Vehicular Cycling (VC) - Other Agendas

ChipSeal said: “I am therefore astonished that so many of our “bicycle advocates” reject and dismiss best practices for a facilities based paradigm that exposes cyclists to far greater peril. It makes me wonder if they are really interested in their constituents safety at all.”

That’s the problem with bike advocacy, it’s been overrun by people with other agendas—reducing motoring, obesity, air pollution, fuel use, save the world, sell bicycles, etc. Those people aim for the lowest common denominator of ignorance to get “butts on bikes.” They don’t really care that their facilities hamstring cyclists, virtually eliminating their ability to protect themselves. A cyclist on a “separated” parallel facility (like a sidewalk) has only one method of avoiding crashes — keep head on a swivel and ride slow enough to stop instantly.

This is something most sidewalk riders don’t understand, and that’s why they make up almost half of Orlando’s bike-v-car crashes

ChipSeal said: “I am therefore astonished that so many of our “bicycle advocates” reject and dismiss best practices for a facilities based paradigm that exposes cyclists to far greater peril. It makes me wonder if they are really interested in their constituents safety at all.”

That’s the problem with bike advocacy, it’s been overrun by people with other agendas—reducing motoring, obesity, air pollution, fuel use, save the world, sell bicycles, etc. Those people aim for the lowest common denominator of ignorance to get “butts on bikes.” They don’t really care that their facilities hamstring cyclists, virtually eliminating their ability to protect themselves. A cyclist on a “separated” parallel facility (like a sidewalk) has only one method of avoiding crashes — keep head on a swivel and ride slow enough to stop instantly.

This is something most sidewalk riders don’t understand, and that’s why they make up almost half of Orlando’s bike-v-car crashes


Um, you do know that there are other facilities that are NOT sidewalk like... right? Here in San Diego we have a few real nice bike facilities... that permit very high speed cycling; they have on and off ramps and some separated areas for peds. Perhaps this is what some "other agenda" folks have in mind... not stripes of paint nor narrow park/ped paths.

I know that bike highways is what I have in mind... something that preserves a cyclists' inertia while encouraging fast cross town cycle trips. Automobile drivers have controlled access thoroughfares, why shouldn't cyclists?

I'll agree there is a problem of defaulting to the lowest common denominator but I'm not sure if it is because of all the different agendas or just the general lack of treating bikes as transportation even when used recreationally.

To explain a bit: Trails that can function well as both transportation corridors and a recreational facility are better utilized then trails that function mainly for recreation even though recreational use is the primary use of both types of trails. I could go on about the importance of connecting residence with destinations (transportation view point) like an ice cream store on a hot summer day over remote wooded trails with no wayfaring signs to destinations and no way to comfortable bike from home to the trail even if you live a half mile from the trail.

The point is all modes of travel have varying degrees of service; roads: residential, collector, arterial, highway, expressway; Mass Transit: local bus, commuter bus, subway, commuter rail and so on. So there should be a similar varying degrees of service for cyclists as well. The lowest common denominator should be accommodated but not everywhere. Just because a new car driver is not comfortable driving on the interstate does not mean we should never build another one, because we all know it does not take long for a new driver to get the confidence to drive on an interstate. Similarly cyclists start off liking the lower end stuff but because we do not have a good interconnecting network so they can't comfortably advance to other types of facilities so too many people end up stuck in beginning mode.

Um, you do know that there are other facilities that are NOT sidewalk like... right? Here in San Diego we have a few real nice bike facilities... that permit very high speed cycling; they have on and off ramps and some separated areas for peds. Perhaps this is what some "other agenda" folks have in mind... not stripes of paint nor narrow park/ped paths. :roflmao::roflmao::roflmao:

Like all of 0.005% of the so called advocates.

Perhaps this is what some "other agenda" folks have in mind... not stripes of paint nor narrow park/ped paths.And I thought ChipSeal said "many" rather than "all".

ChipSeal said: “I am therefore astonished that so many of our “bicycle advocates” reject and dismiss best practices for a facilities based paradigm that exposes cyclists to far greater peril. It makes me wonder if they are really interested in their constituents safety at all.”[/i]

That’s the problem with bike advocacy, it’s been overrun by people with other agendas—reducing motoring, obesity, air pollution, fuel use, save the world, sell bicycles, etc. Those people aim for the lowest common denominator of ignorance to get “butts on bikes.” They don’t really care that their facilities hamstring cyclists, virtually eliminating their ability to protect themselves. A cyclist on a “separated” parallel facility (like a sidewalk) has only one method of avoiding crashes — keep head on a swivel and ride slow enough to stop instantly.

This is something most sidewalk riders don’t understand, and that’s why they make up almost half of Orlando’s bike-v-car crashes

What on earth are you complaining about? Some cycling advocacy is populist based versus your 'cars first' streetscape obsessions?

you are obviously confused about the effects and ramifications of bike infrastructure.

So tell us what "bike advocacy" should be doing?

1. Appealing to cyclists to promote a particular riding behaviour?

2. Appealling to the world at large for material and behavioural considerations towards cyclists?

nah. I'll stay on the sidewalk, thanks.

Bicyclists should have the same agendas as John Forester has:

1. Promotion of the car culture of the 1950s as the American Dream of the 21st century.
2. Opposition to mass transit.
3. Opposition to any kind of bicycling infrastructure that isn't a bike rack (while pretending not to oppose virtually all bicyling infrastructure).
4. Uncritical support of highway infrastructure.
5. Opposition to the idea that bicycling could be a transportation alternative (ridicule of those who dare to use a bicycle as a primary means of transportation is a must).
6. Promotion of the Wide Outside Lane as a primary solution the world's problems.

If anyone thinks those aren't the agendas of JF and his VC-ists followers, they obviously haven't been paying attention to what JF and his followers have written.

Oh, I almost forgot:

7. Promotion of the idea that any bicyclist that doesn't kiss JF's rear end must be suffering from some kind of mental disease like, for example, that VC-ist favorite "cyclist inferiority phobia" -- a disease invented by that great psychologist in his own mind, John Forester, because JF couldn't understand how any bicyclist not suffering from a disease could possibly disagree with his nutjob social theories.
(if "phobia" seems like too strong a word, try substituting "taboo," as one JF follower has done -- LOL).

Seriously, it's not as if VS-ists don't have their own agendas.

If anyone thinks those aren't the agendas of JF and his VC-ists followers, they obviously haven't been paying attention to what JF and his followers have written.

In case anyone thinks that JRA is laying it on a little strong, mosey on over to the Chainguard list to read the latest from the Great Leader of the Vehicular Cyclists™.
http://sports.groups.yahoo.com/group/chainguard/message/27510

Bicyclists should have the same agendas as John Forester has:

1. Promotion of the car culture of the 1950s as the American Dream of the 21st century.
2. Opposition to mass transit.
3. Opposition to any kind of bicycling infrastructure that isn't a bike rack (while pretending not to oppose virtually all bicyling infrastructure).
4. Uncritical support of highway infrastructure.
5. Opposition to the idea that bicycling could be a transportation alternative (ridicule of those who dare to use a bicycle as a primary means of transportation is a must).
6. Promotion of the Wide Outside Lane as a primary solution the world's problems.

If anyone thinks those aren't the agendas of JF and his VC-ists followers, they obviously haven't been paying attention to what JF and his followers have written.

Oh, I almost forgot:

7. Promotion of the idea that any bicyclist that doesn't kiss JF's rear end must be suffering from some kind of mental disease like, for example, that VC-ist favorite "cyclist inferiority phobia" -- a disease invented by that great psychologist in his own mind, John Forester, because JF couldn't understand how any bicyclist not suffering from a disease could possibly disagree with his nutjob social theories.
(if "phobia" seems like too strong a word, try substituting "taboo," as one JF follower has done -- LOL).

Seriously, it's not as if VS-ists don't have their own agendas.

JRA obviously does not know what he is talking about as the JF agenda does not promote wide outside lanes, only roadway designs that best suit motorized travel. But one could argue that wide outside lanes are safer for drunk and/or distracted motorists and since that is better for motorists it is better for cyclists to tolerate more drunk and distracted drivers on the road.

[/ meant as humorous (satiric) attempt at imitating a JF follower hard a55. @JRA don't take this personally, I actually support what you wrote.]

JRA obviously does not know what he is talking about as the JF agenda does not promote wide outside lanes, only roadway designs that best suit motorized travel. But one could argue that wide outside lanes are safer for drunk and/or distracted motorists and since that is better for motorists it is better for cyclists to tolerate more drunk and distracted drivers on the road.

[/ meant as humorous (satiric) attempt at imitating a JF follower hard a55. @JRA don't take this personally, I actually support what you wrote.]

That's an excellent imitation, except that you didn't mention that I must have a reading comprehension problem. Nor did you emphasize the point (cough, cough) that JF is not opposed ALL bicycle facilities.

The roadway design best suited for motorized travel is one with an outside lane wide enough to allow motorists to pass bicyclists "without delay" (to use the phrase JF used in the paper he presented to the American Dream Coalition).

[/ A pillar of VC-ist dogma is that WOLs are better than bike lanes (although not ALL VC-ists are fond of WOLs)]

To summarize, VC-ists have other agendas, too -- agendas that have noting to do with the safety of bicyclists.

That's an excellent imitation, except that you didn't mention that I must have a reading comprehension problem. Nor did you emphasize the point (cough, cough) that JF is not opposed ALL bicycle facilities.

:roflmao2: Actually I did not want to lay it on too thick in case the joke landed wrong. But I have to say I am not sure if JF and company have any agenda other then criticizing other cyclists outside of the inner circle and praising any and all car centric road designs.

:roflmao2: Actually I did not want to lay it on too thick in case the joke landed wrong. But I have to say I am not sure if JF and company have any agenda other then criticizing other cyclists outside of the inner circle and praising any and all car centric road designs.

Now now let us not forget the issue of critisizing any and all that might suggest that perhaps we could be less automobile centric in our community thinking and planning... Oh heaven forbid.


For instance:
One will be immediately struck down by JF lightening if one were merely to suggest that a walking mall might be a great idea for a downtown...

While this is fun getting back to the the op, I will strongly assert that the problem is not with the "bicycle advocates" nor JF and the blind followers. It is with a third group of planners and road engineers that all too often feel that any fool with a degree can design a bike facility.

A case locally they are doing some road improvements and are showing off how they are accommodating cyclists on typical midsections of the roadway, great! But what about the intersections? No designs are available, no comments can be made because the designs are not out to comment on, will we get curb lanes to the right of right hand turn lanes? Could be, but fighting this has been an infuriating battle because responses keep coming back in essence saying: Since we are accommodating cyclists on the typical mid sections of the road so we don't understand your assertion that we are not accommodating cyclists.

We understand the importance of not putting bike accommodations to the right of right hand turn lanes, the JFs understand this as well, it is those other guys who don't get it.

We understand the importance of not putting bike accommodations to the right of right hand turn lanes, the JFs understand this as well, it is those other guys who don't get it.

The ironic thing about "no bike accomodations to the right of a right turn lane" is that a WOL effectively does just that... on any high speed road... where cyclists by default ride outside of the vastly higher speed traffic... those cyclists are to the right of any turning fast traffic.

The fact is that the only really true accomodations for cyclists are low speed narrow roads where all users move at about the same speed.

Or there is highway ramps where you have some distance when to move from the shoulder to the gore area. Works fairly well with faster traffic as long as there is gaps in traffic.

There is also some promise for bike lanes that come off of parking (hopefully not in the door zone) and end in a right hand turn lane (were there was parking.) we have one case where a sharrow is to the left of the right hand turn lane making a quasi pocket lane. Again that seems to work fairly well but the newb generally does not like either of these at first but give them some explanation of how and why it is supposed to work and they come around in my experience.

I will agree for all practical purposes a WOL is about as good as poorly designed bike lane for the non-VC trained cyclists.

That’s the problem with bike advocacy, it’s been overrun by people with other agendas... agendas that differ from yours. How dare they!

`Bike advocacy' is different things to different people. It seems pretty clear that you already know what it should be, but of course not everybody is going to agree.

(post #15, cropped)... I will strongly assert that the problem is not with the "bicycle advocates" nor JF and the blind followers...I agree that neither of these groups is the problem although they are certainly problems. The constant infighting among bicyclists is not helpful and is generally quite annoying.


(post #13, cropped)... I am not sure if JF and company have any agenda other then criticizing other cyclists outside of the inner circle...VC-ists have other agendas (some of which I share) but it does often seem that bad-mouthing other cyclists is just about all they do. I wonder if they are aware of how they come across. Repeatedly criticizing those who might otherwise support you is a "shoot yourself in the foot" tactic.


(post #15, cropped) It is with a third group of planners and road engineers that all too often feel that any fool with a degree can design a bike facility.We have an imperfect system that may result in cycling facilities designed by engineers who know just about nothing about bicycling. Poorly implemented and sometimes conflicting government policies, combined with a multitude of agencies and levels of government (federal, state, county, local), can lead to perverse incentives and absurd results.

If someone is looking for something to criticize, they should have no difficulty. It's more difficult but probably more helpful to find common ground so that bicyclsts can speak with a less-divided voice and not nit-pick everything.

I actually think that is possible. Call me an optimist.

If someone is looking for something to criticize, they should have no difficulty. It's more difficult but probably more helpful to find common ground so that bicyclsts can speak with a less-divided voice and not nit-pick everything.

I actually think that is possible. Call me an optimist.

If I could summarize governments' interaction with people is that people always complain no mater what government does. So governments general position is to act as an informed authority and act only on informed comments. So to be effective an advocate you needs to understand why something is being purposed and offer superior solutions. Locally the VC's have no effective voice not only because they are in the minority but because they do not offer any viable solutions to problems, only complaints. This in turn hurts people like me who are more in the middle between both sides as it gives the "I'll take anything for bike facilities" advocates more power to get junk and half thought out bike accommodations. Something I am up against is the preference for 12' travel lanes by DOT with the road excess being called a bike facility wither AASHTO says it qualifies or not, vs 10' travel lanes which the new upcoming AASHTO guidance says has the same car capacity (for roads 40mph and under) and improves safety for motorists, thus giving cyclists more side area to be in conformance with AASHTO. (e.g. DOT likes the idea of taking a 15' WOL and make a 12' travel lane and a 3' "bike lane", there are better solutions for this then that.)

The problem here is, it is the road engineers that have purposed the half a55 solution and it is the divided cyclists who have to try and fix it. So while I would agree if cyclists could speak with a unified voice they could correct problems like this, the source of the problem is the institutes of higher learning where bike/ped issues for street designs are not taught or not taught well.

Bicyclists should have the same agendas as John Forester has:

1. Promotion of the car culture of the 1950s as the American Dream of the 21st century.
2. Opposition to mass transit.
3. Opposition to any kind of bicycling infrastructure that isn't a bike rack (while pretending not to oppose virtually all bicyling infrastructure).
4. Uncritical support of highway infrastructure.
5. Opposition to the idea that bicycling could be a transportation alternative (ridicule of those who dare to use a bicycle as a primary means of transportation is a must).
6. Promotion of the Wide Outside Lane as a primary solution the world's problems.

If anyone thinks those aren't the agendas of JF and his VC-ists followers, they obviously haven't been paying attention to what JF and his followers have written.

Oh, I almost forgot:

7. Promotion of the idea that any bicyclist that doesn't kiss JF's rear end must be suffering from some kind of mental disease like, for example, that VC-ist favorite "cyclist inferiority phobia" -- a disease invented by that great psychologist in his own mind, John Forester, because JF couldn't understand how any bicyclist not suffering from a disease could possibly disagree with his nutjob social theories.
(if "phobia" seems like too strong a word, try substituting "taboo," as one JF follower has done -- LOL).

Seriously, it's not as if VS-ists don't have their own agendas.

JRA, your writing contains so many errors that one might well conclude that the errors reflect your own superstitious biases rather than fact. Here are examples.

"1. Promotion of the car culture of the 1950s as the American Dream of the 21st century."
I do not promote car culture of the 1950s. I accept it as forming the environment in which cyclists must operate, and therefore work out how best should cyclists operate in it. However, I did not introduce this subject into cycling discussions. I merely responded to the anti-motoring bicycle advocates who advanced peculiar criticisms of suburbs and suburban living that do not agree with the views of the very large proportion of our population who chose suburban living.

"2. Opposition to mass transit."
I have strong opposition to the more expensive forms of mass transit, because I believe that the money would be far better spent on improving mass transit for those who really need it. However, that has nothing to do with these discussions. I oppose the superstition believed by so many anti-motorists that mass transit will, in the typical American city, significantly reduce motoring and improve cycling. I consider that entirely unlikely under the present circumstances. I did not introduce this subject to these discussions, but I had to reply to those who presented the unlikely as fact.

"3. Opposition to any kind of bicycling infrastructure that isn't a bike rack (while pretending not to oppose virtually all bicyling infrastructure)."
I oppose all bikeways that contradict the rules of the road, because cycling contrary to the rules of the road is dangerous. I oppose the claim that off-highway trails are likely to make a bicycle transportation system, because there are insufficient locations that would provide this function. I oppose the claim that off-highway trails are automatically safer than roadway cycling. I see this as a reasoned stand; if you think otherwise, then we differ.

"4. Uncritical support of highway infrastructure."
Don't be silly. I support well designed and well maintained highways, and a well planned highway system. That's also a reasoned stand.

"5. Opposition to the idea that bicycling could be a transportation alternative (ridicule of those who dare to use a bicycle as a primary means of transportation is a must)."
You lie. I have never ridiculed anyone who cycles as a primary means of transportation. I have never stated that bicycling cannot be a transportation alternative. Confound it, I have cycled for transportation a great many years of my life; how could I deny that those years existed? The trouble with you is that you are so tied up with your own emotional desires that you cannot understand what I have written so many times. That is, that, in modern American cities, it is highly improbable that any form of bicycle promotion, be it bikeways or anything otherwise probable, will produce so much switching from motoring to bicycling as to reduce motoring to a transportationally significant extent. You believe that? Then demonstrate an example to support your unsupported claim.

"6. Promotion of the Wide Outside Lane as a primary solution the world's problems."
This is so silly that no other response is needed.

"7. Promotion of the idea that any bicyclist that doesn't kiss JF's rear end must be suffering from some kind of mental disease like, for example, that VC-ist favorite "cyclist inferiority phobia" -- a disease invented by that great psychologist in his own mind, John Forester, because JF couldn't understand how any bicyclist not suffering from a disease could possibly disagree with his nutjob social theories.
(if "phobia" seems like too strong a word, try substituting "taboo," as one JF follower has done -- LOL)."

Of course, you don't like to recognize that your hypothesis about bicycle traffic is based on superstition rather than on facts. You refuse to admit that, because all your advocacy is based on that superstition; without that superstition your advocacy would be obviously false. However, facts are facts. There is no factual basis for the bikeway hypothesis other than exaggerated fear of same-direction traffic, the same motivation which enabled the motorists (See, I really do criticize them!) to produce the bikeway system to suit their own convenience. Facts are facts; they're all in the historical record and have been known for more than thirty years.

JRA obviously does not know what he is talking about as the JF agenda does not promote wide outside lanes, only roadway designs that best suit motorized travel. But one could argue that wide outside lanes are safer for drunk and/or distracted motorists and since that is better for motorists it is better for cyclists to tolerate more drunk and distracted drivers on the road.

[/ meant as humorous (satiric) attempt at imitating a JF follower hard a55. @JRA don't take this personally, I actually support what you wrote.]

More lies. While I did not invent the concept of the wide outside lane, as soon as it was stated, some forty years ago, I adopted it and have written advocating wide outside lanes in both of my major bicycle transportation books.

That's an excellent imitation, except that you didn't mention that I must have a reading comprehension problem. Nor did you emphasize the point (cough, cough) that JF is not opposed ALL bicycle facilities.

The roadway design best suited for motorized travel is one with an outside lane wide enough to allow motorists to pass bicyclists "without delay" (to use the phrase JF used in the paper he presented to the American Dream Coalition).

[/ A pillar of VC-ist dogma is that WOLs are better than bike lanes (although not ALL VC-ists are fond of WOLs)]

To summarize, VC-ists have other agendas, too -- agendas that have noting to do with the safety of bicyclists.

That is erroneous. WOLs are not bicycle accommodations; they are accommodations to motorists to get the bike-lane demanding motorists off our backs. That is desirable because WOLs produce no obligation to disobey the rules of the road; both motorists and cyclists can choose their lateral position without the disadvantages, in traffic operation, in legitimacy, and in social status, of the bike-lane stripe. That is a matter of safety, in that nobody has ever shown that bike lanes make cycling significantly safer than cycling in accordance with the rules of the road, while there is plenty of evidence that cycling contrary to the rules of the road is more dangerous.

If I could summarize governments' interaction with people is that people always complain no mater what government does. So governments general position is to act as an informed authority and act only on informed comments. So to be effective an advocate you needs to understand why something is being purposed and offer superior solutions. Locally the VC's have no effective voice not only because they are in the minority but because they do not offer any viable solutions to problems, only complaints. This in turn hurts people like me who are more in the middle between both sides as it gives the "I'll take anything for bike facilities" advocates more power to get junk and half thought out bike accommodations. Something I am up against is the preference for 12' travel lanes by DOT with the road excess being called a bike facility wither AASHTO says it qualifies or not, vs 10' travel lanes which the new upcoming AASHTO guidance says has the same car capacity (for roads 40mph and under) and improves safety for motorists, thus giving cyclists more side area to be in conformance with AASHTO. (e.g. DOT likes the idea of taking a 15' WOL and make a 12' travel lane and a 3' "bike lane", there are better solutions for this then that.)

The problem here is, it is the road engineers that have purposed the half a55 solution and it is the divided cyclists who have to try and fix it. So while I would agree if cyclists could speak with a unified voice they could correct problems like this, the source of the problem is the institutes of higher learning where bike/ped issues for street designs are not taught or not taught well.

The human car is trying to reach a reasonable answer through the fog of the controversy, but the fog prevents him from doing so. THC is operating under the assumption that there is some better system of cycling than according to the rules of the road on well-designed normal roads. He recognizes that many bikeway solutions are not better, but he assumes that a better design exists and will be discovered in the near future, through discussions and such. Considering that designs are a human construct, no undiscovered design can exist; the moment such a design is created, it starts to exist. The problem is that no design has been shown to provide safer and more efficient bicycle transportation than operating according to the rules of the road on good roads. It is only when an experimental change has been produced and shown to be better that it is wise to consider system-wide change.

so, john, you're telling us you sold out to motor vehicle traffic decades ago.

how do you explain the hundreds of communities in the USA and around the world that

1) reversed declining bicycling rates with bicycling specific infrastructure and other social inducements to favor bicycling;

2) accommodate higher percentages of lawful street bicycling thru the use of bike specific infrastructure;

and

3)Show higher ridership and lower accident rates than communities that have failed to facilitate bicycling.


John, you are a bicyclist that sold out to the motor vehicle decades ago, and your agenda has stunted bicycling ridershare in this country.

Um, you do know that there are other facilities that are NOT sidewalk like... right? Here in San Diego we have a few real nice bike facilities... that permit very high speed cycling; they have on and off ramps and some separated areas for peds. Perhaps this is what some "other agenda" folks have in mind... not stripes of paint nor narrow park/ped paths.

I know that bike highways is what I have in mind... something that preserves a cyclists' inertia while encouraging fast cross town cycle trips. Automobile drivers have controlled access thoroughfares, why shouldn't cyclists?

There are two kinds of problem about bicycle freeways. One problem is endemic to all American bicycling facilities, which class includes roads. That is, much of the traffic on them is dangerous, so dangerous that they frequently cannot be used as freeways for high-speed bicycle traffic. That is a social problem, not a physical or cost problem. The other problem is physical, in that there are few locations available for building bicycle freeways at reasonable cost, that the catchment area of such facilities is quite small, and the speed increase ratio is not nearly as great as for motor freeways. In those locations where a bicycle freeway connecting large origins and destinations can be built at low cost, the use is often reasonably high, and is efficient at times, such as morning commuting time, when its traffic is better behaved. However, with few suitable locations and small catchment areas, bicycle freeways cannot produce a generally usable bicycle transportation system.

The ironic thing about "no bike accomodations to the right of a right turn lane" is that a WOL effectively does just that... on any high speed road... where cyclists by default ride outside of the vastly higher speed traffic... those cyclists are to the right of any turning fast traffic.

The fact is that the only really true accomodations for cyclists are low speed narrow roads where all users move at about the same speed.

WOLs are not bicycle accommodations; they are accommodations for motorists to get the political pressure of bike-lane demanding motorists off the backs of cyclists. They allow motorists to overtake with much reduced delay, which answers the complaints that motorists make about being delayed by cyclists, while avoiding the production of the disadvantages, in traffic operation, in legitimacy, and in social status that are produced by bike-lane stripes. Neither the cyclist nor the motorist is constrained to operate contrary to the rules of the road, each can choose his lateral position according to his desired speed and turn.

The fact that so few appear able to understand this, or refuse to understand it, is just one more example of the extent to which your thought processes have been muddled by the cyclist inferiority phobia. You claim that it does not exist, yet you persist in making almost all your judgments about bicycle travel in accordance with it. That's the evidence for its existence.

bike-lane demanding motorists

-you think the motorists are demanding bike lanes, john? :eek:

:roflmao: more radical thinking from JF!

Promotion of the idea that any bicyclist that doesn't kiss JF's rear end must be suffering from some kind of mental disease like, for example, that VC-ist favorite "cyclist inferiority phobia" -- a disease invented by that great psychologist in his own mind, John Forester, because JF couldn't understand how any bicyclist not suffering from a disease could possibly disagree with his nutjob social theories.

Example #1


about JRA
Of course, you don't like to recognize that your hypothesis about bicycle traffic is based on superstition rather than on facts. You refuse to admit that, because all your advocacy is based on that superstition; without that superstition your advocacy would be obviously false. However, facts are facts. There is no factual basis for the bikeway hypothesis other than exaggerated fear of same-direction traffic, the same motivation which enabled the motorists (See, I really do criticize them!) to produce the bikeway system to suit their own convenience. Facts are facts; they're all in the historical record and have been known for more than thirty years.

Example #2


about Genec
The fact that so few appear able to understand this, or refuse to understand it, is just one more example of the extent to which your thought processes have been muddled by the cyclist inferiority phobia. You claim that it does not exist, yet you persist in making almost all your judgments about bicycle travel in accordance with it. That's the evidence for its existence.

Neither the cyclist nor the motorist is constrained to operate contrary to the rules of the road, each can choose his lateral position according to his desired speed and turn.

despite which,
WOLs can aggravate intersection conflicts creating potential for unvehicular rules of operation at every intersection. speed differentials increase the potential for violation of vehicular operation.

I wonder why the American road engineering standards recognize bikelane designs as 'best practice' design for arterial roads - with bike lanes, emphasized mixing zones, and bikelanes to the left of all RTO traffic, but a few radical fringe elements like JF are curmudgeonly critics of the large, vetted, advancing body of AASHTO expertise on how best facilitate bicycling and pedestrian traffic on american rights of way.

ORANGE COUNTY, for example, has over 1,000 miles of bikelanes designed with largely to AASHTO vehicular road standards and they facilitate vehicular bicycling along arterial roads there.


but, there are those with other agendas that fight tooth and nail against bike specificity in roadway design.

that agenda is flawed, floundering, and bankrupt in the 21st century.



how Quixotic.

.... One problem is endemic to all American bicycling facilities, which class includes roads. That is, much of the traffic on them is dangerous, so dangerous that they frequently cannot be used as freeways for high-speed bicycle traffic.

wow, John. what a case of cyclist inferiority complex.

much of the traffic on roads is so dangerous that frequently roads cannot be used for bicycling????

you're telling us that mixing significant bicycle traffic with much of the motor vehicle traffic is so dangerous the roads frequently cannot be used for bicycling?

'dangerous traffic conditions frequently rule out bicycling use?'

interesting.....

how facile of you.

you should recuse yourself from representing bicyclists interests in america any longer with an attitude like that John!

More lies. While I did not invent the concept of the wide outside lane, as soon as it was stated, some forty years ago, I adopted it and have written advocating wide outside lanes in both of my major bicycle transportation books.

I see since WOL were not invented to be used by cyclists in a vehicular manner and since the original purpose of the thing can never change WOL's cannot be used in a vehicular manner.

This is not an attack on WOL's as it is highlighting the error of using one of JF axioms "the original purpose of the thing can never change," Which lies at the heart of JF's anti-bike lane position.

Using a questionable style of logic at best to supersede studies and to ask the public to take these shaky pillars of logic and accept them as fact is really difficult for the independent thinking person.

The human car is trying to reach a reasonable answer through the fog of the controversy, but the fog prevents him from doing so. THC is operating under the assumption that there is some better system of cycling than according to the rules of the road on well-designed normal roads. He recognizes that many bikeway solutions are not better, but he assumes that a better design exists and will be discovered in the near future, through discussions and such. Considering that designs are a human construct, no undiscovered design can exist; the moment such a design is created, it starts to exist. The problem is that no design has been shown to provide safer and more efficient bicycle transportation than operating according to the rules of the road on good roads. It is only when an experimental change has been produced and shown to be better that it is wise to consider system-wide change.

:roflmao2: No mater what is said JF will oppose, in the case of the state striping a 15' lane as a 12' lane and a 3' bike the great JF says no better design then this exists. Um John, what about a WOL? Wouldn't you think that is a better design? But Since I suggested it I don't think you will.

The point I was trying to make is sometimes what is going down on the roads is not what ether side of the controversy wants, there is a third party at play here, JF can bury his head in the sand all he wants but there is someone else out there we need to address.

wow, John. what a case of cyclist inferiority complex.

much of the traffic on roads is so dangerous that frequently roads cannot be used for bicycling????

you're telling us that mixing significant bicycle traffic with much of the motor vehicle traffic is so dangerous the roads frequently cannot be used for bicycling?

'dangerous traffic conditions frequently rule out bicycling use?'

interesting.....

how facile of you.

you should recuse yourself from representing bicyclists interests in america any longer with an attitude like that John!

You are a deliberate liar, Bekologist. The subject under discussion, immediately before where you started the quotation, was stated to be "bicycle freeways." I cannot tell whether you are deliberately lying or whether your mind prevents you from understanding what's written.

-you think the motorists are demanding bike lanes, john? :eek:

:roflmao: more radical thinking from JF!

Read the history. Motorists invented them, insisted on them, and still want them enough to pay for them.

despite which,
WOLs can aggravate intersection conflicts creating potential for unvehicular rules of operation at every intersection. speed differentials increase the potential for violation of vehicular operation.

I wonder why the American road engineering standards recognize bikelane designs as 'best practice' design for arterial roads - with bike lanes, emphasized mixing zones, and bikelanes to the left of all RTO traffic, but a few radical fringe elements like JF are curmudgeonly critics of the large, vetted, advancing body of AASHTO expertise on how best facilitate bicycling and pedestrian traffic on american rights of way.

ORANGE COUNTY, for example, has over 1,000 miles of bikelanes designed with largely to AASHTO vehicular road standards and they facilitate vehicular bicycling along arterial roads there.


but, there are those with other agendas that fight tooth and nail against bike specificity in roadway design.

that agenda is flawed, floundering, and bankrupt in the 21st century.



how Quixotic.

The first claim that you have made is: "WOLs can aggravate intersection conflicts creating potential for unvehicular rules of operation at every intersection. speed differentials increase the potential for violation of vehicular operation."

I suspect, Bekologist, that you are simply spouting buzzwords. However, you may redeem yourself by demonstrating, if that is possible, why WOLs are more likely than bike-lane stripes to produce the effect you claim.

You second claim is phrased in the form of a question: "I wonder why the American road engineering standards recognize bikelane designs as 'best practice' design for arterial roads - with bike lanes, emphasized mixing zones, and bikelanes to the left of all RTO traffic, but a few radical fringe elements like JF are curmudgeonly critics of the large, vetted, advancing body of AASHTO expertise on how best facilitate bicycling and pedestrian traffic on american rights of way."

That's a reasonable question, Bekologist, one that is frequently asked. Normally, proposed road improvements are designed according to some theory of how it might work, tested, possibly revised, and tested again to determine that the improvement in safety or utility actually exists. If it does exist, then the improvement is authorized for use. However, in the case of the bikeway standards in the AASHTO Guide for Bicycle Facilities, there was no such design and test process. Indeed, since the original design hypothesis was the cyclist-inferiority principle, they could never have passed such a testing program. The bikeway designs in the AASHTO Guide were imposed on cyclists by motorists, over cyclists' strong objections, and the motorists never were able to produce even a hypothesis as to why their bikeway designs would be safer or more useful.

I see since WOL were not invented to be used by cyclists in a vehicular manner and since the original purpose of the thing can never change WOL's cannot be used in a vehicular manner.

This is not an attack on WOL's as it is highlighting the error of using one of JF axioms "the original purpose of the thing can never change," Which lies at the heart of JF's anti-bike lane position.

Using a questionable style of logic at best to supersede studies and to ask the public to take these shaky pillars of logic and accept them as fact is really difficult for the independent thinking person.


More foolishness. WOLs were invented to be used by cyclists according to the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles. And to be used by motorists according to the same rules. I was there, I know.

Furthermore, you assert that I believe that an object can be used only in its original manner. Of course, you are insufficiently accurate to phrase your claim properly. You argue that I believe "the original purpose of the thing can never change." Yes, I believe that, because the original purpose is a historical fact that can never change. But it is obvious that you mean something different, that the item may later be used in a different way. That's fine to claim, but you then must demonstrate that they item is being used in a different way. The original bike-lane stripe was intended, and in the general case did, largely keep cyclists to the right and motorists to the left. That's what it still does; no change in operation. Therefore, the original objections to the bike-lane stripe are still valid.

Just because someone doesn't believe in every single article put forth by the VC regime doesn't mean that they are anti-VC or suffering from cyclist inferiority complex (do they have a pill for that yet?).

Just because someone doesn't believe in every single article put forth by the VC regime doesn't mean that they are anti-VC or suffering from cyclist inferiority complex (do they have a pill for that yet?).

Yes! Buy the Good Book(s) by you know who.

I was there, I know.
John Forester said it,
You better believe it,
Or you are Incompetent,
And suffer from phobias too!:roflmao2:

Normally, proposed road improvements are designed according to some theory of how it might work, tested, possibly revised, and tested again to determine that the improvement in safety or utility actually exists. If it does exist, then the improvement is authorized for use. However, in the case of the bikeway standards in the AASHTO Guide for Bicycle Facilities, there was no such design and test process. Indeed, since the original design hypothesis was the cyclist-inferiority principle, they could never have passed such a testing program. The bikeway designs in the AASHTO Guide were imposed on cyclists by motorists, over cyclists' strong objections, and the motorists never were able to produce even a hypothesis as to why their bikeway designs would be safer or more useful.


More foolishness. WOLs were invented to be used by cyclists [but there was no design and test process. Indeed, since the original design hypothesis was accommodating faster moving traffic in the same travel lane as slower moving traffic principle, they could never have passed such a testing program.]

Lets see who's untested theories should people believe ... one by road engineers or the other by an B.S. in English that relies on a made up phobias?

That's a trick question as untested is still untested and all we are doing is arguing who is going to win if and when someone does some serious testing. So gentleman place your bets...

There are two kinds of problem about bicycle freeways. One problem is endemic to all American bicycling facilities, which class includes roads. That is, much of the traffic on them is dangerous, so dangerous that they frequently cannot be used as freeways for high-speed bicycle traffic. That is a social problem, not a physical or cost problem. The other problem is physical, in that there are few locations available for building bicycle freeways at reasonable cost, that the catchment area of such facilities is quite small, and the speed increase ratio is not nearly as great as for motor freeways. In those locations where a bicycle freeway connecting large origins and destinations can be built at low cost, the use is often reasonably high, and is efficient at times, such as morning commuting time, when its traffic is better behaved. However, with few suitable locations and small catchment areas, bicycle freeways cannot produce a generally usable bicycle transportation system.

As an everyday transportational cyclist who uses urban "bicycle freeways" often, I will say it is true that sometimes traffic on the path prevents full speed riding. And it is also true that there are few suitable areas to install these facilities. You forgot several other negative aspects, I can send you a list if you want. But -- the big picture is that these negative aspects are completely overwhelmed by the positive aspects of these extremely useful paths.

There are few places to put them? So what. Put them there.

- it is obvious John Forester is significantly out of touch,

but I would like to address his claims, that there is too much traffic on many roads for bikes to use them effectively as bicycle freeways.

unless john is stating the obvious, that public roads have too much traffic on them to call them Class 1 bikeways, he has very inferior attitude about bicyclists' use of public roads in america.

IF John is telling the forum he thinks there's too much traffic on the roads to consider them class 1 bikeways, how GLIB of him.

his explanation seems damning. john forester believes a lot of the time, traffic on a lot of roads precludes their use for significant bicycle traffic from point a to point b. Bikes shouldn't be mixing in with traffic on many roads, as the traffic and speeds prevents the use of many roads safely.


One problem is endemic to all American bicycling facilities, which class includes roads. That is, much of the traffic on them is dangerous, so dangerous that they frequently cannot be used as freeways for high-speed bicycle traffic.

translates as : much of the traffic on roads and bike paths is dangerous, so dangerous roads and bike paths frequently cannot be used as a system to facilitate significant amounts of bicycle transportation.

It's a wierd subtext but I don't know how else to interpret it.

can't build path infrastructure, can't use roads for bike transport safely due the motor vehicle traffic. what an incredibly LAME point of view, a terrible, most foul and inferior laden view of bicycling.

Additionally, John Forester's remarkably ill-informed opinion that motorists are the ones clamoring for bike infrastructure :roflmao: really, REALLY takes the cake.

People, John Forester has lost his bearings. his agenda is bankrupt.

JRA, your writing contains so many errors that one might well conclude that the errors reflect your own superstitious biases rather than fact. Here are examples...
SNIP

Thank you for the examples which pretty much confirm that you do indeed have the agendas that I said you had.

You have written quite a lot over the years and I have read a ridiculous amount of it. Your views are not a secret.

Thank you for confirming your position on WOLs, which is pretty much exactly what I thought it was. I love the whole "WOLs are better than bike lanes" nonsense. I'm sure we'll have "scientific" confirmation of that soon enough (LOL).

Thank you for confirming that your disdain for bicyclists not fitting the VC profile is undiminished. Keep categorizing, keep criticizing and keep calling people names and questioning their motives and/or mental health. Those are the things you do best and why you are so universally loved and admired.

There's more I could say but I'm familiar with the way you "debate" and anything I would say is likely to be pretty snarky. You amuse me. You've already given me some new material I'm considering using to update my signature.

The irony of John even mentioning high speed cycling as a limitation on certain cycling specific facilities is that when using the streets to commute, I average about 13MPH, yet when using a well designed "bicycle freeway," I average over 16MPH.

The stop signs, stop lights and other traffic (think "cars") both limit my speed and induce more caution in me as a cyclist ("trusting but verifying" that other road users do not intend to plow right into me) that I actually ride slower while on the streets. Of course long stretches of uncontrolled, intersectionless streets allow me to move at full speed... but hey, that's just like a "bike highway" now isn't it... and rare indeed.

More foolishness. WOLs were invented to be used by cyclists [but there was no design and test process. Indeed, since the original design hypothesis was accommodating faster moving traffic in the same travel lane as slower moving traffic principle, they could never have passed such a testing program.]
Lets see who's untested theories should people believe ... one by road engineers or the other by an B.S. in English that relies on a made up phobias?

That's a trick question as untested is still untested and all we are doing is arguing who is going to win if and when someone does some serious testing. So gentleman place your bets...

Don't know much history, do you? Lanes carrying traffic consisting of vehicles traveling at different speeds have existed for some thousands of years. Yes, I had written that WOLs were invented by cyclists to get bike-lane demanding motorists off the backs of cyclists. I should have written, to be sure of heading off ill-informed criticism such as yours, that the concept of WOL was explicitly created to describe a useful existing form of roadway in terms that would benefit cyclists.

- it is obvious John Forester is significantly out of touch,

but I would like to address his claims, that there is too much traffic on many roads for bikes to use them effectively as bicycle freeways.

unless john is stating the obvious, that public roads have too much traffic on them to call them Class 1 bikeways, he has very inferior attitude about bicyclists' use of public roads in america.

IF John is telling the forum he thinks there's too much traffic on the roads to consider them class 1 bikeways, how GLIB of him.

his explanation seems damning. john forester believes a lot of the time, traffic on a lot of roads precludes their use for significant bicycle traffic from point a to point b. Bikes shouldn't be mixing in with traffic on many roads, as the traffic and speeds prevents the use of many roads safely.



translates as : much of the traffic on roads and bike paths is dangerous, so dangerous roads and bike paths frequently cannot be used as a system to facilitate significant amounts of bicycle transportation.

It's a wierd subtext but I don't know how else to interpret it.

can't build path infrastructure, can't use roads for bike transport safely due the motor vehicle traffic. what an incredibly LAME point of view, a terrible, most foul and inferior laden view of bicycling.

Additionally, John Forester's remarkably ill-informed opinion that motorists are the ones clamoring for bike infrastructure :roflmao: really, REALLY takes the cake.

People, John Forester has lost his bearings. his agenda is bankrupt.

People who deliberately misunderstand the writings of others, which is your method of operation, should no be tolerated in polite society. My reference was to bicycle freeways, although the level of competence of bicycle operation in America is very low. As I replied before.

SNIP

Thank you for the examples which pretty much confirm that you do indeed have the agendas that I said you had.

You have written quite a lot over the years and I have read a ridiculous amount of it. Your views are not a secret.

Thank you for confirming your position on WOLs, which is pretty much exactly what I thought it was. I love the whole "WOLs are better than bike lanes" nonsense. I'm sure we'll have "scientific" confirmation of that soon enough (LOL).

Thank you for confirming that your disdain for bicyclists not fitting the VC profile is undiminished. Keep categorizing, keep criticizing and keep calling people names and questioning their motives and/or mental health. Those are the things you do best and why you are so universally loved and admired.

There's more I could say but I'm familiar with the way you "debate" and anything I would say is likely to be pretty snarky. You amuse me. You've already given me some new material I'm considering using to update my signature.

You object to disdain of cyclists who do not operate according to the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles. The traffic collision facts, the traffic engineering practices, and decades of experience demonstrate that this is provides a good balance between safety and utility. You, JRA and many others, argue that operating contrary to the rules of the road, and facilities to encourage or require such operation, provide better safety and utility. You make this argument that operating contrary to traffic engineering knowledge provides better safety and utility than does operating according to traffic engineering knowledge, you have never demonstrated any reason to believe so, any analysis of traffic engineering to suggest so, nor any empiric demonstration of your claims. Considering that you and yours continue to insist on behavior that is contrary to demonstrated knowledge and has never been supported by evidence, there must be some explanation for this irrational behavior. The explanation that I have advanced is the cyclist-inferiority view, which varies in strength, in different people, from general belief to phobia.

You don't like my evaluation of your theory and your psychology. Arguing that you don't like them, or that they don't exist, carries no weight against the known facts. The best way to oppose these is to demonstrate that your traffic theories produce safer and more useful bicycle transportation than does operating according to the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles.

john, you said....


One problem is endemic to all American bicycling facilities, which class includes roads. That is, much of the traffic on them is dangerous, so dangerous that they frequently cannot be used as freeways for high-speed bicycle traffic.

which states, between the lines:

one problem is endemic to both roads and bike paths in america, that much of the traffic on both is that much of the traffic is dangerous on them, so dangerous bike paths or roads both cannot be used to carry significant amounts of bicycle traffic."

the one perpetuating inferiority complexes on american bicyclists is john forester himself with his facile, bankrupt agenda.

and the whole 'motorists demand bikelanes' nonsense? :roflmao: last time I checked, there's serious opposition to bike infrastructure by motorists, john. your fantastical agenda is artifice and bankrupt.

You object to disdain of cyclists who do not operate according to the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles.

I don't agree with their choices. Nor do I believe that systematically ignoring the rules of the road is a safe choice for most cyclists. But I don't hold them in contempt and I have serious doubts that doing so is a good strategy for cycling advocacy.