principle on expressways)
do not have to exercise traffic judgment (same principle on expressways)
slow vehicles stay to the right (same principle for motor vehicles)
conflict points are managed by traffic signals (same principle for motor vehicles)
use of turn signals when turning (same principle for motor vehicles)


I find none of these points compelling proof of childish cycling. Prove use of a signal gives right of way, that is not taught or in law as far as I am aware.

Sure when my kids first started to ride I looked for areas with little to no conflict points but road engineering is about limiting points of conflict. Just because there is a similar concept does not mean road engineering is childish. Just because we learned to use crosswalks while walking as kids does not mean that j-walking is the preferred adult way to walk. All you are doing is making a point that sounds derogatory but has no point at all.

While this is not data these are the points that you offer to prove childish cycling (reworded slightly):

do not have to negotiate mixed traffic use (same principle on expressways)
do not have to exercise traffic judgment (same principle on expressways)
slow vehicles stay to the right (same principle for motor vehicles)
conflict points are managed by traffic signals (same principle for motor vehicles)
use of turn signals when turning (same principle for motor vehicles)


I find none of these points compelling proof of childish cycling. Prove use of a signal gives right of way, that is not taught or in law as far as I am aware.

Sure when my kids first started to ride I looked for areas with little to no conflict points but road engineering is about limiting points of conflict. Just because there is a similar concept does not mean road engineering is childish. Just because we learned to use crosswalks while walking as kids does not mean that j-walking is the preferred adult way to walk. All you are doing is making a point that sounds derogatory but has no point at all.

John's points all indirectly refer to the issue of destination positioning, and the requirement of judgment in order to safely merge into such positioning at junctions.

What John calls "childish cycling" substutes crossing movements in place of merges, and depends on the skill of motorists or exclusive signal phases to prevent collisions at junctions where motorists and cyclists have conflicting paths to their destinations. The bicyclist is, theoretically, freed of responsibility for exercising judgment that they presumably don't have.

Such a system has numerous problems, including the unwillingness of American traffic engineers to reduce intersection throughput by providing additional bike-only traffic signal phases to every traffic signal, the delays that would be created for cyclists if they had to wait for a demand-activated green at every signal, the inability or unwillingness of many motorists to avoid right hooks with cyclists overtaking on their right, the greatly reduced cycling speed required of bicyclists to mitigate junction hazards, and the impossibility to safely turn left on busy roads from the far right with a mere hand signal.

Although some Americans do advocate such a system for child bicyclists, and much of the parental and even LAB encouragement of sidewalk cycling by children is based on this, I do not believe US engineering efforts in this area are aimed at reducing judgment required by bicyclists. I attribute it to a basic misunderstanding of the operational characteristics of adult bicyclists and the similarity of their most frequent collision types to other vehicle drivers. I believe the "pedestrian on wheels" paradigm better explains the actions of bikeway engineers who think cyclists travel slowly, can stop instantly and can pivot in place. The "on wheels" portion of the paradigm mandates smooth ramp transitions at curbs and sometimes greater pavement width or segregation from non-wheeled pedestrians, but not much else, given the designs I often see.

The "vehicular cycling" paradigm, where it has entered the awareness of engineers, has resulted in improved engineering designs such as keeping bike lanes to the left of RTOLs, placing sharrows beyond the reach of car doors, WOLs, signals that detect bicycles in the travel lane, and avoidance of signing sidewalks for bicycling. For me, the battle for the hearts and minds of engineers is not so much about paint or not, but whether the design is based on respect for the vehicular characteristics of bicycles and fair, equitable treatment under the basic rules of the road. I think an increasing number of engineers in my area are thinking that if child or child-like cyclists want to behave as pedestrians on wheels, wide ADA compliant sidewalks will accommodate that, but the roadways should be designed with the assumption of use by bicyclists operating according to vehicular rules. However, maintaining this progress requires constant involvement from experienced cyclists, because many parents and novices wish to concentrate engineering efforts on the pedestrian-on-wheels paradigm at the expense of vehicular cycling.