Replacing the old memes with new/VC memes

[John Forester]

john, im just reiterating what you'd described in this forum about your inferiority laden tec\hniques of edge hugging narrow lanes for the conveinence of motorists.

Care to reiterate when and at what speeds a bicyclist should go from 'claiming' a narrow lane setting up for a left turn, and riding like a 'road sneak' to allow motorists to pass you in a lane generaly considered by the bicycling community too narrow to be safely shared?

Once you've explained the inferiority method of road sneak, please move on to genec' concerns about your inability to negotiate with traffic moving 15mph faster than the bicyvclist- does that mean a bicyclist riding 10mph cannot negotiate with motorists driving 25?

Bekologist, you are just reiterating your deliberate misstatements, as you have from the beginning of this part of the discussion. You are unworthy of receiving an answer to your deliberate misstatements, which you present, as you yourself have admitted, only to provoke me. It is unfortunate that the level of civility of these discourses has fallen so low as to allow your continued participation.

[Bekologist]

can't discuss your quoted statements about your inferiority-laden cycling techniques, john?

[genec]

Genec, like the ideologue he is, has argued that he thinks that there is a conflict between the two following statements from my work:

"When the traffic is moving more than 15 mph faster than you, negotiation is impossible... "

"It does not require great cycling speed to be able to operate according to the rules of the road."


OK, Genec, please state what the conflict is. No more of your hiding behind weasel words like "seems"; you have made a statement for which you think you have sufficient grounds. Then you are obliged by the rules of civil discourse, let alone the ruled for technical discussion, to state those grounds.

John, if you cannot see the conflict in the two statements above... then I cannot help you.

I do agree that it does not take great speed to be able to operate "according to the rules of the road... " However, that statement does not stand alone, as there are also other road users about, so "operating according to the rules of the road" also requires cooperation from the other users of the road, and your other statement points to a denial of cooperation when those other users are moving at a speed over 15MPH of cyclists.

[Bekologist]

john, take it from one of your brothers of the wheel (me ) - your published and stated cycling techniques are LOADED with inferior lane positioning!

[Bekologist]

I must be misunderstanding you, john, your 'road sneak' methods, moving edge to edge in narrow lanes for the conveinence of motorists, of ambiguously riding the stripe between two lanes of faster traffic, your 'not taking the lane' on narrow rural highways, your published admittance bicyclists can't negotiate with motorists moving 15mph faster than the bicyclist.....

please, clarify without rancor.

its often vehicular to ride the stripe between slower traffic, but vehicular cyclists riding ambiguously between faster traffic in narrow lanes? - boy, only if they've screwed up their lane positioning.

[The Human Car]

As an Atlanta bicycle commuter of many years/miles, I can say confidently that I would never consider bicycling to work any other way than following the basic tenets of vehicular cycling. So in my opinion, vehicular cycling has not "failed" at all, just that most people prefer the comfort of a climate-controlled motor vehicle to get around.

By the instructional program failing to thrive I meant that it is failing to reach sufficient numbers to make any difference in the national crash stats.

[dogbitteneear]

I was approaching a 4-way stop when I was cut off by a driver who clearly saw me.

Had to stop short to keep from hitting her.

Still have plate number.

What should I do?

[Ed Holland]

I was approaching a 4-way stop when I was cut off by a driver who clearly saw me.

Had to stop short to keep from hitting her.

Still have plate number.

What should I do?

You would be justified in calling the incident in to the local police, but it's unlikely they'll take action.

[John Forester]

John, if you cannot see the conflict in the two statements above... then I cannot help you.

I do agree that it does not take great speed to be able to operate "according to the rules of the road... " However, that statement does not stand alone, as there are also other road users about, so "operating according to the rules of the road" also requires cooperation from the other users of the road, and your other statement points to a denial of cooperation when those other users are moving at a speed over 15MPH of cyclists.

You claim that two particular statements of mine conflict with each other, yet when challenged to describe that conflict you reply that you are unable to describe it: "... if you cannot see the conflict in the two statements above ... then I cannot help you."

[genec]

You claim that two particular statements of mine conflict with each other, yet when challenged to describe that conflict you reply that you are unable to describe it: "... if you cannot see the conflict in the two statements above ... then I cannot help you."

Uh, John, I also went on to explain the conflict, which was actually quoted in your reply, you apparently chose to ignore that part.

[Ed Holland]

Lets just say that cooperation between road users is more straightforward when speeds are similar. Ergo, the cyclist has an easier time of it the faster they travel. It is easier to "negotiate" with other road users if they do not feel that you are about to impede them unduly. Subjective and emotional, perhaps, but there we are.

[genec]

Lets just say that cooperation between road users is more straightforward when speeds are similar. Ergo, the cyclist has an easier time of it the faster they travel. It is easier to "negotiate" with other road users if they do not feel that you are about to impede them unduly. Subjective and emotional, perhaps, but there we are.

thank you for the objective observation and response.

[Ed Holland]

You are most welcome

[John Forester]

I must be misunderstanding you, john, your 'road sneak' methods, moving edge to edge in narrow lanes for the conveinence of motorists, of ambiguously riding the stripe between two lanes of faster traffic, your 'not taking the lane' on narrow rural highways, your published admittance bicyclists can't negotiate with motorists moving 15mph faster than the bicyclist.....

please, clarify without rancor.

its often vehicular to ride the stripe between slower traffic, but vehicular cyclists riding ambiguously between faster traffic in narrow lanes? - boy, only if they've screwed up their lane positioning.

Clarify your lies without rancor? You are asking for too much. Just so long as you insist on lying about my statements to suit your ideology, your lies don't deserve being answered.

You don't like my system of making lane changes in two moves, one into the lane, the second across the lane. I never specified this for narrow lanes, but it works with standard 12-foot lanes. The same goes for riding the lane line while faster traffic overtakes. It works, it lets faster drivers overtake, so I see no problem. My view about cycling on one particular type of highway, a narrow two-lane rural highway with 65 mph traffic, was limited to that particular situation. Such a highway does not carry much traffic, because if such traffic generated it would not be able to travel at that speed. With such little traffic, all that I said is that I would not bother to control the lane because there is no reason to do so. As for negotiating for lane changes into a stream of faster traffic, based on my experience using the head turn as the signal, and guessing at the relative speeds, that's my conclusion. But others have stated that using the arm signal works with greater speed differential. So what? I also have recommended using the arm signal when one wants to emphasize the desire.

As far as I can understand your motives, you wish to propagate the lie that vehicular cycling must deliberately delay motor traffic, in order to propagate your claim that bike lanes are better because they do not delay motorists. I won't play into that ploy.

[Bekologist]

yes, riding like a 'road sneak' and not claiming a standard 12 foot lane is most definetly an inferiority laden method, john- you say you do that for the conveinence of the motorists?

ambiguously riding a lane line- not the shoulder stripe- so motorists can overtake you on both sides in standard, non-WOLs is most definetly an inferiority laden technique- you do this for the conveinence of the motorists as well? is this on, like 30mph streets, if you as a cyclist is doing 10, over the threshold where 'negotiation is impossible?'

john, at what passing speed of traffic would you generally go into 'road sneak' mode so as to not inconveinece motorists in standard, non-WOLs?
is it at that 15mph break, essentially any road signed over 25mph?

[John Forester]

yes, riding like a 'road sneak' and not claiming a standard 12 foot lane is most definetly an inferiority laden method, john- you say you do that for the conveinence of the motorists?

ambiguously riding a lane line- not the shoulder stripe- so motorists can overtake you on both sides in standard, non-WOLs is most definetly an inferiority laden technique- you do this for the conveinence of the motorists as well? is this on, like 30mph streets, if you as a cyclist is doing 10, over the threshold where 'negotiation is impossible?'

john, at what passing speed of traffic would you generally go into 'road sneak' mode so as to not inconveinece motorists in standard, non-WOLs?
is it at that 15mph break, essentially any road signed over 25mph?

I repeat, you insist on repeating your original lies and are a blight upon reasonable discussion.

[Ed Holland]

So what we're looking at here is the cyclist's ability to influence traffic, according to differing situations such as number of lanes, speed limits & differentials and traffic density.

I see some issues with lane sharing & allowing traffic to overtake. A good example is a 35mph road, 2 lanes each direction, that I sometimes use.

The lanes are narrow there is no shoulder or outside lane, traffic is usually at or above the limit. If I do anything except occupy the middle of the right lane (which is bold but inconsiderate), cars attempt to squeeze past. Too far right, and they buzz past often without attempting to change lanes. If the "just left of the right tire track" position is adopted, many vehicles use the other lane, many split lanes to pass (offering ample room) and a few track rather too close for comfort.

Certainly I am unable to control all of the traffic all of the time.

[I-Like-To-Bike]

By the instructional program failing to thrive I meant that it is failing to reach sufficient numbers to make any difference in the national crash stats.

The effect on crash stats would be one method of measuring failure/success of an instructional program. Failing to reach sufficient numbers would certainly be an explanation for lack of effect. But of course there is also the possibility that an unproven instructional program would have little or no significant effect on bicyclists' behavior or crash stats no matter how many people it reached.

[LittleBigMan]

By the instructional program failing to thrive I meant that it is failing to reach sufficient numbers to make any difference in the national crash stats.

As I said, I would never consider bicycling to work in Atlanta without using vehicular cycling techniques.

A bike lane or bike path cannot substitute for learning how to negotiate motor traffic.

Yet a vehicular cyclist can negotiate motor traffic, a bike lane, or a bike path.

[Bekologist]

john -

you probably know this, you're a self styled transportation engineer....


"The 12-foot lane width standard was never presented as a means to provide a shared use lane."

but you proclaim 12 foot lanes shareable in multiple situations?

hmm, i see the roots of a deep-seated inferiority complex, john... the old vc memes.

the new vc memes embraces well provided bicycling infrastructure.

[John Forester]

john -

you probably know this, you're a self styled transportation engineer....


"The 12-foot lane width standard was never presented as a means to provide a shared use lane."

but you proclaim 12 foot lanes shareable in multiple situations?

hmm, i see the roots of a deep-seated inferiority complex, john... the old vc memes.

the new vc memes embraces well provided bicycling infrastructure.

Facts speak louder than words.

[Bekologist]

hmm...... do you mean john, despite widely accepted design considerations of standard lanes - that they are not shareable- this should be ignored by vehicular cyclists? you place it out there like an inscouscient challenge....You do it, so what?

do you reccomend to often ambiguously ride lane stripes or the edges of narrow lanes so as to not inconveinence the motorists, john? at what speed of passing traffic do you recommend cyclists start not taking the lane to stay out of the way of motorists?

a john forestorism 'I stay out of the way of the cars on the lane stripes- so what?'

[John Forester]

hmm...... do you mean john, despite widely accepted design considerations of standard lanes - that they are not shareable- this should be ignored by vehicular cyclists? you place it out there like an inscouscient challenge....You do it, so what?

do you reccomend to often ambiguously ride lane stripes or the edges of narrow lanes so as to not inconveinence the motorists, john? at what speed of passing traffic do you recommend cyclists start not taking the lane to stay out of the way of motorists?

a john forestorism 'I stay out of the way of the cars on the lane stripes- so what?'

You sure get your knickers in a twist, don't you, Bekologist? Over what you think is a BIG DEAL?

Surely you should know that the 12-foot lane standard was adopted long ago, long before highway designers bothered about bicycle traffic. That is, were considered neither shareable nor not shareable. The fact that when there are adjacent same-direction 12-foot lanes a cyclist or a motorcyclist can ride the lane line with plenty of room to spare between lines of passenger cars was not considered by the designers, but it is true, nevertheless. What's your problem with doing this? Why do you have your knickers in such a twist over it? It looks to me as though your problem is that this does not impede motorists. As for me, I have no ideological objective of impeding motorists; I just let and let live.

[Ed Holland]

It seems we are all a bit twisted here - So please let us try and clarify, without axes to grind, for everyone's benefit. I had come to believe that lane sharing was non vehicular, not in accordance with the rules of the road and contrary to the ideals of VC - to use the common parlance. Moreover that this same or similar reasoning was cited in the objection to bike lane markings on the roadway.

Now as regards practical usage of the road, of course it is very common that a lane (be there one or more) is shared whilst a car passes a bicycle. This may or may not be a problem according to the circumstances, see post 117 for example. It is unreasonable IMHO to impede traffic on a general basis, so a compromise is reached.

Can we move on from here?

[Bekologist]

hugging lane lines -wether edge of road or between two lanes of traffic - of standard width lanes as faster traffic overtakes, is an inferior and unvehicular lane position.

why i should accept 'so what?' as the rationale for that inferior lane positioning?

I'm confident bonifide traffic engineers would consider the 12 foot lane split a distinctly unvehicular traffic motion, john. it's not in the manual.

When looking at standard contemportary road design warrants, 14 feet is the minimum width for a shareable lane, outside lanes narrower than 14 feet are designed for one vehicle per lateral lane position, without bikes and cars sharing side by side.

I can share a wagon trace with cars john, but design of roads have advanced significantly since then..