When HH & JF make their claims about cycling...

[N_C]

... & spout their diatribe of how BL's reduce cycling, the only way to ride is VC, etc., etc., yadda, yadda, yadda. Could it be they are focusing on their geographical area? And they don't know **** about other areas simply because they do not or ever have lived in other areas? For example a lot of what they say does not apply to my area. I understand if it applies to theirs. but why say things about cycling & claim it will work or is happening in other areas when in fact they do not know? why are they assuming? I do hope they know what the word assume means.

[chipcom]

Considering that California is one of the few states where a bicycle is not considered a vehicle and has laws requiring people to ride in bike lanes, if present, I don't think I want the 'success' of their advocacy over the last 30 years to spread to the rest of the country.

[joejack951]

For example a lot of what they say does not apply to my area.

Could be more specific? What exactly doesn't apply in your area. I'm 3000 miles away, living in the northeast right outside Philadelphia, an area that most people would say is about as different from California as it gets. The vast majority of what HH and JF has to say applies to me, and the includes riding in areas other than my home town. I can't imagine what makes your area so special.

[N_C]

Could be more specific? What exactly doesn't apply in your area. I'm 3000 miles away, living in the northeast right outside Philadelphia, an area that most people would say is about as different from California as it gets. The vast majority of what HH and JF has to say applies to me, and the includes riding in areas other than my home town. I can't imagine what makes your area so special.

For one in my area BL's or MUP's do not reduce the amount of bicycle traffic on the roadways. In our area the BL's are not marked by a painted line it is a wider roadway with more of a shoulder then anywthing. The existing established bike routes are marked as shared roadways. The BL's offer an alternative if people want to use them. If people want to ride legally on the roadways they can. In fact there are more non-cycling traffic on the MUP's then those on bikes. But the amount of MUP's or roadways with wide enough shoulders to allow both a car & a cyclist abreast with enough room between the 2 for safe passing has nothing to do with a reduction of cyclists on the other roadways.

[Helmet Head]

spout their diatribe of how BL's reduce cycling,

in my area BL's or MUP's do not reduce the amount of bicycle traffic on the roadways.

Neither Forester nor I have ever claimed that BLs or MUPs reduce the amount of bicycle traffic.

You don't even understand what we're saying, but you're convinced you disagree. Brilliant.

[joejack951]

For one in my area BL's or MUP's do not reduce the amount of bicycle traffic on the roadways. In our area the BL's are not marked by a painted line it is a wider roadway with more of a shoulder then anywthing. The existing established bike routes are marked as shared roadways. The BL's offer an alternative if people want to use them. If people want to ride legally on the roadways they can. In fact there are more non-cycling traffic on the MUP's then those on bikes. But the amount of MUP's or roadways with wide enough shoulders to allow both a car & a cyclist abreast with enough room between the 2 for safe passing has nothing to do with a reduction of cyclists on the other roadways.

I'm sorry, NC, but I have no idea what you are talking about or trying to prove with this post. In your second sentence, you show a lack of understanding about what a bike lane is. A bike lane is not a shoulder or a road with a wide lane. A bike route marked as a shared roadway (as redundant as that is) is not a bike lane either. Furthermore, as HH has already chimed in to say, he has never claimed that bike lanes or MUPs reduce cycling. His claim, along with JF's, is that they do not significantly increase cycling, at least not on their own. By the way, non-cycling traffic on the MUP's has nothing to do with cycling. I'm glad that people use the MUP's in your area. That's why they are there. But walkers on a MUP are certainly not evidence that MUP's do not decrease cycling (this last statement is completely ridiculous but after reading NC's post, I feel like it needs to be said as it appears that is the conclusion he is coming to).

By the way, how much has cycling increased due to that new door zone bike lane they installed downtown?

[Bekologist]

despite the fervent rants and raves of the VC-addled in this forum,

traffic engineers readily admit, in regards to bike infrastructure, "build it, and they will ride!"

bike specific infrastructure will and does increase cycling on specific roads and in communities, despite the VC addled rants & raves spouted in this forum.

[SingingSabre]

Considering that California is one of the few states where a bicycle is not considered a vehicle and has laws requiring people to ride in bike lanes, if present, I don't think I want the 'success' of their advocacy over the last 30 years to spread to the rest of the country.

Indeed.

[pj7]

I think this quote can answer your question quite simply:

I don't know where you live, I don't care where you live...

And since Helmet Head seems to have never had an original idea (he's always quoting books, ALWAYS) it's safe to say that he will back up Lord Forester on that as well.

[joejack951]

And since Helmet Head seems to have never had an original idea (he's always quoting books, ALWAYS) it's safe to say that he will back up Lord Forester on that as well.

Do you read this forum or just make stuff up to try and make someone look bad? HH rarely quotes anybody's book, although he will often refer to them when presenting his ideas which are original enough that they have sparked pages and pages of controversy (search for DLLP <---yes, that's an acronym that HH made up to define his original idea).

I'd like to try and take everyone seriously on this forum but some of the childish remarks (I consider any criticism based on nothing to be childish) make it very difficult.

[pj7]

Do you read this forum or just make stuff up to try and make someone look bad? HH rarely quotes anybody's book, although he will often refer to them when presenting his ideas which are original enough that they have sparked pages and pages of controversy (search for DLLP <---yes, that's an acronym that HH made up to define his original idea).

I'd like to try and take everyone seriously on this forum but some of the childish remarks (I consider any criticism based on nothing to be childish) make it very difficult.

Rarely?? Rarely??? Dude, find me 5 threads that he has posted in within the last week that he hasn't made a quote from or referred to a book in.
DLLP eh? So Ole Helmie gave an overly-long name to "ride where you'll be noticed" and you call that an original idea? Well hell, I guess I can claim my own originality when I first called farting "TAOGYOWOYM" (The Act Of Giving You Opinion Without Opening Your Mouth)!

On second thought, forget about it. I'll leave the Vehicular Cycling section of the forum to the 3 or 4 of you "VC" guys. Obviously your advocating for VC has done a great job up until this point.

[Helmet Head]

Rarely?? Rarely??? Dude, find me 5 threads that he has posted in within the last week that he hasn't made a quote from or referred to a book in.
DLLP eh? So Ole Helmie gave an overly-long name to "ride where you'll be noticed" and you call that an original idea? Well hell, I guess I can claim my own originality when I first called farting "TAOGYOWOYM" (The Act Of Giving You Opinion Without Opening Your Mouth)!

Find me ONE POST that I have posted in the within the last week that I HAVE made a quote from or referred to a book (not including a context in which someone else raised the topic).

[pj7]

Find me ONE POST that I have posted in the within the last week that I HAVE made a quote from or referred to a book (not including a context in which someone else raised the topic).

Nice aversion.
Just as I said to you last night. You take someones challenge, then you create your own in order to avoid the one that was previously posed. And not only that but you changed the original meaning of it.
I said you are always quoting (and making references to) books and others works. That you are never original.
Then you come back and bring "context" into this. Instead of having your own stance you always repeat someone elses.
I doubt many posts of your are out there from the last week where a book or quote from a book was out of context because almost every damned thing you talk about has to do with someone elses work.
But I tire of this. Ask yourself HH, what good is coming of all of this "stuff" you do in here? It was you that turned me off of the whole idea of VC. Your mountebank ways and "superiority complex" you seem to have over everyone else that doesn't see your way off the bat.
But like I said, I'll leave the 3 or 4 of you VC guys alone for now. Because it's obvious that you have "it" all figured out and the numerous thousands of the rest of us just don't get it(TM).

[deputyjones]

Neither Forester nor I have ever claimed that BLs or MUPs reduce the amount of bicycle traffic.

You don't even understand what we're saying, but you're convinced you disagree. Brilliant.

His lack of understanding of what you are saying or advocating for may not be his fault. I have read many pages of HH posts on this board, and I can honestly say I still have no idea what you advocate for if anything.

[Helmet Head]

His lack of understanding of what you are saying or advocating for may not be his fault. I have read many pages of HH posts on this board, and I can honestly say I still have no idea what you advocate for if anything.

Yet there are others like JJ, noisebeam, Galen, Daily Commute, and others who clearly have a good idea of what I advocate for.

Hmm, they read the same posts as you do, they know, and you don't. Hmm. How can this be if I'm unclear about what I advocate for?

[sbhikes]

Neither Forester nor I have ever claimed that BLs or MUPs reduce the amount of bicycle traffic.

That's because everybody knows these things increase the amount of bicycle traffic. And THAT is what you guys advocate against, despite yourselves.

[Helmet Head]

Nice aversion.
Just as I said to you last night. You take someones challenge, then you create your own in order to avoid the one that was previously posed. And not only that but you changed the original meaning of it.
I said you are always quoting (and making references to) books and others works. That you are never original.
Then you come back and bring "context" into this. Instead of having your own stance you always repeat someone elses.
I doubt many posts of your are out there from the last week where a book or quote from a book was out of context because almost every damned thing you talk about has to do with someone elses work.
But I tire of this. Ask yourself HH, what good is coming of all of this "stuff" you do in here? It was you that turned me off of the whole idea of VC. Your mountebank ways and "superiority complex" you seem to have over everyone else that doesn't see your way off the bat.
But like I said, I'll leave the 3 or 4 of you VC guys alone for now. Because it's obvious that you have "it" all figured out and the numerous thousands of the rest of us just don't get it(TM).

You missed my point.

Whatever. I can provide 5 threads that meet your challenge simply by listing the top 5 current threads in the VC subforum in which I have posted.

1. When HH & JF make their claims about cycling...
2. VC acolytes, followers, disciples, etc.
3. Take the VC Challenge!
4. Positioning question when RTOL present
5. Why do you agree/disagree with Forester

And why is it important whether I have my own original ideas or not? My purpose here is to advocate traffic cycling safety, which I happen to believe is best accomplished by advocating vehicular-cycling, which results in me having to explain why I believe this much of the time. When those explanations have been made by others, I cite them. So what?

[Blue Order]

Considering that California is one of the few states where a bicycle is not considered a vehicle and has laws requiring people to ride in bike lanes, if present, I don't think I want the 'success' of their advocacy over the last 30 years to spread to the rest of the country.

One has to wonder, given Forester's sometimes nasty, always arrogant condescension in this forum, what cycling advocacy would have gained had he been sweet-tempered and respectful instead. They say you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar...

[Helmet Head]

Neither Forester nor I have ever claimed that BLs or MUPs reduce the amount of bicycle traffic.

That's because everybody knows these things increase the amount of bicycle traffic. And THAT is what you guys advocate against, despite yourselves.

Neither Forester nor I have ever advocated against MUPs.
We don't advocate against bike lanes as much as we advocate against the invalid arguments made in their support.

Whether bike lanes actually incresae the amount of bicycle traffic is NOT known by anyone.
If they do, it is by some small and probably insignificant amount (not significant enough to show up in any study) relative to the amount of problems they cause for cyclists.

[N_C]

One has to wonder, given Forester's sometimes nasty, always arrogant condescension in this forum, what cycling advocacy would have gained had he been sweet-tempered and respectful instead. They say you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar...

You also catch a lot of flies with **** too. What's JF's excuse for the **** he preaches. It sure seems to attract a lot of people.

[pj7]

You missed my point.

Whatever. I can provide 5 threads that meet your challenge simply by listing the top 5 current threads in the VC subforum in which I have posted.

1. When HH & JF make their claims about cycling...
2. VC acolytes, followers, disciples, etc.
3. Take the VC Challenge!
4. Positioning question when RTOL present
5. Why do you agree/disagree with Forester

And why is it important whether I have my own original ideas or not? My purpose here is to advocate traffic cycling safety, which I happen to believe is best accomplished by advocating vehicular-cycling, which results in me having to explain why I believe this much of the time. When those explanations have been made by others, I cite them. So what?

[*]VC acolytes, followers, disciples, etc.: See post #27

When John Forester writes, "obey the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles..."

[*]Take the VC Challenge!: See post #53

Isn't it in Effective Cycling that Forester compares the German model...

[*]Positioning question when RTOL present: So all that talk about "phobias" was not first introduced in Foresters book?
[*]Why do you agree/disagree with Forester: I find it hard to believe that nothing you said in this thread had to do with the literary works of Forester.

So you provided one example.
But really, there is no point in all of this. Out of the thousands of people on this board you have what... five that see your POV? Maybe you should borrow G. W. Bush's Mission Accomplished banner.
Oh, and do you really believe you are advocating traffic/cycling safety to anyone here? Seriously?? How in the hell does pretending to be a psychologist and diagnosing people with "phobias" or pretending to be a lawyer and "interpeting" laws advocate for safety?
Bleh, it matters not. Why am I still reading this thread? You and your 4 or 5 VC friends have fun in here. If it weren't for the people that challenged you, this "Vehicular Cycling" subforum would be empty, and you know it.

[deputyjones]

Yet there are others like JJ, noisebeam, Galen, Daily Commute, and others who clearly have a good idea of what I advocate for.

Hmm, they read the same posts as you do, they know, and you don't. Hmm. How can this be if I'm unclear about what I advocate for?

Ah yes, the standard "reading comprehension problem" HH answer. At least you're predictable.

[pj7]

At least you're predictable.

Ahhhh yes, be predictable. A lesson learned from Lord Forester no doubt

[deputyjones]

The "reading comprehension" HH answer. Does he have an F key assigned to this one?

[genec]

The "reading comprehension" HH answer. Does he have an F key assigned to this one?

Wow 77 citations.

Hey if nothing else, thanks for showing me a new way to google.