Vehicular Cycling (VC) - Other Agendas

all 50 states expect and codify lawful, competent bicycling.

road design and behavior are two different issues in discussion of bicycling advocacy.

I content bike infrastructure as part of a well considered bikeways master plan can educate both motorists and bicyclists to lawful, conservative and safe riding behaviors in conjunction with facilitating lawful road riding across communities.

considerations for bicyclists in design of transportation infrastructure should be assessed by the "8 and 80" rule and NOT the 'competent and not afraid to mix in with 50 MPH traffic' metric....

Additionally, the assertion that competent and lawful expectations from bicyclists supersedes road design to facilitate bicycling is folly.


try applying the "8 and 80" rule, as all 50 states already expect lawful, competent bicycling on public roadways:

if your 80 year old grandmother won't ride there with your 8 year old niece and feel comfortable (operating lawfully) as bicyclists, that corridor fails as a bicycle accommodation.

I would say most states allow for competent bicycling but few actually encourage it and some localities at least some of the time try to discourage competent bicycling. If this were not the case A&S would be void of things to talk about.

All users need considerations not just the 8 and 80 group. In a lot of ways it has always been the athletic cyclists who have paved the way for the less athletic cyclists. Remove them from accommodations and you basically remove the motivation for the less athletic to give something a go. We have numerous cycling accommodations in this state that have failed to accommodate the athletic and remain virtually barren because no one wants to be out there by themselves. And on the other hand we have some accommodations that have worked well for the athletic and are now over run with the casual user that the athletic now seek other places to ride. IMHO the later is what should be happening by design. But I will agree catering to a group that wants to ride in amongst 50mph traffic is nuts.

Part of the problem is almost everyone is afraid of motoring traffic, some would rather ride on sidewalks then bikes lanes because of fear of motorists, others would rather ride in the car lane rather then the bike lane because of the fear of motorists. Both groups have valid points and an irrational fear component. What is needed is something that attracts the athletic but is still usable by the 8 and 80 group.

What is needed is something that attracts the athletic but is still usable by the 8 and 80 group.

What about the provision of multiple alternate routes serving the same destinations in a grid? Arterials with higher priority would feature higher traffic volumes, higher speeds, and shorter trip times, but designed such that experienced cyclists would be reasonably comfortable on them. Collector roads would have lower speeds, only two lanes plus turn lanes, and lower priority at intersections with arterials, resulting in longer trip times and less traffic, but would be more pleasant for most cyclists. Neighborhood streets would have the most stop signs, most traffic calming features, least traffic and lowest speeds, but would be relatively easy for children to learn on.

I see a lot of networks like this in cities like Seattle, where neighborhood streets are inconvenient for through traffic in a car compared to the arterials a few blocks over, but are very pleasant at slow speed on a bike. It's often possible to get very close to one's destination using the neighborhood streets; the short remaining segment of arterial could be handled in a number of ways, even walking the bike on the sidewalk.

My challenge has been getting similar connectivity and redundancy in suburbs. Getting trhough-collector streets aligned at arterial intersections to allow longer trips on them while avoiding arterials (instead, simply crossing the arterials) is a challenge that requires long-term planning. Also, it's very useful to have circulation roads inside shopping centers connect with adjacent shopping center circulation roads and with nearby collector streets. This allows easier access to all the commercial destinations without having to use an arterial. These perform like commercial collector streets, often routed just behind the shopping centers, and are good for both cyclists and local motorists.

OK quite true... and indeed this is an issue... why should cycling be restricted to "competent and serious" any more than motor car driving is (NOT) limited to "competent and serious."

Cycling for transportation should be as available "to the masses" as driving a motor vehicle is, at this point.

Now with that premise in mind, we do demand a certain minimum standard for motor vehicle drivers (albeit quite minimum), so cannot we expect a certain minimum standard (beyond the mere ability to balance a bike) for cyclists seeking to use a bike as transportation on public roads?

Exactly. Why shouldn't all vehicle operators be held to some minimum standard of competency? If anything, considering the relative damage one can do, motorists should be held to a higher standard of competence, than cyclists. The current standard for motorists is pretty low. The standard for cyclists is zero. Cyclists are somewhat self regulating, many choosing to limit themselves to the sidewalks and MUPs.

Cycling is truly for 'everyman.' But that doesn't mean we have to design on road, mixing with motorists cycling infrastructure for the incompetent who does not possess or demonstrate basic skills.

I don't think so. Think of dog owners. The VC definition of 'serious and competent' when applied to dog owners would to me imply that only those dog owners who have purebred dogs and train them for competition in dog shows are serious and competent dog owners, and every other dog owner is childish and imcompetent.


I agree with genec on this one. Just about anyone -- the average "man in the street" -- should be able to recognize "serious and competent" cyclists, dog owners, horseback riders and practitioners of most other skills. A person who is relaxed, confident, sure and consistent in his actions and movements is much more likely to be "serious and competent" than someone who is nervous, clumsy, uncertain and doing things seemingly at random, regardless of the specific endeavors being undertaken. It's generally easy to distinguish someone who "follows the rules" from someone who doesn't, even if you aren't familiar with the rules yourself.

The difference is whether we focus on the VC definition of "serious and competent" (which ILTB HAS focused on) or the general public.

I have to agree with ILTB about whether the VC contingent permits "others" into their club... (and a tip of the hat to Groucho Marx and his comment about never wanting to be a member of a club that would take him).

But in the broader context, I was really thinking about the general public and how they perceive cyclists... and perhaps how they respond to cyclists.

I honestly do not think we need to be "card carrying" to be deemed serious and competent... but I do see and understand that some cyclists surely are less than competent, and in that regard, I feel there should be some way of getting these folks a bit of "direction."

Now interestingly, having viewed videos of Copenhagen... it sure seems like quite a few of those folks are quite competent, if not serious. :D I have not been there, so in reality, I have no idea, really, of how competent the "masses" are, over there.

The difference is whether we focus on the VC definition of "serious and competent" (which ILTB HAS focused on) or the general public.

I have to agree with ILTB about whether the VC contingent permits "others" into their club... (and a tip of the hat to Groucho Marx and his comment about never wanting to be a member of a club that would take him).

But in the broader context, I was really thinking about the general public and how they perceive cyclists... and perhaps how they respond to cyclists.

I honestly do not think we need to be "card carrying" to be deemed serious and competent... but I do see and understand that some cyclists surely are less than competent, and in that regard, I feel there should be some way of getting these folks a bit of "direction."

Now interestingly, having viewed videos of Copenhagen... it sure seems like quite a few of those folks are quite competent, if not serious. :D I have not been there, so in reality, I have no idea, really, of how competent the "masses" are over there.

In all probability you have seen no evidence of the ability of Copenhagen cyclists to operate according to the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles, which is our standard of competence. You haven't seen it because they are prohibited from so operating. They may well be competent in using their system, but that has no bearing on what they might do here.

....
But in the broader context, I was really thinking about the general public and how they perceive cyclists... and perhaps how they respond to cyclists.

I honestly do not think we need to be "card carrying" to be deemed serious and competent... but I do see and understand that some cyclists surely are less than competent, and in that regard, I feel there should be some way of getting these folks a bit of "direction."
....

I think most of us, whether motoring or cycling, would prefer to see cyclists hold a line, rather than wobble from side to side to a degree we cannot predict where they're going next. This is an example of the minimum competence we would prefer to see. Even Groucho might prefer to be a member of the non wobbler club.

Although, I say that with some trepidation, considering Groucho's "Whatever it is, I'm against it" performance. :)

The difference is whether we focus on the VC definition of "serious and competent" (which ILTB HAS focused on) or the general public.

I have to agree with ILTB about whether the VC contingent permits "others" into their club...

I find that "serious" is a less useful concept than "competent". Even "competent" is problematic, because it can mean different things to different people. I equate "competent" to reliably operating in compliance with vehicular rules, plus showing some skill at defensive bicycle driving techniques such as getting away from the curb when stopping at a red light where right turns are permitted.

I see certain mountain bikers in team jerseys bombing down the sidewalks contra-flow, jumping over curbs and doing all manner of strange things on roads on their way to or from the trailheads. I doubt I could keep up with them on singletrack. I'm not a "serious" mountain biker or really competitive at all. But I don't consider them competent at cycling in traffic.

The other day I saw a young woman on an MTB stopped in the middle of a narrow through lane to the left of an RTO lane at a busy intersection. I suspect she is competent at cycling in traffic.

Yesterday I saw an early twenty-something roadie "in full team kit" carefully but assertively merge into the center of the lane (from a lane-sharing position) a few cars back from an intersection when the signal ahead turned red. It was a slight uphill; he stopped and did a track stand for the entire signal cycle, barely moving, never clipping out. His balance skill exceeds mine; he is clearly serious about cycling, but I was most impressed that he so deftly merged into traffic. More than competent. Most of the young full-team-kit roadies I see will pass stopped traffic on the right all the way to the stop line and often blow the signal when they see a chance. Not competent, by my definition.

This morning as I was cycling home from an early morning tour around town I saw a cyclist in unmarked spandex bike clothing riding a road bike stop for a red light next to the curb in a narrow lane. He was the first vehicle at the light, and other traffic was a long way back. Eventually other vehicles pulled up beside him at the light; the first turned right on red in front of him. The cyclist did nothing illegal, but I don't consider him competent in traffic.

A number of my former Road 1 students ride slowly on cruiser or hybrid bikes. By the end of class they reliably avoided the mistakes I describe above, looking back, merging, and taking the lane on 35 mph downtown streets where desirable for defensive purposes. Certainly some of them express a preference for low-speed and low-volume streets. They would not call themselves "serious" cyclists. However, I still consider them competent in traffic, because they know what do to on whatever road they are using.

Bek's videos show him operating very effectively in traffic, both lawfully and defensively, staying out of hazardous areas even when those areas are marked with bike stencils. He is more than competent at bicycle driving according to vehicular principles.

Steve ^^^ I think we pretty much share the same views of competence.

The difference is whether we focus on the VC definition of "serious and competent" (which ILTB HAS focused on) or the general public.

I have to agree with ILTB about whether the VC contingent permits "others" into their club... (and a tip of the hat to Groucho Marx and his comment about never wanting to be a member of a club that would take him).

But in the broader context, I was really thinking about the general public and how they perceive cyclists... and perhaps how they respond to cyclists.


In all probability you have seen no evidence of the ability of Copenhagen cyclists to operate according to the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles, which is our standard of competence.

Genec is right, the cyclists who wish to join the Forester Bicycle Driving Club club and meet "our standards" are few and far between. Nor are they interested in any lame effort by the Club members to advocate/induce membership on an uninterested public.

John Forester and his ilk just can't get over the fact that few cyclists, except his handful of devotees, gives a darn about what it takes to operate according to his interpretations of "rules of the road for drivers of vehicles," or "our standard of competence," or whatever his spin is on any bicycling subject.

In all probability you have seen no evidence of the ability of Copenhagen cyclists to operate according to the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles, which is our standard of competence. You haven't seen it because they are prohibited from so operating. They may well be competent in using their system, but that has no bearing on what they might do here.

John I have to disagree with you, as all those cyclists working together are indeed following the rules of the road, otherwise their system would fail miserably.

What they do not attempt to do is foolishly mix dramatically different speed and vehicle types in a delusional hodgepodge that would fail immediately if the number of slower vehicles were increased 10 fold.

Your method of vehicular cycling only works when the number of cyclists is statistically low. (and must be maintained at a low number)

Expecting motorists to slow down for massive numbers of merging cyclists is an unsustainable system.

I think most of us, whether motoring or cycling, would prefer to see cyclists hold a line, rather than wobble from side to side to a degree we cannot predict where they're going next. This is an example of the minimum competence we would prefer to see. Even Groucho might prefer to be a member of the non wobbler club.

Although, I say that with some trepidation, considering Groucho's "Whatever it is, I'm against it" performance. :)

Wobbling cyclists must be the new straw man argument from the Serious and Competent Club. Can't recall anyone promoting or advocating for wobbling but some children do just that when learning how to balance themselves on a bicycle.

I suppose it is good to know that danrnold feels the issue of "wobbling" is so important, and demands that something be done to straighten out those children.

Wobbling cyclists must be the new straw man argument from the Serious and Competent Club. Can't recall anyone promoting or advocating for wobbling but some children do just that when learning how to balance themselves on a bicycle.

I suppose it is good to know that danrnold feels the issue of "wobbling" is so important, and demands that something be done to straighten out those children.

ILTB continues to reveal he has no agenda other than to whine and complain and look for excuses to make personal attacks. He made a BIG deal out of the difficulty of defining 'competent' cycling. Yet when confronted with a prime example of incompetent cycling he takes the disingenuous dodge of 'the straw man.'

I suppose if he continues to define all incompetent cycling as 'straw men' then incompetetent cycling ceases to be an issue. Nice try, but it serves no agenda other than that of arguing without seeking to advance the discussion.

Your method of vehicular cycling only works when the number of cyclists is statistically low. (and must be maintained at a low number)

Expecting motorists to slow down for massive numbers of merging cyclists is an unsustainable system.

Unsustainable for whom?

Where I have seen motor traffic mixed with traffic from large group rides, the motor traffic must operate slowly where there are inadequate passing opportunities, but speeds up elsewhere. Increased bike traffic in the US would likely result in more passing opportunities integrated into roadways.

As the number of left-turning cyclists on the road increases, this will potentially require motorists to slow more often, but this can be mitigated by access control (such as raised medians) minimizing the number of left turns on important arterials.

The intersection-merge issue essentially boils down whether motorists require more time to safely merge with bike traffic than to wait for a sufficient gap to safely cross it. I think a larger gap is required for crossing bike traffic than to merge into it. If the gap is created by signals rather than naturally, the signals must delay both motor traffic and cycle traffic at times. It's not clear to me that this is a win for either cyclists or motorists.

Unsustainable for whom?

Unsustainable for freeway like 55MH and fast designs that are touted by the likes of the American Dream Coalition and others that feel motor traffic should proceed at high speeds.


Where I have seen motor traffic mixed with traffic from large group rides, the motor traffic must operate slowly where there are inadequate passing opportunities, but speeds up elsewhere. Increased bike traffic in the US would likely result in more passing opportunities integrated into roadways.

Thank you for the perfect example.... "passing opportunities" might those be some sort of bicycle accommodation? Is that not changing the very nature of the existing roadways into something different? Perhaps less auto centric?


As the number of left-turning cyclists on the road increases, this will potentially require motorists to slow more often, but this can be mitigated by access control (such as raised medians) minimizing the number of left turns on important arterials. Oh, so a more freeway like road, eh? And how does that serve the connectivity that previously existed?


The intersection-merge issue essentially boils down whether motorists require more time to safely merge with bike traffic than to wait for a sufficient gap to safely cross it. I think a larger gap is required for crossing bike traffic than to merge into it. If the gap is created by signals rather than naturally, the signals must delay both motor traffic and cycle traffic at times. It's not clear to me that this is a win for either cyclists or motorists. If such a light cycle differentiates bicycle from motor traffic, then we have modified the system away from the wholly singular vehicular vision presented by John Forester, and you start approaching the system demonstrated in Copenhagen.

What about the provision of multiple alternate routes serving the same destinations in a grid? Arterials with higher priority would feature higher traffic volumes, higher speeds, and shorter trip times, but designed such that experienced cyclists would be reasonably comfortable on them. Collector roads would have lower speeds, only two lanes plus turn lanes, and lower priority at intersections with arterials, resulting in longer trip times and less traffic, but would be more pleasant for most cyclists. Neighborhood streets would have the most stop signs, most traffic calming features, least traffic and lowest speeds, but would be relatively easy for children to learn on.

I see a lot of networks like this in cities like Seattle, where neighborhood streets are inconvenient for through traffic in a car compared to the arterials a few blocks over, but are very pleasant at slow speed on a bike. It's often possible to get very close to one's destination using the neighborhood streets; the short remaining segment of arterial could be handled in a number of ways, even walking the bike on the sidewalk.

My challenge has been getting similar connectivity and redundancy in suburbs. Getting trhough-collector streets aligned at arterial intersections to allow longer trips on them while avoiding arterials (instead, simply crossing the arterials) is a challenge that requires long-term planning. Also, it's very useful to have circulation roads inside shopping centers connect with adjacent shopping center circulation roads and with nearby collector streets. This allows easier access to all the commercial destinations without having to use an arterial. These perform like commercial collector streets, often routed just behind the shopping centers, and are good for both cyclists and local motorists.

IMHO a lot depends on where a locality is on the evolutionary development of being bike friendly. My thoughts are the first stress should be in establishing major routes that function like bike arterials, these should be near or connect origins and destinations (areas with a high latent demand score) with the purpose of focusing bike traffic along a corridor. Establishing a network is secondary to accommodations along or parallel to transportation corridors. These corridors should be at least 2-5 miles long along the fastest route for cyclists (traffic lights or few stop signs) that BLOC grade C (or better) can be established. The next phase can extend, connect and feather out these bike arterials via sharrows in BLOC grade D roads or use other treatments on quieter residential roads.

In theory I support connecting nearby neighborhoods with shopping centers but I have seen very little momentum established by such facilities, I suspect that is because the athletic do not find such things that desirable, they want a good run they can do after work or on the weekend. I will also mention that joggers found our first efforts in bike accommodations very desirable so again I will stress the best facilities are those that can function well as both transportation and recreational facilities. And as far as comfort goes on busy streets for recreation, trust the BLOC score and for transportation use trust a high latent demand score and lastly you need length to draw out the athletic.

I see accommodating cyclists a lot like establishing a mini commuter rail system. The first effort is very much concerned about demand, ROW and length of trip to make the effort viable. After a successful "line" is established then discussions of connectivity and expansion are considered but it all starts or centers around lines and corridors IMHO.

As far as splitting or creating alternate routes I am not seeing much evidence on the desirability or viability of such things but so far my experience is those that oppose bike lanes on busy roads are mostly happy with BLOC C accommodations after experiencing them for awhile.

ILTB continues to reveal he has no agenda other than to whine and complain and look for excuses to make personal attacks. He made a BIG deal out of the difficulty of defining 'competent' cycling. Yet when confronted with a prime example of incompetent cycling he takes the disingenuous dodge of 'the straw man.'

I suppose if he continues to define all incompetent cycling as 'straw men' then incompetetent cycling ceases to be an issue. Nice try, but it serves no agenda other than that of arguing without seeking to advance the discussion.

danarnold continues to reveal he has no agenda other than to whine and complain and look for excuses to make personal attacks. He made a BIG deal out of so called straw man arguments. Yet when confronted with no good example of incompetent cycling he takes the disingenuous dodge of 'the straw man.'

I suppose if he continues to define all arguments as 'straw men' then all arguments ceases to be an issue. Nice try, but it serves no agenda other than that of arguing without seeking to advance the discussion.

[Just say'n :innocent:]

ILTB continues to reveal he has no agenda other than to whine and complain and look for excuses to make personal attacks. He made a BIG deal out of the difficulty of defining 'competent' cycling. Yet when confronted with a prime example of incompetent cycling he takes the disingenuous dodge of 'the straw man.'

I suppose if he continues to define all incompetent cycling as 'straw men' then incompetetent cycling ceases to be an issue. Nice try, but it serves no agenda other than that of arguing without seeking to advance the discussion.

Another dodge. danarnold is the character who brought up the issue of whining about those who are not "serious and competent cyclists" . It is he and others of the Forester Club who have an agenda to exclude from cycling advocacy any and all cyclists who don't meet "our standards" of "serious and competent cycling." Yet their standard amounts to so much subjective gibberish, equivalent to the definition of obscenity, "I can't define it but I know it when I see it."

I am skeptical as well as annoyed with the elitism and arrogance of a handful of self appointed/anointed "serious and competent cyclists" claiming to possess the Right Stuff of Cycling and to be the standard bearers for all proper cycling. All claims without proving a serious definition of what makes them so serious or competent or so dang special other than inflated ego.

Unsustainable for whom?

Where I have seen motor traffic mixed with traffic from large group rides, the motor traffic must operate slowly where there are inadequate passing opportunities, but speeds up elsewhere. Increased bike traffic in the US would likely result in more passing opportunities integrated into roadways.

Perhaps unsustainable for the large majority of cyclists who do NOT do their serious and competent cycling on large group rides.

I 'd be willing to bet that few, if any, daily commuters, students, working cyclists, or urban cyclists cycle in large group rides to their destinations. The enlightened few are certainly entitled to advocate only for cyclists who are serious about "experienced cyclists" in "group rides" and competent with the ways of the peloton, but such advocacy is so exclusive as to be laughable.

Especially when: My kinda riding is "serious and competent"; everybody who rides like Me is "serious and competent"; everybody else is not.

Another variation is:
Club riders/exercise buffs devoted to group rides/competition are the definition of "serious and competent"cycling. Everybody else is just playing with toys.

Very obvious indeed.

:lol:

In a broad context, I think that the text in red is human nature.

I don't think that the second statement is broadly true.

try applying the "8 and 80" rule, as all 50 states already expect lawful, competent bicycling on public roadways:

if your 80 year old grandmother won't ride there with your 8 year old niece and feel comfortable (operating lawfully) as bicyclists, that corridor fails as a bicycle accommodation.

I think expecting road design to accommodate an 8-year-old -- particularly if you consider their variation in maturity -- is unrealistic. Consider that a lot of parents don't let their 8-year-olds walk across all streets unaided. In other words, I can see design helping physical limitations, but probably not cognitive limitations.

Who is having a problem with the current minimum standards of cycling practiced on public roads? Besides loudmouth jerks screaming instructions from pickup trucks, shock radio jackboots, and snooty club cyclists with irrational fears of their group rides being hindered by the presence anywhere of bike lanes?

If govt officials and/or law enforcement have a problem with the standards not being met by cyclists they have the tools to do something about it; in few places is there any significant concern to do so.

You don't think that there is an underlying popular idea that cyclists are (generally) scofflaws relative to motorists? I have no proof, of course. But there is a steady stream of local editorials/letters to the editor as well as regular conversation.

There are too few cyclists to warrant formal government action in many places.

8 year olds can't ride bikes in America?


what kind of father are you?

Just about anyone -- the average "man in the street" -- should be able to recognize "serious and competent" cyclists, dog owners, horseback riders and practitioners of most other skills.

I think that people can recognize "serious" but not necessarily "competent."

8 year olds can't ride bikes in America?


what kind of father are you?

Who wrote that?

[Just say'n :innocent:]

Nothing original to say?

Despite the few, the one, who pretends it is impossible to have standards for cycling competence, such standards exist. Who disagrees with the idea that not being able to maintain a line, as opposed wobbling to and fro is a sign of competence? Some moron thinks he can side step the issue by saying 'that's only children so it doesn't count' may be fooling himself and a single dupe, but that's all.

A rider who can't follow basic rules of the road or who rides the wrong way on the street or who doesn't claim the lane when it isn't wide enough to share or who is oblivious to the tendency of motorists to make right turns in front of you is not competent.

If it annoys someone's tender sensibilities to face the fact there are different skill levels in cycling as in everything else, too bad. It is utter foolishness and great waste of resources to design bike infrastructure for the least competent cyclist.

Your method of vehicular cycling only works when the number of cyclists is statistically low. (and must be maintained at a low number)

Expecting motorists to slow down for massive numbers of merging cyclists is an unsustainable system.

I know we have discussed this in the past. But this isn't clear to me. Yes, if you ...

(1) take the same roads,
(2) keep present motoring traffic patterns the same,
(3) increase the population thereby increasing flows, and
(4) increase cycling on these same roads

... you will get a lot of congestion. But people respond to conditions and change their behavior to avoid doomsday scenarios.


Unsustainable for whom?

Where I have seen motor traffic mixed with traffic from large group rides, the motor traffic must operate slowly where there are inadequate passing opportunities, but speeds up elsewhere. Increased bike traffic in the US would likely result in more passing opportunities integrated into roadways.

As the number of left-turning cyclists on the road increases, this will potentially require motorists to slow more often, but this can be mitigated by access control (such as raised medians) minimizing the number of left turns on important arterials.

The intersection-merge issue essentially boils down whether motorists require more time to safely merge with bike traffic than to wait for a sufficient gap to safely cross it. I think a larger gap is required for crossing bike traffic than to merge into it. If the gap is created by signals rather than naturally, the signals must delay both motor traffic and cycle traffic at times. It's not clear to me that this is a win for either cyclists or motorists.

I think one can show that slower and better flowing traffic can move more people than "the" present system. Quotes are used since -- this is anecdotally true, but I suspect it is also true by some metrics -- traffic systems vary quite a bit.


IMHO a lot depends on where a locality is on the evolutionary development of being bike friendly. My thoughts are the first stress should be in establishing major routes that function like bike arterials, these should be near or connect origins and destinations (areas with a high latent demand score) with the purpose of focusing bike traffic along a corridor. Establishing a network is secondary to accommodations along or parallel to transportation corridors. These corridors should be at least 2-5 miles long along the fastest route for cyclists (traffic lights or few stop signs) that BLOC grade C (or better) can be established. The next phase can extend, connect and feather out these bike arterials via sharrows in BLOC grade D roads or use other treatments on quieter residential roads.

In theory I support connecting nearby neighborhoods with shopping centers but I have seen very little momentum established by such facilities, I suspect that is because the athletic do not find such things that desirable, they want a good run they can do after work or on the weekend. I will also mention that joggers found our first efforts in bike accommodations very desirable so again I will stress the best facilities are those that can function well as both transportation and recreational facilities. And as far as comfort goes on busy streets for recreation, trust the BLOC score and for transportation use trust a high latent demand score and lastly you need length to draw out the athletic.

I see accommodating cyclists a lot like establishing a mini commuter rail system. The first effort is very much concerned about demand, ROW and length of trip to make the effort viable. After a successful "line" is established then discussions of connectivity and expansion are considered but it all starts or centers around lines and corridors IMHO.

As far as splitting or creating alternate routes I am not seeing much evidence on the desirability or viability of such things but so far my experience is those that oppose bike lanes on busy roads are mostly happy with BLOC C accommodations after experiencing them for awhile.

I agree strongly with the emphasized section. In my experience, one can often look at a map and quickly identify "cycling unfriendly" bottlenecks that prevent a broad grid accessible to the general population. If you open the spigot at these bottlenecks I think that more people will seriously consider an alternative method of travel under certain conditions such as an increase in fuel costs. Obviously some transportation grids/systems have more bottlenecks than others.

You don't think that there is an underlying popular idea that cyclists are (generally) scofflaws relative to motorists? I have no proof, of course. But there is a steady stream of local editorials/letters to the editor as well as regular conversation.

There are too few cyclists to warrant formal government action in many places.

A steady stream of goof ball opinions demanding "action" on every subject can be found in local editorials/letters to the editor as well as regular conversation, and even more so on Internet blogs, comments, discussions, et al.

IMO the most vocal and most nutty on every issue come from the usual intolerant suspects who sense that their own cherished beliefs are being challenged.

The alleged public outrage over the alleged problem of cycling scofflaws fits the profile of characters with an agenda, beating their own drums as well as their tin hats.

all 50 states expect and codify competent lawful cycling on public rights of way.

On road bikeways planning and bikelanes etc can encourage and educate bicyclists about proper lawful bicycling behaviors and encourage greater lawful road bicycling in a community, danarnold.

Sharrows can educate about road position in marginally wide lanes or directionals across railroad tracks, bikelanes can educate about positioning at intersections and visible road positioning as well as inculcate greater ridership in communities.

the 'incompetent' argument holds no weight.

:lol:

In a broad context, I think that the text in red is human nature.

I don't think that the second statement is broadly true.

Let me know how many cyclists that tout/advocate specifically for the interests of "high mileage experienced road cyclists" or vaguely defined "serious and competent cyclists" are not club cyclists or cyclists extrapolating from their parochial experience weekend/evening rides, usually with their pals.

My guess is few and far between.

I think that people can recognize "serious" but not necessarily "competent."

Oh some people can; they make up "our standards" for cycling competency and castigate all those who don't meet them.

Nothing original to say?

Do you really believe parroting Forester's dogma, agenda and pet phrases is original?

I acknowledge the originality of your posts about your own peevishness over posters who choose to adapt a moniker that doesn't meet your own peevish standards. Yep that was a doozy for original thinking.

i don't recall ever even seeing a wrong way bicyclist in my hundreds of miles of riding experiences in portland - not to say they are not there but as a cycling population 'matures' in experience the inculcating educative effects of lawful ridership in bikeway'd communities becomes somewhat self-perpetuating.

I made and make no claim to originality for myself. If my opinions sometimes coincide with John Foster's, I am pleased. Thank you. :)

A steady stream of goof ball opinions demanding "action" on every subject can be found in local editorials/letters to the editor as well as regular conversation, and even more so on Internet blogs, comments, discussions, et al.

IMO the most vocal and most nutty on every issue come from the usual intolerant suspects who sense that their own cherished beliefs are being challenged.

The alleged public outrage over the alleged problem of cycling scofflaws fits the profile of characters with an agenda, beating their own drums as well as their tin hats.

I concur that there are radicals outraged on just about every topic; often with perverse views of reality. (see the number of people that think Obama is not a US citizen and/or Bush knew a priori about the attacks on 9/11) I failed to read "public outrage" in the thread, but I think that the public's broad opinion resembles the scofflaw notion.

Genec is right, the cyclists who wish to join the Forester Bicycle Driving Club club and meet "our standards" are few and far between. Nor are they interested in any lame effort by the Club members to advocate/induce membership on an uninterested public.

John Forester and his ilk just can't get over the fact that few cyclists, except his handful of devotees, gives a darn about what it takes to operate according to his interpretations of "rules of the road for drivers of vehicles," or "our standard of competence," or whatever his spin is on any bicycling subject.

I'm not sure, but this may be the first true statement you have issued, ILTB. Americans have been raised to believe that bicyclists are second-class road users who have no need to obey, or even, should not obey, the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles, thereby sacrificing the advantages of operating as competent standard road users. Once I cared about such people, shall we say for the 1960s and 1970s, for I worked out how to teach them to cycle competently, in more than just the traffic sense we use in this discussion, and my students enjoyed learning their new skills. As for those that persisted in cycling incompetently, that was their problem, with the lack of enjoyment and excessive crashes so entailed. However, now that it is national policy to encourage such incompetent cycling, mere indifference to cycling incompetence is insufficient. Those who find the enjoyment and cycling effectiveness of obeying the rules of the road have to defend themselves against this policy lest they lose their right to operate properly, as have cyclists elsewhere.

Let me know how many cyclists that tout/advocate specifically for the interests of "high mileage experienced road cyclists" or vaguely defined "serious and competent cyclists" are not club cyclists or cyclists extrapolating from their parochial experience weekend/evening rides, usually with their pals.

My guess is few and far between.

This isn't my interpretation of what you wrote below. If you are talking about what people who advocate a VC-based strategy for cycling consider "serious and competent", then I think that the description is few and far between. I think that there are a lot of VC advocates who consider the "high mileage experienced road cyclist" among a lot of parties who cycle. Precisely what "serious" and "competent" means also varies. From what I see, roughly speaking ...

serious --> dedicated to sport or utility cycling
competent --> lawful road cycling

More generally, I have run into far more people with a position like SG than JF. I think most people describe their position in a somewhat clumsy way such that the subtleties get lost.


Club riders/exercise buffs devoted to group rides/competition are the definition of "serious and competent"cycling. Everybody else is just playing with toys.

Very obvious indeed.


Oh some people can; they make up "our standards" for cycling competency and castigate all those who don't meet them.

Sure.

John I have to disagree with you, as all those cyclists working together are indeed following the rules of the road, otherwise their system would fail miserably.

What they do not attempt to do is foolishly mix dramatically different speed and vehicle types in a delusional hodgepodge that would fail immediately if the number of slower vehicles were increased 10 fold.

Your method of vehicular cycling only works when the number of cyclists is statistically low. (and must be maintained at a low number)

Expecting motorists to slow down for massive numbers of merging cyclists is an unsustainable system.

Genec, you evidently fail to understand the ambiguity involved in your statement "following the rules of the road"; or else you are deliberately using that ambiguity in the hope that others won't notice it. I am careful to state "the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles" to avoid that ambiguity. The cyclists depicted in Copenhagen video are not obeying the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles; in fact, they are largely prohibited from operating where vehicles operate.

I see that you hold the militant motorists opinion that motorists must not be delayed by bicycle traffic! Well, well. However, I have not seen evidence that bicycle traffic causes significant delays to motor traffic on roads with sufficient width. Of course, if the road is insufficiently wide to handle the traffic, then there will be delays, but that's a problem of insufficient road capacity, not necessarily with the portion of traffic that is bicycle.

Another dodge. danarnold is the character who brought up the issue of whining about those who are not "serious and competent cyclists" . It is he and others of the Forester Club who have an agenda to exclude from cycling advocacy any and all cyclists who don't meet "our standards" of "serious and competent cycling." Yet their standard amounts to so much subjective gibberish, equivalent to the definition of obscenity, "I can't define it but I know it when I see it."

I am skeptical as well as annoyed with the elitism and arrogance of a handful of self appointed/anointed "serious and competent cyclists" claiming to possess the Right Stuff of Cycling and to be the standard bearers for all proper cycling. All claims without proving a serious definition of what makes them so serious or competent or so dang special other than inflated ego.

Gibberish, my dear ILTB, that's all that you can produce. You have been told time after time that, for purposes of this discussion on vehicular cycling, the standard of competence is the ability to operate according to the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles. Nothing more, nothing less. Yet you are so angry at those who say that this is the official standard for road operation that you have to introduce other considerations entirely. Your previous post in which you said that American cyclists don't want to operate by the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles was much more reasonable, describing what happens to be true of the majority (although possibly undesirable) rather than your resentment at the lawful minority.

Perhaps unsustainable for the large majority of cyclists who do NOT do their serious and competent cycling on large group rides.

I 'd be willing to bet that few, if any, daily commuters, students, working cyclists, or urban cyclists cycle in large group rides to their destinations. The enlightened few are certainly entitled to advocate only for cyclists who are serious about "experienced cyclists" in "group rides" and competent with the ways of the peloton, but such advocacy is so exclusive as to be laughable.

Large group rides are not a suitable example of competent cycling. Rather, they are the example of what happens when large numbers of incompetent cyclists get together. And the example is irrelevant to our discussion, for I do not know of any reasonable normal traffic condition in which cyclists outnumber motorists fifty to one.

I made and make no claim to originality for myself. If my opinions sometimes coincide with John Foster's, I am pleased. Thank you. :)

:rolleyes: suck-up.

Club riders/exercise buffs devoted to group rides/competition are the definition of "serious and competent"cycling. Everybody else is just playing with toys.

Very obvious indeed.

Oh some people can; they make up "our standards" for cycling competency and castigate all those who don't meet them.



Sure.

Sure indeed, again. I assume that you recognized that the quote you placed in red was an ironic jab at the self proclaimed standard setters. Right? If not, read it again, in context.

Expecting motorists to slow down for massive numbers of merging cyclists is an unsustainable system.

I disagree, unless you have given up on the concept of reeducating motorists. All that needs to happen for this to work is retrain motorists to have entirely new expectations and concepts of acceptable and allowable operating speeds.

Unsustainable for freeway like 55MH and fast designs that are touted by the likes of the American Dream Coalition and others that feel motor traffic should proceed at high speeds.
Thank you for the perfect example.... "passing opportunities" might those be some sort of bicycle accommodation? Is that not changing the very nature of the existing roadways into something different? Perhaps less auto centric?
Oh, so a more freeway like road, eh? And how does that serve the connectivity that previously existed?
If such a light cycle differentiates bicycle from motor traffic, then we have modified the system away from the wholly singular vehicular vision presented by John Forester, and you start approaching the system demonstrated in Copenhagen.

Your original post implied that a large increase in bicycle mode share would be unsustainable if vehicular cycling remained the expected method of bicycle operation.

I disagree that vehicular cycling would need to be abandoned. However, I do believe the change in mode share would change the design of the road system. Not to treat bicyclists as different from drivers of vehicles; rather, to better accommodate diversity in vehicle speed capabilities.

On arterials, where motorists would want to go fast over long distances, I imagine that an adequate width of roadway would be provided to allow them to pass the increased volume of cyclists. By contrast, many arterials here in NC are currently rural design highways with two narrow lanes and no shoulders. I suspect that a high bicycling mode share would give cyclists too much political power to get kicked off the roads, and so motorists' only recourse would be to agree to have their fuel taxes spent on improving the roadway cross section. The peak allowed speeds might be reduced if cyclists gain enough political power (via high mode share) to change speed laws and get them enforced.

In nations with very high bicycle mode share, most bicycling trips are short. Here in the USA, most of these local trips could be made on local and collector roads, especially after their connectivity is improved. If such roads became so packed full of cyclists that motorists could not merge right to turn right, I suspect motoring on them might become prohibited. But I doubt it would go that far. Motorists would still seek to use the most limited-access roads for the most convenient cross-town trips. Cyclists could still use such roads, but the number of access points on them would be limited, perhaps one every half mile, and the bike traffic would probably be sparse enough that drivers would have little trouble at the intersections. Meanwhile, if enough cyclists had difficulty with vehicular left turns via merging left on congested arterials, jug-handle left turns might be provided as an alternative.

Nothing original to say?

Despite the few, the one, who pretends it is impossible to have standards for cycling competence, such standards exist. Who disagrees with the idea that not being able to maintain a line, as opposed wobbling to and fro is a sign of competence? Some moron thinks he can side step the issue by saying 'that's only children so it doesn't count' may be fooling himself and a single dupe, but that's all.

A rider who can't follow basic rules of the road or who rides the wrong way on the street or who doesn't claim the lane when it isn't wide enough to share or who is oblivious to the tendency of motorists to make right turns in front of you is not competent.

If it annoys someone's tender sensibilities to face the fact there are different skill levels in cycling as in everything else, too bad. It is utter foolishness and great waste of resources to design bike infrastructure for the least competent cyclist.

:roflmao2: You're not getting it are you? Just because we can point to both extremes of competence or lack of competence does not imply that there is a recognized standard for determining just when competence is reached.

Let's talk specifics what kind of facilities only accommodate the least competent cyclist and not the competent cyclists? What makes this yet unnamed facility more of a waste of resources then WOL or shoulders? What makes this yet unnamed facility more accommodating to the least competent cyclist while WOL and shoulders accommodate the competent cyclists?

Look through the FARS data (http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/People/PeoplePedalcyclists.aspx) and you will see that too is oblivious to the tendency of motorists to make right turns in front of cyclists with the right side of the vehicle and intersections showing very low in the reports.

[QUOTE=The Human Car;9709526]:roflmao2: You're not getting it are you?

Is that your standard reply when someone does not agree with you or refutes your statements? Now that is laughable.

Let's talk specifics what kind of facilities only accommodate the least competent cyclist and not the competent cyclists? What makes this yet unnamed facility more of a waste of resources then WOL or shoulders? What makes this yet unnamed facility more accommodating to the least competent cyclist while WOL and shoulders accommodate the competent cyclists?

Look through the FARS data (http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/People/PeoplePedalcyclists.aspx) and you will see that too is oblivious to the tendency of motorists to make right turns in front of cyclists with the right side of the vehicle and intersections showing very low in the reports.

I don't have anything against competently designed bike infrastructure that is consistently implemented across a region. But I don't see the need for the imaginary safety of a bike lane to coddle and coax the timid into trying the road. There are several problems with current bike infrastructure

Although it is excellent in some places, it is deplorable in others.

Even where it is well designed, the absence of it, or the inconsistent placement of it can mislead motorists into thinking bikes only belong in bike lanes.

The general rules of the road have been well thought out and time tested. Experiments in bike infrastructuce are new. The very newness can cause disruption and confusion.

:roflmao2: You're not getting it are you?

Is that your standard reply when someone does not agree with you or refutes your statements? Now that is laughable.

No that is my "standard" reply to people who use insults instead of logic. If you don't approve of my response please look in the mirror.

I don't have anything against competently designed bike infrastructure that is consistently implemented across a region. But I don't see the need for the imaginary safety of a bike lane to coddle and coax the timid into trying the road. There are several problems with current bike infrastructure

Although it is excellent in some places, it is deplorable in others.

Even where it is well designed, the absence of it, or the inconsistent placement of it can mislead motorists into thinking bikes only belong in bike lanes.

The general rules of the road have been well thought out and time tested. Experiments in bike infrastructuce are new. The very newness can cause disruption and confusion.

Overall this is pretty good but I will disagree with the last paragraph, while a cyclist can be trained to be VC and make the most of the rules of the road but for the general public car centric roadways are not well thought out and time tested for the mix of cyclists and fast motor vehicles. Placing a cyclist on a car centric road can cause just as much disruption and confusion if not more then bike infrastructure.

For me there is a lot of misapplied terms, IMHO too many use the word safety when they mean comfort, sure if you feel uncomfortable you feel unsafe but still safety is the wrong word.

Placing a cyclist on a car centric road can cause just as much disruption and confusion if not more then bike infrastructure.


Your rather emphatic statement is so general that it carries no meaning. Please describe the terms "car-centric road", "disruption", and "confusion" and apply them in a sentence that is meaningful in the context of this discussion.

Your rather emphatic statement is so general that it carries no meaning. Please describe the terms "car-centric road", "disruption", and "confusion" and apply them in a sentence that is meaningful in the context of this discussion.

If indeed you have been following this discussion you will note the general terms "disruption", and "confusion" that carry no meaning are not of my origin, "car-centric road" is simply put forth as the opposite of "bike infrastructure" which is also a general term. This is the best I got when I requested specifics. The ball to be more specific is in danarnold's court not mine.