Vehicular Cycling (VC) - "the essense of the VC vision?"

From the comments section of this site:
http://www.copenhagenize.com/2009/10/fear-of-cycling-04-new-cycling-spaces.html



Well,I guess that finally I've gotten an even clearer picture of what Vehicular Cycling, by courtesy of kfg.

In essence the VC vision is about superhighways integrating high speed motor traffic with bicycles and slowing down motortraffic by having the cyclists play a role of some human shields among cars - all in the name of "effective" transportation.

One may guess that its not any coincidence that the inception of this vision coincides with the era of hippies and psychedelia. Don't get me wrong; I do believe that todays lack of the political awareness, commitments and movements of that era (at least as it was in europe) is a clear weakness to the society.

The VC vision, however, does seem to nicely integrate the love message with psychedelia and, well... hallucinogens.

Could it be? ;)

whatever the essence of the VC vision is,

it's based on a outdated paradigm rapidly falling out of favor in america. Just about anyone with common sense, not just bike nuts, but community planners and health officials and environmentalists and just about anyone now recognize car culture as damaging to public health and welfare -

Yet the VC buffoons continue to play into the 'supremacy of the autocentric road system' as acceptable public rights of way planning.

people by and large don't WANT to live in a sprawling suburban dystopia facing lengthy, congested commutes and incur high transportation costs to feel isolated from any sense of community while being forced into big box consumerism attendant with economic development sprawl.

That is not by any means a realization of the american dream no matter how green the grass is in the subdivision.

The american, largely urban and suburban public is clamoring for walkable bikeable communities.



VCists suffer from a ludicrous inability to stay connected with reality in 21st century transportation planning.

whatever the essence of the VC vision is,

it's based on a outdated paradigm ....
...Just about anyone with common sens,....
...Yet the VC buffoons continue to....
...VCists suffer from a ludicrous inability to stay connected with reality ....

Bek, did you ever stop to think that maybe, just maybe, you might need some consensus to get some of your ideas promoted? To the extent you want to recruit others to your way of thinking, you might consider a different rhetorical style.

Treating everyone who does not precisely agree with your particular vision and your exact and specific way to implement it as 'buffoons without common sense who believe in outdated paradigms, having a ludicrous inability to stay connected to reality' is not conducive to consensus building.

If you think I'm trying to build consensus with those that stand opposed to any type of bicycling facilitated roadscape you're fooling yourself.

I'm calling them the stick in the mud, obsolete don quixotes and fringe lunatics that they are. you dropped a significant qualifier in my quote
Just about anyone with common sense, not just bike nuts, but community planners and health officials and environmentalists and just about anyone now recognize car culture as damaging to public health and welfare

did you ever think, danarnold, that there's a growing movement afoot in america from all sides to reduce the dependence on the private automobile for all its attendant ills?

there's a big thread about this called 'other agendas' started by some Texas VC buffoon that is critical of the far ranging interests directed towards increasing bicycling ride share in the USA.




'exact and specific ways'?? :rolleyes: you think i've got some master plan to stripe a bikelane on every road in america? :roflmao:



I recognize value in roadscape design that facilitates bicycling, specificity is not required.

oh that's right you can see the value of bikelanes on higher speed roadways i guess you need some concessions

:rolleyes:

whatever the essence of the VC vision is,

it's based on a outdated paradigm rapidly falling out of favor in america. Just about anyone with common sense, not just bike nuts, but community planners and health officials and environmentalists and just about anyone now recognize car culture as damaging to public health and welfare -

Yet the VC buffoons continue to play into the 'supremacy of the autocentric road system' as acceptable public rights of way planning.

I prefer lower speed limits, shareable roads, more law enforcement, and enhanced cycling competency to over-engineered roadways, and that automatically makes me an autocentric supremacist buffoon?

Bek, you're stereotyping again. I share your goal of increasing bicycle transportation modal share. But my experience convinces me that dumbed-down roadway designs are a poor substitute for lawful and defensive cycling practices as a means to achieve it.

As danarnold suggested above, perhaps your cause would benefit from having a more reasonable and articulate spokesperson.

consider your polarized, stereotyped false arguments of 'defensive cycling' as substitutions for 'engineering'. consider the reality that these two disparate elements work in concert with one another and we've got a deal.

you're not a member of the buffoon club because you stand for 'prefer lower speed limits, shareable roads, more law enforcement, and enhanced cycling competency to over-engineered roadways' you're a buffoon because you stand opposed to any bike specificity in roadway design.

You use the term 'shared roads' loosely as you refuse to accept federal guidelines on how shared roads are designed using current AASHTO guidelines for roadway design under federal policy directives to keep and increase lawful roadway bike ridership while emphasizing bicyclists' right to the roadway in concert with enhancing safety for the vast majority of american bicyclists.

pehaps your cause could benefit from getting a clue.

'enhanced cycling competency' :roflmao: how about 'enhanced roadways', it will be easier and more effective :D

why blame the riders for the problems of road design? lame.

My 'cause'? :roflmao: I direct you to the FHWA, have you heard of them?

the essence of the VC vision is that adherence to the VC agenda will result in never getting more than a fraction of a percent of so-called 'elite' cyclists in lycra on road bikes onto the streets.

I prefer lower speed limits, shareable roads, more law enforcement, and enhanced cycling competency to over-engineered roadways, and that automatically makes me an autocentric supremacist buffoon?

Bek, you're stereotyping again. I share your goal of increasing bicycle transportation modal share. But my experience convinces me that dumbed-down roadway designs are a poor substitute for lawful and defensive cycling practices as a means to achieve it.

As danarnold suggested above, perhaps your cause would benefit from having a more reasonable and articulate spokesperson.

Actually your preferences are noble goals... and would lead to quite livable cities. However, the motoring masses want speed, speed and more speed, and both the designers of motor vehicles and the designers of new roadways are bending over backwards to accommodate those wishes.

Even John Forester is a member of the faction that believes that a plethora of high speed roads is the ticket to "personal freedom."

Of course the reality of any fairly dense city is a mockery of that "need for speed," but never mind that... ;)

^^ once again, the lack of any proposal for improving motorist education is a glaring deficiency in the VC agenda.

:wtf:

^^ once again, the lack of any proposal for improving motorist education is a glaring deficiency in the VC agenda.

:wtf:

"A glaring deficiency in the VC agenda"? Your bikeway program has been up and running for thirty years now, and you are still complaining like hell about motorist behavior. Looks just like your program has accomplished either nothing, or, indeed, made things worse, about motorist behavior. If this isn't a glaring actual deficiency in the bikeway program, then it cannot, equally, be a glaring potential deficiency in the VC agenda.

The term "glaring deficiency" conveys the meaning of something lacking that is of great importance. I presume that when you state this in specific terms of "motorist education" you mean exactly that. Education imparts knowledge; what, precisely, is the additional knowledge that you would impart to motorists? And, of course, you need to justify this additional knowledge as producing some greatly required change in behavior. I think that you should specify what knowledge is lacking and why it is of great importance.

As I have written frequently, I see little probable result from the provision of additional knowledge to motorists, and hence see that the potential effort to do so should be directed in far more useful directions, as in training cyclists, police, and the judicial system.

You have not specified what knowledge you desire to impart, and what results you expect from that additional knowledge. But, if you actually know these things, why is it that the bikeway advocates, who have been in charge of America's bicycle transportation program for thirty years, haven't solved the problem?

"A glaring deficiency in the VC agenda"? Your bikeway program has been up and running for thirty years now, and you are still complaining like hell about motorist behavior. Looks just like your program has accomplished either nothing, or, indeed, made things worse, about motorist behavior. If this isn't a glaring actual deficiency in the bikeway program, then it cannot, equally, be a glaring potential deficiency in the VC agenda.

The term "glaring deficiency" conveys the meaning of something lacking that is of great importance. I presume that when you state this in specific terms of "motorist education" you mean exactly that. Education imparts knowledge; what, precisely, is the additional knowledge that you would impart to motorists? And, of course, you need to justify this additional knowledge as producing some greatly required change in behavior. I think that you should specify what knowledge is lacking and why it is of great importance.

As I have written frequently, I see little probable result from the provision of additional knowledge to motorists, and hence see that the potential effort to do so should be directed in far more useful directions, as in training cyclists, police, and the judicial system.

You have not specified what knowledge you desire to impart, and what results you expect from that additional knowledge. But, if you actually know these things, why is it that the bikeway advocates, who have been in charge of America's bicycle transportation program for thirty years, haven't solved the problem?
IMO, motorist education is essential regardless of whether you go with the VC or the facilities model, John. So actually, I'm pointing out a glaring deficiency in both approaches.

Most motorists in the US are under the false impression that cyclists don't belong on the roads because they don't pay for the roads, and it has nothing to do with the arguments between cyclists over a stripe of paint, the semantics of that argument will fall on deaf ears as far as motorists are concerned. So what motorists need to be taught is that the public roads are for the use of the public, regardless of their means of conveyance.

Neither painting stripes nor taking the lane convey anything useful to motorists in the way of education if they don't think cyclists have a legal right to be on the road in either case.

IMO, motorist education is essential regardless of whether you go with the VC or the facilities model, John. So actually, I'm pointing out a glaring deficiency in both approaches.

Most motorists in the US are under the false impression that cyclists don't belong on the roads because they don't pay for the roads, and it has nothing to do with the arguments between cyclists over a stripe of paint, the semantics of that argument will fall on deaf ears as far as motorists are concerned. So what motorists need to be taught is that the public roads are for the use of the public, regardless of their means of conveyance.

Neither painting stripes nor taking the lane convey anything useful to motorists in the way of education if they don't think cyclists have a legal right to be on the road in either case.

I agree that many American motorists think that cyclists don't belong on the roads, but I think that the motivations for this view are much more complicated than just the tax issue. I think that the tax issue is merely an easy excuse for the belief, and militant motorists certainly advance several more arguments as soon as the subject occurs. Many states (I don't know how many, and the roster probably changes over the years) recognize this to the extent of inserting statements into the official driver instruction manuals that cyclists are legitimate road users. However, none that I know of has applied detailed arguments as to the various issues in this subject. I think that doing more than the bare statement is not likely to occur, partly because of space and partly because of controversy.

If the existing official motorist manuals are deemed to be always insufficient, through what other medium could cyclists deliver it? Where would we get the money to do that?

In any case, what is the actual desired message? That cyclists pay taxes that contribute toward roads? That cyclists don't need to be licensed? That even cyclists who disobey the law are legitimate road users? Or messages that would be so maliciously interpreted by militant motorists?

I mentioned controversy. Consider the governmental official with responsibilities for the bicycle transportation program. Sure, he can say that cyclists are legitimate road users, and that won't raise much controversy. But does he say that they should be treated as drivers of vehicles? Doesn't the controversy about that issue within this group indicate how great would be the controversy in the political world with the militant motorists chiming in? America has had probably the longest history in the motoring world of motorist dislike of bicycle traffic. No government anywhere familiar to me has been able to reverse the dislike. I suspect, though nobody I know of has measured this, that Germany is likely to have the next strongest anti-cyclist tradition, and it must be only half the duration of America's.

I wrote of controversy, but have you considered the effect of such controversy on your position, if the change became anywhere near to being successful? I can imagine the effect of the clearest and most obvious social and governmental implementation of cyclists' right to use the road like anybody else, something far greater in effect that any financially possible propaganda program. That is, the demonstration that cyclists have the normal right to use the roads implemented by removing the bikeway program (except for some recreational off-road paths), repealing the discriminatory anti-cyclist laws, undertaking to make the roads better for lawful cyclists, and insisting that cyclist obey the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles. That would be the most powerful demonstration of cyclists' right to use the roads that I can imagine. But who are the few in this group who would support such a demonstration of cyclists' rightful rights to use the road?

"A glaring deficiency in the VC agenda"? Your bikeway program has been up and running for thirty years now, and you are still complaining like hell about motorist behavior. Looks just like your program has accomplished either nothing, or, indeed, made things worse, about motorist behavior. If this isn't a glaring actual deficiency in the bikeway program, then it cannot, equally, be a glaring potential deficiency in the VC agenda.

The term "glaring deficiency" conveys the meaning of something lacking that is of great importance. I presume that when you state this in specific terms of "motorist education" you mean exactly that. Education imparts knowledge; what, precisely, is the additional knowledge that you would impart to motorists? And, of course, you need to justify this additional knowledge as producing some greatly required change in behavior. I think that you should specify what knowledge is lacking and why it is of great importance.

As I have written frequently, I see little probable result from the provision of additional knowledge to motorists, and hence see that the potential effort to do so should be directed in far more useful directions, as in training cyclists, police, and the judicial system.

You have not specified what knowledge you desire to impart, and what results you expect from that additional knowledge. But, if you actually know these things, why is it that the bikeway advocates, who have been in charge of America's bicycle transportation program for thirty years, haven't solved the problem?

This is one of those areas where I agree with John. While it is true that more bike specific facilities have increased ridership, at the same time it has kept us 'out of the way' of motorists who have become very possessive of their exclusive (in their minds) right to the road. I agree 100% in motorist education, but I also believe 100% in resources for cyclist education...if people don't learn and use the skills required to operate safely on the road (which are really quite simple and even widely known when you consider that most cyclists also drive), sooner or later we're gonna lose our right to operate on the roads at all.

There ain't no single magic bullet if you wanna make progress you have to tackle multiple problems at the same time. Think if it like body building...would you work only one arm and delay working the other until you get the first to the tone you wish? :lol:

^^ I'm fine with an approach that educates both cyclists and motorists at the same time; but John is saying that we should address the former at the expense of the latter. More ADC / VC blather.

:rolleyes:

This is one of those areas where I agree with John. While it is true that more bike specific facilities have increased ridership, at the same time it has kept us 'out of the way' of motorists who have become very possessive of their exclusive (in their minds) right to the road. I agree 100% in motorist education, but I also believe 100% in resources for cyclist education...if people don't learn and use the skills required to operate safely on the road (which are really quite simple and even widely known when you consider that most cyclists also drive), sooner or later we're gonna lose our right to operate on the roads at all.

chipcom hits one out of the park and recognizes the fundamental concern driving the same roads/same rights/same rules movement.

Many of the roads I ride on now have not changed in forty years, long before the term “bike lane” was part of our language. When biking on these roads, I experience much more harassment now than I did then. Now I’m repeatedly told to “get in the bike lane” or “get on the sidewalk”, often when neither exists on the route upon which I’m travelling. Is this because people are now just angrier and more self-entitled and less civil in general than they were then? Or has the creation of bikeways conveyed the notion to them that I no longer belong on the same roads I’ve been cycling on all these years?

you think on road bikelanes as part of a considerate bikeway network somehow indicates to the public that bicycles are not supposed to be riding on the road in that community?

:roflmao:

that's RICH.

maybe if there were no bikelanes or sidewalks motorists would yell "get on the back of the bus!" or "Get on the banana boat" or the "hysteria train" instead.

maybe the motorists are upset they have to share the road with bicyclists regardless of the attendant infrastructure.

is society less polite and more self serving, agressive and provincial behind the wheel? absolutely. what do you think, 'high roller'?

the essence of the VC vision: Tunnel!

maybe the motorists are upset they have to share the road with bicyclists regardless of the attendant infrastructure.

No, you missed the point entirely.

The probability of friction with motorists on roads without shareable width lanes and without bikeways is higher today than in the past, before any bikeways existed.

The probability of friction with motorists on roads with shareable width lanes, regardless of whether bikeways are present, is low and similar to the past.

Connect the dots.

^^ I'm fine with an approach that educates both cyclists and motorists at the same time; but John is saying that we should address the former at the expense of the latter. More ADC / VC blather.

:rolleyes:

hence the working one arm and not the other till the first is finished analogy. ;)

both sides seem to have that problem.

No, you missed the point entirely.

The probability of friction with motorists on roads without shareable width lanes and without bikeways is higher today than in the past, before any bikeways existed.

The probability of friction with motorists on roads with shareable width lanes, regardless of whether bikeways are present, is low and similar to the past.

Connect the dots.

as danarnold would say I think you are confusing correlation with cause and effect

hence the working one arm and not the other till the first is finished analogy. ;)

both sides seem to have that problem.

I don't think so. I'm not against educating cyclists, in fact I'm all for it. But I don't think it should be done in a vacuum and the motorists need to be educated as well, perhaps more so than the cyclists.

OTOH, John thinks educating motorists is 'a waste of time' and wants to focus solely on the cyclists.

I don't think so. I'm not against educating cyclists, in fact I'm all for it. But I don't think it should be done in a vacuum and the motorists need to be educated as well, perhaps more so than the cyclists.

OTOH, John thinks educating motorists is 'a waste of time' and wants to focus solely on the cyclists.

Sure, but even education for both cyclists and motorists isn't addressing the entire transportation system 'body'. We still have to address laws for both all vehicles and specific classes of vehicles, or infrastructure, cycling specific, motorist specific and in general, etc, etc. As cyclists we tend to want to work out only the cycling related extremities of the transportation system, rather than the whole body.

one of the issues vehikular cyklists have to admit to themselves is that AASHTO compliant bike infrastructure by design allows vehicular cycling.

one of the issues vehikular cyklists have to admit to themselves is that AASHTO compliant bike infrastructure by design allows vehicular cycling.

Sometimes, but not always, depending on what you mean by "allows."

Where mandatory bike lane use laws exist, many people may interpret the law as not allowing vehicular cycling techniques that involve more leftward positioning at junction approaches or to avoid other hazards. Many intepret the placement of the bike lane by the DOT as being the ultimate authority on where cyclists are allowed to operate, even if the lane is poorly designed and maintained (which includes many AASHTO compliant lanes). Even without such laws, bike lanes that are marked in locations contraindicated by defensive bicycle driving stigmatize cyclists who operate more safely and this increases motorist harassment.

Where mandatory bike lane use laws exist, many people may interpret the law as not allowing vehicular cycling techniques that involve more leftward positioning at junction approaches or to avoid other hazards. Many intepret the placement of the bike lane by the DOT as being the ultimate authority on where cyclists are allowed to operate, even if the lane is poorly designed and maintained (which includes many AASHTO compliant lanes). Even without such laws, bike lanes that are marked in locations contraindicated by defensive bicycle driving stigmatize cyclists who operate more safely and this increases motorist harassment.

I agree with Steve on this

as danarnold would say I think you are confusing correlation with cause and effect

Yes, of course it's correlation and not causation. But that's of little comfort as I'm being yelled at to "get in the bike lane" when there isn't even one present. It's difficult to resist the temptation to infer that what they're really saying is "you're not welcome on this road because it doesn't have a bike lane". And if a significant majority of the voting, tax-paying public begins to believe that and feel strongly about it, we cyclists - whether we prefer integration like I do or segregation like you do - are all in big trouble.

On the other hand, if and when gasoline hits $8 or $10 per gallon, maybe we'll all look back at these petty squabbles and have a good laugh at ourselves.

^^^ at least those motorists are not yelling "get on the sidewalk."

So one might say "some progress has been made."

Sometimes, but not always, depending on what you mean by "allows."

Where mandatory bike lane use laws exist, many people may interpret the law as not allowing vehicular cycling techniques that involve more leftward positioning at junction approaches or to avoid other hazards. Many intepret the placement of the bike lane by the DOT as being the ultimate authority on where cyclists are allowed to operate, even if the lane is poorly designed and maintained (which includes many AASHTO compliant lanes). Even without such laws, bike lanes that are marked in locations contraindicated by defensive bicycle driving stigmatize cyclists who operate more safely and this increases motorist harassment.


oh the stigmata :rolleyes: I get harassed on my bike regardless if there may be a few bike lane stripes are on a very small minority of streets in a community. and those mandatory use laws in like what, 7 states?

i suggest something more sinister is at work than roadway bike infrastructure that's causing your and high rollers awful treatments at the hands of motorists than the presence or mere existence of bikelanes :roflmao: maybe you guys need bigger, better well implemented and maintained bikelanes or sumpin!



tunnel, tunnel vision. can't accept bike specific infrastructure suffering tunnel vision. and can't get no respect either eh.

the FHWA has some guidelines on what can help legitimize roadway bicycling in a community steve.

they're called bike _____ and they work as parts of a ____way network to increase roadway bicycling in communities.


Signs and pavement markings for bicycle facilities will encourage increased use. In addition to obvious traffic operations benefits, signs and pavement markings have the effect of "advertising" bicycle use. (See part IX of the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices for specific details.(6)) This helps legitimize the presence of bicycles in the eyes of motorists and potential bicyclists. use of bike route signs in combination with destination information or a map can contribute to development of a network of designated bicycle routes to provide community access..

I've been yelled at, to 'get on the sidewalk.' I compare it to 'dogs that bark aren't the ones who bite.'

At least I know they've seen me. Talk doesn't hurt me. I figure every time I'm riding in the road I'm putting more motorists on notice that bikes belong.

On my last ride through heavy traffic, the only time I felt uncomfortable was when my route took me along a rode with a stupid bike lane stripe that was one foot from the curb and divided a narrow single lane. Without that stripe I would have felt much more comfortable simply riding in the road a reasonable distance from the curb. With the @#%&*@ stripe, I felt constrained to ride near the gutter.

This is the kind of cyclist inferiority Forester talks about and Bek glories in.

I've been yelled at, to 'get on the sidewalk.' I compare it to 'dogs that bark aren't the ones who bite.'

At least I know they've seen me. Talk doesn't hurt me. I figure every time I'm riding in the road I'm putting more motorists on notice that bikes belong.

It's not the yelling that bothers me. If that were the case, I would have quit this two-wheeled obsession many years ago. Having a thick skin comes with the territory. It's the poliltical implications that are worrisome - these people vote, pay taxes, and outnumber us 100 to 1. Just when they think they've got us stashed away in the bike ghettos where we belong, here we come popping up into their way again, daring to intrude on roads that have not yet submitted to the paint brush.

'bike ghettos' :rolleyes:

need to inject a Warsaw holocaust reference too in keeping with the VC vision? oh that's right, it's coloreds at the water fountain :rolleyes:

do you have any empirical evidence that roadway architecture physically legitimizing bicyclists right to the road in a community somehow has the opposite effect?



anecdotes are just personal bias reporting. Somehow you're operating under the fallacious beliefs bike lanes should never have been invented :roflmao: and that on road bikeway networks are somehow the root of social friction between bikes and cars.

(hint= it's the speed differential and the fact you get in their way the motorists yell at you. like i said, they'd be yelling "get on the banana bus" or your high roller "hysteria train" if the concept of bikelanes never materialized)

a stupid bike lane stripe that was one foot from the curb a With the @#%&*@ stripe, I felt constrained to ride near the gutter......This is the kind of cyclist inferiority Forester talks about and Bek glories in.

maybe forester will take glory in your confused operation, i'm one to take pity on you.

you should learn how to ride your bike. bike lanes are not one foot wide from the curb, you were operating too close to the curb and NOT in a bikelane.

I think you need to get a little more savvy out there, danarnold :D and learn the difference between different roadway facilities and where to operate your bike in a vehicular manner.

maybe forester will take glory in your confused operation, i'm one to take pity on you.

you should learn how to ride your bike. bike lanes are not one foot wide from the curb, you were operating too close to the curb and NOT in a bikelane.

I think you need to get a little more savvy out there, danarnold :D and learn the difference between different roadway facilities and where to operate your bike in a vehicular manner.

"It is the dull man who is always sure, and the sure man who is always dull."
H. L. Mencken

Mencken must have your type in mind. You can't even get your facts straight. I didn't say I road in the gutter, I said I felt constrained to do so. In your silly universe, a poorly designed bike lane is not a bike lane, by Bek definition.

No wonder you're such a bike lane fan, you can't even see the ones that poorly designed. You've posted some photos of what YOU thought were good examples of proper bike lanes and you got responses that were 10 to 1 against you.

This is an example of the problem with bike lanes. They are frequently incompetently designed. This example is typical. The road is too narrow, but rather than have no stripe, or a stripe that gives an adequate bike lane, they try to shuttle the cyclist too near the gutter. The line tells the motorist he can drive up to the line and If I am on the line or in 'his' lane it increases the chance of the motorist hitting the cyclist or coming too close.

dude,

conflating an edge stripe with an AASHTO compliant bikelane is quite difficult and yet you do.

Part of the vc vision appears to be an inability to see and operate a bike along roads with road striping.

watch out!



wild, wacky stuff.

"This is an example of the problem with bike lanes. They are frequently incompetently designed. This example is typical. The road is too narrow, but rather than have no stripe, or a stripe that gives an adequate bike lane, they try to shuttle the cyclist too near the gutter. The line tells the motorist he can drive up to the line and If I am on the line or in 'his' lane it increases the chance of the motorist hitting the cyclist or coming too close.

You've provided a very good description of what frequently passes for "bike lanes" in my stomping grounds. Basically just a single fog line, moved a few inches to the left of where it might otherwise be painted, on a road not wide enough to accomodate it, replete with faded bike stencils at irregular intervals, and sporting several months worth of car-swept debris. Yummy. Can't wait to get out there and ride in one of those puppies.

a few inches? :rolleyes:


'a few inches' like in Boise at 15th and river, heading north, the bikelane to the left of all RTO traffic with an emphasized mixing zone and 'turning cars yield to bikes' signs prior to the intersection?

do all you VC troops need vision checks? aside from the reality checks sorrily needed..


okay, how many fingers am I holding up? which one? :D

okay, how many fingers am I holding up? which one? :D

No matter how much abuse we may heap on you, we'll have to admit that you have a sense of humor.

I'll guess the middle one.

I'm using my index finger to point you to an ample bike specific intersection treatment at 15th and river in your hometown, high roller. or am I?

by the way, in case you'd lost sight (more trouble seeing things clearly?) in just one page of the threads' tropic,

the ones being poked fun at in this thread are YOU, high roller, other VC bliviots and their ricdiculous 'vision'. :roflmao:

the ones being poked fun at in this thread are YOU, high roller, other VC bliviots and their ricdiculous 'vision'. :roflmao:

You are blissfully ignorant, Glenn Bek, but who am I to shatter your illusions? :)

This is an example of the problem with bike lanes. They are frequently incompetently designed. This example is typical. The road is too narrow, but rather than have no stripe, or a stripe that gives an adequate bike lane, they try to shuttle the cyclist too near the gutter. The line tells the motorist he can drive up to the line and If I am on the line or in 'his' lane it increases the chance of the motorist hitting the cyclist or coming too close.


You've provided a very good description of what frequently passes for "bike lanes" in my stomping grounds. Basically just a single fog line, moved a few inches to the left of where it might otherwise be painted, on a road not wide enough to accomodate it, replete with faded bike stencils at irregular intervals, and sporting several months worth of car-swept debris. Yummy. Can't wait to get out there and ride in one of those puppies.

So basically you are saying that all bike lanes are bad due to the poor application of some bike lanes.

Yeah that's a "glass is half empty" sort of attitude.

So basically you are saying that all bike lanes are bad due to the poor application of some bike lanes.

Yeah that's a "glass is half empty" sort of attitude.

One cannot evaluate the "quality" of a bike lane until one first "knows", or thinks that others "know", the function that the bike lane is to fill. Both AASHTO and FHWA state purposes of bike lanes, but they use words so fluffy and ambiguous that no specific purpose is actually specified. And different people have different purposes in mind: the original standards designer (say at the AASHTO and FHWA level) may think that they have stated the purposes (which they haven't, not really); the local designer does just wha the manual instructs without thinking of the purpose to be fulfilled; the cyclist thinks of another purpose, while the motorist thinks of still another.

I say, again, that no bike lane can be good, although it is obvious that some are less dangerous than others. That is so because bike lanes are based on a principle that conflicts with the proper operating rules. The rules of the road are based on first-come first served, direction of travel, speed of travel, intention to turn or move laterally, turning and moving laterally, and assignment of priority right-of-way in some cases of crossing traffic. The bike-lane stripe fouls up this operation by adding a further division by the name of the vehicle.

...no bike lane can be good....

further proof that denial is not just a river in Egypt.

actually, john, in quite a few instances a bikelane can be good. I'm confident you drive by quality examples of bikelanes that are quite good at 'proper' traffic sorting rules of speed positioning between intersections with considerate intersections fully allowing 'proper' destination positioning at intersections. I'm sure you drive your car by them quite frequently in your goings about around Lemon Grove.


john, you are stuck on rudimentary traffic sorting rules. traffic 101 in a manner of speaking. how frosh of you.

Have you heard of the Braess's paradox? please explain it in the context of this street films carmageddon averted (http://www.streetfilms.org/archives/on-herald-squares-transformation-and-disappearing-traffic/?autostart=true)

food for frosh thought more than anything ;)

Have you been to New York City John?

check this 2009 streetfilms video out -but sit down first, it mught make your blood boil :lol: so be careful before opening....

bikelanes in the big apple (http://www.streetfilms.org/archives/bike-lanes-in-the-big-apple/)

check out this 2009 guide to bike infrastructure in NYC.

by the way ,since there are some new inroads in the USA you're not up to speed on, TRUE Vehicular Cyclists are not stymied by the presence of quality bike infrastructure. :D

Have you been to New York City John?

check this 2009 streetfilms video out -but sit down first, it mught make your blood boil :lol: so be careful before opening....

bikelanes in the big apple (http://www.streetfilms.org/archives/bike-lanes-in-the-big-apple/)

check out this 2009 guide to bike infrastructure in NYC.

by the way ,since there are some new inroads in the USA you're not up to speed on, TRUE Vehicular Cyclists are not stymied by the presence of quality bike infrastructure. :D

Yes, Bek, I have been on the streets of NYC many times, many times afoot, a few times by car, but never by bicycle. And, Bek, not only have I viewed the rather carefully staged propaganda by NYC to which you refer, I have also seen video scenes of real cyclists (John Allen and friends) navigating the new sidepaths along Ninth Ave and area in normal traffic. The Ninth Ave sidepath scenes depict all the troubles to be expected with sidepaths. The NYC propaganda presents all the usual propaganda and even some lies about the supposed advantages of their facilities, without discussing the real problems that their facilities fail to solve. The NYC presentation makes one reasonable statement, that NYC is attempting to provide the additional signal phases that are required when sidepaths are installed; but, of course, the additional phases, with their concomitant additional delays, are required only to attempt to cure the traffic conflict dangers created by sidepaths.

Fit,fast, riders always seem to be anti bike lanes. Slower rider usually like bike lanes.They know they don't want to drag along at 12 mph holding back angry drivers, so a lane is just fine for them.If you can sustain 25 mph, sure take a lane, you aren't really holding back most city drivers.

This is one of those elite vs the rest of us issues.The rest of us rarely frequent bike forums of course, so any survey here wouldn't really tell us much.

Fit,fast, riders always seem to be anti bike lanes. Slower rider usually like bike lanes.They know they don't want to drag along at 12 mph holding back angry drivers, so a lane is just fine for them.If you can sustain 25 mph, sure take a lane, you aren't really holding back most city drivers.

This is one of those elite vs the rest of us issues.The rest of us rarely frequent bike forums of course, so any survey here wouldn't really tell us much.

Being really upset because a legitimate cyclist is slowing legitimate motorists is a clear sign of the cyclist-inferiority phobia. Just don't bother about the opinions of ignorant motorists when you know that you are operating legitimately. The problem is that most Americans don't know what legitimate operation is; they think that they should bow down to the superior motorist.

Being really upset because a legitimate cyclist is slowing legitimate motorists is a clear sign of the cyclist-inferiority phobia. Just don't bother about the opinions of ignorant motorists when you know that you are operating legitimately. The problem is that most Americans don't know what legitimate operation is; they think that they should bow down to the superior motorist.

Riding 12MPH down a 50MPH road will bring the wrath of motorists... :rolleyes:

Riding 12MPH down a 50MPH road will bring the wrath of motorists... :rolleyes:

So what? I've frequently done this, and all I feel is superiority over those who erroneously believe that speed makes right. They have the speed to overtake; let them overtake in the normal manner, as with any other slow driver.

Now, if the circumstances are such as to prevent overtaking for a long distance, which, if it occurs at all, is usually on a road that does not permit 50mph traveling, and if there is a safe place for a cyclist to stop to let the waiting traffic overtake, then I do so. The law says that when five or more vehicles are behind, that stop, where safe, is mandatory, but I will do so with less of a train.

Riding 12MPH down a 50MPH road will bring the wrath of motorists... :rolleyes:

That's faster than the Amish buggies go here...on 45-55mph speed limit roads (where of course people like to drive 70). WTF ever happened to people having manners and respect for others? The root problem here is not slow bicycles on the road, the root problem is the devolution of our society to the point were being an asshat is normal, accepted behavior.

My motto for drivers, whether I am riding or driving: "If you're in such a hurry use the freakin interstate system we spent/spend trillions of dollars on. Otherwise, slow the f down and have a little patience and courtesy."

So what? I've frequently done this, and all I feel is superiority over those who erroneously believe that speed makes right. They have the speed to overtake; let them overtake in the normal manner, as with any other slow driver.

Now, if the circumstances are such as to prevent overtaking for a long distance, which, if it occurs at all, is usually on a road that does not permit 50mph traveling, and if there is a safe place for a cyclist to stop to let the waiting traffic overtake, then I do so. The law says that when five or more vehicles are behind, that stop, where safe, is mandatory, but I will do so with less of a train.

But just like drivers, many cyclists are too rude, inpatient and incompetent to give a crap about traffic laws, let alone common courtesy. Seriously, too many cyclists would rather hug the gutter and allow traffic to squeeze them, or hog the lane just cuz they can, because they are still moving. To take the lane but then actually pull off and stop our forward progress to allow others to pass, is as sinful as slowing forward momentum for things like stop signs and traffic lights. WTF, the drivers are the enemy...why should we lower ourselves to be courteous to the bastiges!

This concept of courtesy by cyclists to motorists is crazy, John...and the thought of actually stopping a bike, on purpose, is pure heresy - thou shalt be sacrificed at the altar of the bike lane gods!