part 5...
#51
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 922
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
That's part of the problem. Once you and your dystopian crew of infrastructurists get going competent cyclists are frequently denied the ability to take care of themselves. That can be both through legal means and through the social pressure from the ignorant motoring population who have been encouraged in their belief that it's dangerous to ride a bike in traffic by YOU. Thanks a buch feller.
Your attitude is doing irreparable harm to bicycling in N.America. Look after yourself and stop trying to guess what gets people onto bicycles, especially if your proposed solution is one that ****s it up for those of us that actually cycle.
#52
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 437
Bikes: late 80's bianchi campion d'italia, early 90's trek 2100, early 90's shogun selectra, mid 90's aluminum marin xcMTB, dept. store grade but upgraded columbia double eagle tandem
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Let's have a quick reality check here. In the excerpt you quoted (which I've included above your quote), I was arguing against forced use of bike lanes/paths. Are you really suggesting that forced bike lane use is 'equitable'. If so, I think the word 'equitable' doesn't mean what you think it means. But if you seriously believe that banning people from riding on the road is 'equitable', then I really don't have a response for that, because it's so outside the ballpark that I don't see how it can be described as 'cycling advocacy'. It sounds more like a road rager's dream or something dreamed up by Myrridin in one of his especially anti-cyclist moods.
Oh yes it has. How do you think cycling got started in the first place? People mixed with traffic happily for about 80 years before 'bicycle infrastructure' came along. We used to call 'bicycle infrastructure' "the road". Some of us still do.
Decent (and even sub-par) bike specific infrastructure has proven to increase ridership on bike trails. It has done nothing to increase ridership on the roads, where most of the world's cycling must be done if the word cycling is to have any meaning as a form of transportation and not just as a weekend recreational toy. I suspect, if anything, bike trails have reduced road cycling. As such, the increased ridership is not a step forward, unless your utopia is one in which road cycling is not done. Again, I don't see a world in which only trail cycling is done as being a legitimate goal for cycling advocates, because trails and bike paths will never be everywhere.[/QUOTE]
Where I live we have a trail called the galloping goose, an old rail corridor. it is used for recreational riding, but its primary purpose is as a commuter corridor between the city and the suburbs. its way more pleasant and convinient for most cyclists. Like you say though, these trails can't go everywhere, but that doesn't stop most cyclists from cycling on the roads once they have completed what would have been the most stressful portion of their commute.
#53
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 437
Bikes: late 80's bianchi campion d'italia, early 90's trek 2100, early 90's shogun selectra, mid 90's aluminum marin xcMTB, dept. store grade but upgraded columbia double eagle tandem
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
[QUOTE=RazrSkutr;11594098]All of which is a long way of saying: "no, my previous statement is based on little more than my personal predjudice".
True nuff. No going to argue with you there. but It is experience, not prejudice, that I am basing my beliefs on. I would love it if everyone that might want to cycle was comfortable navigating a bicycle in traffic without need for BSI for major corridors. And that is urban, not rural, corridors, for the record. In more rural areas, there really is no need period for BSI cyclists are barely delaying drivers, and drivers need to get over it. More driver education about bicyclists right to the road-hell, more driver education period? heck yes.
The urban environment can be significantly more stressful for cyclists; Particularly in that "not quite downtown, not quite out of town" part of the city. Lots of cars, high speeds, few alternative routes. I favor some kind of BSF in these areas over many others where it is truly of dubious value.
They will stay that way whether "me and my cohorts" get our way or not. That is why I am for most BSI I belive the normalization of cycling-through improvements to infrastructure that benefit cyclists as well as driver education- benefits all cyclists
I do not have a fear of the erosion of cyclists rights based on the existence of infrastructure. Maybe I should, maybe yours is well founded, but I don't buy into it. You must live in florida or something. Sorry, but infrastructure fear mongering by those who are comfortable in traffic bugs me
You have a point. A good one. problem is, the fear isn't going anywhere even if we subtract the misinformation. Honestly, I love the idea of not needing BSI, the same way I love many other unrealistic ideals that don't take into account the steps necessary in between .
True nuff. No going to argue with you there. but It is experience, not prejudice, that I am basing my beliefs on. I would love it if everyone that might want to cycle was comfortable navigating a bicycle in traffic without need for BSI for major corridors. And that is urban, not rural, corridors, for the record. In more rural areas, there really is no need period for BSI cyclists are barely delaying drivers, and drivers need to get over it. More driver education about bicyclists right to the road-hell, more driver education period? heck yes.
The urban environment can be significantly more stressful for cyclists; Particularly in that "not quite downtown, not quite out of town" part of the city. Lots of cars, high speeds, few alternative routes. I favor some kind of BSF in these areas over many others where it is truly of dubious value.
And they'll stay that way if you and your cohorts get their way.
That's part of the problem. Once you and your dystopian crew of infrastructurists get going competent cyclists are frequently denied the ability to take care of themselves. That can be both through legal means and through the social pressure from the ignorant motoring population who have been encouraged in their belief that it's dangerous to ride a bike in traffic by YOU. Thanks a buch feller.
But you don't have to be. That's just a bull**** belief based in fear and misinformation as you should well know if you're an experienced cyclist as you claim.
Your attitude is doing irreparable harm to bicycling in N.America. Look after yourself and stop trying to guess what gets people onto bicycles, especially if your proposed solution is one that ****s it up for those of us that actually cycle.
Your attitude is doing irreparable harm to bicycling in N.America. Look after yourself and stop trying to guess what gets people onto bicycles, especially if your proposed solution is one that ****s it up for those of us that actually cycle.
Last edited by kludgefudge; 10-08-10 at 08:29 PM.
#54
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: in bed with your mom
Posts: 13,696
Bikes: who cares?
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
I'm extremely dubious that Portland politicians and engineers will ever actually grow the cojones to take lanes away from motorists like that, except where it won't really matter much, and even more dubious that large-scale parking removal will be used to create the space required.
#55
Senior Member
I like the green lane because it markets cycling, which cycling advocates including myself want, but it doesn't require cyclists to operate according to different rules than other drivers or force them to use a separate facility with greater conflicts with junction traffic, car doors, pedestrians, etc.
I am concerned about some other sharrow installations, however, that have been placed on the right edge of marginal width lanes. I believe that sharrows should be used to market the legitimacy of cycling anywhere in the lane, and not be placed where they could be misconstrued as directing cyclists to ride curbside or too close to parked cars.
#56
Godfather of Soul
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 1,517
Bikes: 2002 Litespeed Vortex, 2010 Specialized Tricross Expert,2008 Gary Fischer Hi Fi Carbon, 2002 Specialized S-Works hard tail, 1990 Kestrel KM 40
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
#57
Godfather of Soul
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 1,517
Bikes: 2002 Litespeed Vortex, 2010 Specialized Tricross Expert,2008 Gary Fischer Hi Fi Carbon, 2002 Specialized S-Works hard tail, 1990 Kestrel KM 40
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Let's have a quick reality check here. In the excerpt you highlighted (which I've included above your quote), I was arguing against forced use of bike lanes/paths. Are you really suggesting that forced bike lane use is 'equitable'. If so, I think the word 'equitable' doesn't mean what you think it means. But if you seriously believe that banning people from riding on the road is 'equitable', then I really don't have a response for that, because it's so outside the ballpark that I don't see how it can be described as 'cycling advocacy'. It sounds more like a road rager's dream or something dreamed up by Myrridin in one of his especially anti-cyclist moods.
Oh yes it has. How do you think cycling got started in the first place? People mixed with traffic happily for about 80 years before 'bicycle infrastructure' came along. We used to call 'bicycle infrastructure' "the road". Some of us still do.
Decent (and even sub-par) bike specific infrastructure has proven to increase ridership on bike trails. I doubt it has done anything to increase ridership on the roads, where most of the world's cycling must be done if the word cycling is to have any meaning as a form of transportation and not just as a weekend recreational pastime. I suspect, if anything, bike trails have reduced road cycling. As such, the increased ridership is not a step forward, unless your utopia is one in which road cycling is not done. Again, I don't see a world in which only trail cycling is done as being a legitimate goal for cycling advocates, because trails and bike paths will never be everywhere.
Oh yes it has. How do you think cycling got started in the first place? People mixed with traffic happily for about 80 years before 'bicycle infrastructure' came along. We used to call 'bicycle infrastructure' "the road". Some of us still do.
Decent (and even sub-par) bike specific infrastructure has proven to increase ridership on bike trails. I doubt it has done anything to increase ridership on the roads, where most of the world's cycling must be done if the word cycling is to have any meaning as a form of transportation and not just as a weekend recreational pastime. I suspect, if anything, bike trails have reduced road cycling. As such, the increased ridership is not a step forward, unless your utopia is one in which road cycling is not done. Again, I don't see a world in which only trail cycling is done as being a legitimate goal for cycling advocates, because trails and bike paths will never be everywhere.
1) I agree that poorly implemented side paths are bad. Most things that are poorly implemented are indeed bad, but let's not confuse and conflate poorly implemented with well implemented.
2) Cyclists have not mixed "happily" with traffic for 80 years. Over the last 80 years, the overwhelming vehicle of choice for personal transportation almost everywhere in North America has been the car and the entire network of transportation and the design of our communities has been driven by the use of the car. As to the question about how bicycling came along, it came along at a time when they shared roads with buggies and horses, not cars. If cyclists and cars got along so happily, there wouldn't be such a demand by cyclists to have better and safer bike routes.
3) The article at the beginning of this thread describes a system for bicycling that is not mandatory, yet one of your major criticisms of such systems is for mandatory use. No reason to argue about something that doesn't exist, and if your point is a general one, why not be more clear about it?
4) You seem to object to the creation and use of bike trails and these bike thoroughfares because they don't go everywhere. Point taken, but as others have repeatedly stated, they are not an effort to create a complete dual system of paths for bikes. Yes, some of them can at times be counterproductive, but in many cases, as in the article posted by the OP, they provide a safe passage through the most dangerous parts of a cyclist's commute. It seems that you would/should be in favor of keeping the good ones and modifying the bad ones.
#58
Godfather of Soul
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 1,517
Bikes: 2002 Litespeed Vortex, 2010 Specialized Tricross Expert,2008 Gary Fischer Hi Fi Carbon, 2002 Specialized S-Works hard tail, 1990 Kestrel KM 40
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
According to the city of South Beach, CA, the green lane on 2nd Street has increased cycling in the travel lane, outside the door zone, by 300% since its installation. The green lane is essentially a paint and center-of-the-lane sharrow treatment that advertises the legitimacy of cyclists controlling the travel lane as drivers of vehicles. It doesn't "separate" or "protect" cyclists; it essentially just tells them "to get out there and mix with traffic" while at the same time telling the motorists to accept it. It seems to be working. 300% is nothing to sneeze at. I wish more cities had this kind of courage to endorse proper bicycle driving where drivers can't pass without changing lanes.
I like the green lane because it markets cycling, which cycling advocates including myself want, but it doesn't require cyclists to operate according to different rules than other drivers or force them to use a separate facility with greater conflicts with junction traffic, car doors, pedestrians, etc.
I am concerned about some other sharrow installations, however, that have been placed on the right edge of marginal width lanes. I believe that sharrows should be used to market the legitimacy of cycling anywhere in the lane, and not be placed where they could be misconstrued as directing cyclists to ride curbside or too close to parked cars.
I like the green lane because it markets cycling, which cycling advocates including myself want, but it doesn't require cyclists to operate according to different rules than other drivers or force them to use a separate facility with greater conflicts with junction traffic, car doors, pedestrians, etc.
I am concerned about some other sharrow installations, however, that have been placed on the right edge of marginal width lanes. I believe that sharrows should be used to market the legitimacy of cycling anywhere in the lane, and not be placed where they could be misconstrued as directing cyclists to ride curbside or too close to parked cars.
#59
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Silver Spring, MD, USA
Posts: 612
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
You've made some good points in this thread, but I think a few of your points fail for a variety of reasons.
1) I agree that poorly implemented side paths are bad. Most things that are poorly implemented are indeed bad, but let's not confuse and conflate poorly implemented with well implemented.
1) I agree that poorly implemented side paths are bad. Most things that are poorly implemented are indeed bad, but let's not confuse and conflate poorly implemented with well implemented.
2) Cyclists have not mixed "happily" with traffic for 80 years. Over the last 80 years...
...the overwhelming vehicle of choice for personal transportation almost everywhere in North America...
...has been the car and the entire network of transportation and the design of our communities has been driven by the use of the car. As to the question about how bicycling came along, it came along at a time when they shared roads with buggies and horses, not cars. If cyclists and cars got along so happily, there wouldn't be such a demand by cyclists to have better and safer bike routes.
3) The article at the beginning of this thread describes a system for bicycling that is not mandatory, yet one of your major criticisms of such systems is for mandatory use. No reason to argue about something that doesn't exist, and if your point is a general one, why not be more clear about it?
4) You seem to object to the creation and use of bike trails and these bike thoroughfares because they don't go everywhere. Point taken, but as others have repeatedly stated, they are not an effort to create a complete dual system of paths for bikes.
Yes, some of them can at times be counterproductive, but in many cases, as in the article posted by the OP, they provide a safe passage through the most dangerous parts of a cyclist's commute. It seems that you would/should be in favor of keeping the good ones and modifying the bad ones.
The real problem with bike trails is that they take away resources that could be used to make 80% of cyclists' journeys better and safer, and they spend these resources on what amounts to weekend trips to the country for the privileged few. They also effectively divert the attention of cyclist advocates, making them think that government is doing something meaningful for them, when in fact it isn't. This is the crux of the problem.
Last edited by ianbrettcooper; 10-09-10 at 07:49 AM.
#60
totally louche
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: A land that time forgot
Posts: 18,023
Bikes: the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 10 Times
in
9 Posts
According to the city of South Beach, CA, the green lane on 2nd Street has increased cycling in the travel lane, outside the door zone, by 300% since its installation. The green lane is essentially a paint and center-of-the-lane sharrow treatment that advertises the legitimacy of cyclists controlling the travel lane as drivers of vehicles. It doesn't "separate" or "protect" cyclists; it essentially just tells them "to get out there and mix with traffic" while at the same time telling the motorists to accept it. It seems to be working. 300% is nothing to sneeze at. I wish more cities had this kind of courage to endorse proper bicycle driving where drivers can't pass without changing lanes.
I like the green lane because it markets cycling, which cycling advocates including myself want, but it doesn't require cyclists to operate according to different rules than other drivers or force them to use a separate facility with greater conflicts with junction traffic, car doors, pedestrians, etc.
I like the green lane because it markets cycling, which cycling advocates including myself want, but it doesn't require cyclists to operate according to different rules than other drivers or force them to use a separate facility with greater conflicts with junction traffic, car doors, pedestrians, etc.
In a discussion of the Vancouver cycleways I suspect the 'greater conflicts' concern is unfounded.
unfortunately, shared lane tactics for managing bikes with motor vehicle traffic becomes less effective as roadway speeds increase and the need to accommodate a diverse ridership across bridge decks and across the downtown of a major North American city. Shared roadway use and bicyclists mixing with traffic IS expected roadway behavior at the terminus of the cycletracks.
Originally Posted by ianbrettcooper
Yes, well implemented trails are good, but where are they?
Last edited by Bekologist; 10-09-10 at 09:29 AM.
#61
Senior Member
Thread Starter
I'm quite busy right now (my daughter is getting married tomorrow) but I have skimmed the discussion here and I can add that as far as the safety of these recently installed (and soon to be installed) segregated lanes in downtown Vancouver is being studied. A report on any and all collisions and injuries in them as well as in or on other pathways or roadways will be due in the future.
Aside from the goal of increasing the safety of cyclists there is a goal of improving traffic flow by increasing use of transit, walking and cycling. So far this has been achieved, and AFAIK, there has not been any other city in North America that’s had a reduction in the number of cars (10% reduction entering the city and 7% reduction entering downtown) along with tremendous growth in pedestrian, cycling and transit trips that has taken place in Vancouver.
The City has exact figures on it's website but as I remember it, before the segregated lanes were installed on the BSB, a lot of cyclists were using it, but after detailed counts came in during the trial of the lanes, it showed cycling on the bridge increased by 30%. Before the SBL was installed on the Georgia viaduct, few cyclists used it (about 100 per day) but after it was installed, there were over 1000 trips per day. Before the SBL was put in on Dunsmuir, there were 500 trips per day, after it was in there were 2000 trips per day.
Now it may be true that cyclists are not increasing and simply changing their routes, but it also may be true that cycling has increased because of these routes. We're going to have to wait until a full assessment has been done but I think the important issue is that the city is giving this idea a try to see what happens.
Aside from the goal of increasing the safety of cyclists there is a goal of improving traffic flow by increasing use of transit, walking and cycling. So far this has been achieved, and AFAIK, there has not been any other city in North America that’s had a reduction in the number of cars (10% reduction entering the city and 7% reduction entering downtown) along with tremendous growth in pedestrian, cycling and transit trips that has taken place in Vancouver.
The City has exact figures on it's website but as I remember it, before the segregated lanes were installed on the BSB, a lot of cyclists were using it, but after detailed counts came in during the trial of the lanes, it showed cycling on the bridge increased by 30%. Before the SBL was installed on the Georgia viaduct, few cyclists used it (about 100 per day) but after it was installed, there were over 1000 trips per day. Before the SBL was put in on Dunsmuir, there were 500 trips per day, after it was in there were 2000 trips per day.
Now it may be true that cyclists are not increasing and simply changing their routes, but it also may be true that cycling has increased because of these routes. We're going to have to wait until a full assessment has been done but I think the important issue is that the city is giving this idea a try to see what happens.
Last edited by closetbiker; 10-09-10 at 10:52 AM.
#62
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: in bed with your mom
Posts: 13,696
Bikes: who cares?
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
Yes, well implemented trails are good, but where are they?
The real problem with bike trails is that they take away resources that could be used to make 80% of cyclists' journeys better and safer, and they spend these resources on what amounts to weekend trips to the country for the privileged few. They also effectively divert the attention of cyclist advocates, making them think that government is doing something meaningful for them, when in fact it isn't. This is the crux of the problem.
The real problem with bike trails is that they take away resources that could be used to make 80% of cyclists' journeys better and safer, and they spend these resources on what amounts to weekend trips to the country for the privileged few. They also effectively divert the attention of cyclist advocates, making them think that government is doing something meaningful for them, when in fact it isn't. This is the crux of the problem.
Ian Cooper is right on track for becoming the new Helmet Head
#63
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Bellevue, WA
Posts: 1,606
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times
in
2 Posts
In many areas (esp. Midwest, where I lived for four years) bicycle infrastructure is pretty much unheard of. My, that place was like heaven on earth for cycling! There were so few cyclists, that almost nobody was killed whilst riding!
#64
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 437
Bikes: late 80's bianchi campion d'italia, early 90's trek 2100, early 90's shogun selectra, mid 90's aluminum marin xcMTB, dept. store grade but upgraded columbia double eagle tandem
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
According to the city of South Beach, CA, the green lane on 2nd Street has increased cycling in the travel lane, outside the door zone, by 300% since its installation. The green lane is essentially a paint and center-of-the-lane sharrow treatment that advertises the legitimacy of cyclists controlling the travel lane as drivers of vehicles. It doesn't "separate" or "protect" cyclists; it essentially just tells them "to get out there and mix with traffic" while at the same time telling the motorists to accept it. It seems to be working. 300% is nothing to sneeze at. I wish more cities had this kind of courage to endorse proper bicycle driving where drivers can't pass without changing lanes.
I like the green lane because it markets cycling, which cycling advocates including myself want, but it doesn't require cyclists to operate according to different rules than other drivers or force them to use a separate facility with greater conflicts with junction traffic, car doors, pedestrians, etc.
I am concerned about some other sharrow installations, however, that have been placed on the right edge of marginal width lanes. I believe that sharrows should be used to market the legitimacy of cycling anywhere in the lane, and not be placed where they could be misconstrued as directing cyclists to ride curbside or too close to parked cars.
I like the green lane because it markets cycling, which cycling advocates including myself want, but it doesn't require cyclists to operate according to different rules than other drivers or force them to use a separate facility with greater conflicts with junction traffic, car doors, pedestrians, etc.
I am concerned about some other sharrow installations, however, that have been placed on the right edge of marginal width lanes. I believe that sharrows should be used to market the legitimacy of cycling anywhere in the lane, and not be placed where they could be misconstrued as directing cyclists to ride curbside or too close to parked cars.
#65
Senior Member
I've never seen anything quite like that before, But I really like it. I can think of a few roads around my area that could benefit from a similar treatment. This kind or road treatment goes a fair ways beyond just telling cyclists to get out there and mix with traffic though, as it is encouraging the practice through a pretty substantial application of paint. It may not be bike specific infrastructure but its an infrastructure upgrade that benefits cyclists specifically. (say that ten times fast )
I also like many off-road paths; it's the urban sidepaths and poor path/road junction designs that I dislike.
#66
Godfather of Soul
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 1,517
Bikes: 2002 Litespeed Vortex, 2010 Specialized Tricross Expert,2008 Gary Fischer Hi Fi Carbon, 2002 Specialized S-Works hard tail, 1990 Kestrel KM 40
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Erm... I never said 'the last 80 years'. I said they did mix happily for 80 years - the first 80 years cars and bikes mixed, before 'bicycle infrastructure' came along in any significant way. That's 1890 to 1970 to be more exact. To suggest I meant the last 80 years is a straw man. Of course cars haven't mixed happily for the last 80 years. But I never said that.
I don't accept the premise that we're only talking North America here. I'm speaking more generally. The original article asserted that all cyclists desired trails: "Separated bike lanes are every cyclist’s dream". Not just all North American cyclists. My experience is not limited to North America and I'm not advocating for cycling in North America only.
When I was growing up in the 70s there was virtually no one asking for 'bike routes' at all. Cyclists were asking for roads to be made safer. There's a difference. Until the '70s cyclists were happy to mix with traffic - we just wanted roads widening and traffic calmed. Traffic has never been the problem. The problem is traffic speed and (in England where I was at the time) the width of the roads.
As you should know, I was making a point about the article writer's assertion that I want bike trails. I did this by illustrating how I'd feel if I were to be forced to use them exclusively. I was never suggesting that the author was arguing for mandatory use. Kludgefudge did that when he effectively said that mandatory use was "equitable".
Then why do they argue as if they are? Why do they continue to argue for more and more trails while acting as if improvements to roads are irrelevant? Most cyclists cycle on roads. This is where we desperately need improvement if cycling is ever going to take off as more than a weekend diversion. Trails can only help new cyclists start cycling, but without improvements to roads, they will never graduate to the road.
I am in favour of keeping good ones. I'm also in favour of modifying bad ones to make them good, if they're in a place that makes sense. But often they aren't, yet cycling advocates seem more than willing to applaud bike trails to nowhere while being perfectly willing to sweep aside criticisms that there are no routes to work. Rails to Trails creates some very useful paths because they often go places where old railroads went (often between communities and business districts), but in order to be useful and safe, a trail that's in the right place has to be well designed too, with carefully thought-out entry points, markings and signs so that cyclists know who has the right of way, good sight-lines at intersections, signposts so that a bikeway doesn't become a labyrinth (see the Rock Creek Park trail in DC), etc.
The real problem with bike trails is that they take away resources that could be used to make 80% of cyclists' journeys better and safer, and they spend these resources on what amounts to weekend trips to the country for the privileged few. They also effectively divert the attention of cyclist advocates, making them think that government is doing something meaningful for them, when in fact it isn't. This is the crux of the problem.
The real problem with bike trails is that they take away resources that could be used to make 80% of cyclists' journeys better and safer, and they spend these resources on what amounts to weekend trips to the country for the privileged few. They also effectively divert the attention of cyclist advocates, making them think that government is doing something meaningful for them, when in fact it isn't. This is the crux of the problem.
#67
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 437
Bikes: late 80's bianchi campion d'italia, early 90's trek 2100, early 90's shogun selectra, mid 90's aluminum marin xcMTB, dept. store grade but upgraded columbia double eagle tandem
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Aside from the goal of increasing the safety of cyclists there is a goal of improving traffic flow by increasing use of transit, walking and cycling. So far this has been achieved, and AFAIK, there has not been any other city in North America that’s had a reduction in the number of cars (10% reduction entering the city and 7% reduction entering downtown) along with tremendous growth in pedestrian, cycling and transit trips that has taken place in Vancouver..
Looked at from this perspective, the segregated bike lanes might make good sense for the city of Vancouver, with its stated goal of a reduction of motor vehicle traffic in the city.
Thoughts?
#68
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: in bed with your mom
Posts: 13,696
Bikes: who cares?
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
Looking at this statistic, and thinking about all the challenges that this sort of Infrastructure introduces for auto drivers, one can't help but come to the conclusion that the implementation of some of these lanes might not be only to encourage bicycle traffic, but to actively discourage automobile traffic by making the environment for drivers less inviting.
Looked at from this perspective, the segregated bike lanes might make good sense for the city of Vancouver, with its stated goal of a reduction of motor vehicle traffic in the city.
Thoughts?
Looked at from this perspective, the segregated bike lanes might make good sense for the city of Vancouver, with its stated goal of a reduction of motor vehicle traffic in the city.
Thoughts?
#69
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Looking at this statistic, and thinking about all the challenges that this sort of Infrastructure introduces for auto drivers, one can't help but come to the conclusion that the implementation of some of these lanes might not be only to encourage bicycle traffic, but to actively discourage automobile traffic by making the environment for drivers less inviting.
Looked at from this perspective, the segregated bike lanes might make good sense for the city of Vancouver, with its stated goal of a reduction of motor vehicle traffic in the city.
Thoughts?
Looked at from this perspective, the segregated bike lanes might make good sense for the city of Vancouver, with its stated goal of a reduction of motor vehicle traffic in the city.
Thoughts?
ROADJUSTICE.CA
ABOUT US
We are concerned citizens who have organized into a non-profit non-partisan coalition to have a fair voice for increased justice on our roads.
We feel that it`s time to end unmitigated taxpayer funded lobby organizations such as Vancouver Area Cycling Coalition who are receiving taxpayers dollars to lobby our elected officials causing removal of valuable road space from motor vehicle use.
OUR STATEMENT
We stand for Justice on Our Roads.
We support bike lanes, but not by taking away motor vehicle space of the road.
Motor Vehicle drivers pay insurance, licensing fees, air care, 35% parking tax, property tax, income tax, and gas tax and are getting no improvements in return. No new roads, no safer and more affordable parking spaces, no less time spent idling in traffic jams causing pollution.
Bike riders pay NO gas tax, pay NO insurance, pay NO license fees, and get new bike lanes, more parking spaces, get to block traffic with their Critical Mass protests, break traffic laws and hit other cars without licenses and insurance for mitigation.
Where is the justice in that?
I wonder if the individual or group responsible for this site is the same one(s) responsible for hacking into the VACCs site and shutting it down for a day just before the vote on the lane?
Last edited by closetbiker; 10-11-10 at 05:14 PM.
#70
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: in bed with your mom
Posts: 13,696
Bikes: who cares?
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
One thought is that some people don't like the change in status quo and will set up a website to fight initiatives like the mayor has brought forth.
ROADJUSTICE.CA
ABOUT US
We are concerned citizens who have organized into a non-profit non-partisan coalition to have a fair voice for increased justice on our roads.
We feel that it`s time to end unmitigated taxpayer funded lobby organizations such as Vancouver Area Cycling Coalition who are receiving taxpayers dollars to lobby our elected officials causing removal of valuable road space from motor vehicle use.
OUR STATEMENT
We stand for Justice on Our Roads.
We support bike lanes, but not by taking away motor vehicle space of the road.
Motor Vehicle drivers pay insurance, licensing fees, air care, 35% parking tax, property tax, income tax, and gas tax and are getting no improvements in return. No new roads, no safer and more affordable parking spaces, no less time spent idling in traffic jams causing pollution.
Bike riders pay NO gas tax, pay NO insurance, pay NO license fees, and get new bike lanes, more parking spaces, get to block traffic with their Critical Mass protests, break traffic laws and hit other cars without licenses and insurance for mitigation.
Where is the justice in that?
I wonder if the individual or group responsible for this site is the same one(s) responsible for hacking into the VACCs site and shutting it down for a day just before the vote on the lane?
ROADJUSTICE.CA
ABOUT US
We are concerned citizens who have organized into a non-profit non-partisan coalition to have a fair voice for increased justice on our roads.
We feel that it`s time to end unmitigated taxpayer funded lobby organizations such as Vancouver Area Cycling Coalition who are receiving taxpayers dollars to lobby our elected officials causing removal of valuable road space from motor vehicle use.
OUR STATEMENT
We stand for Justice on Our Roads.
We support bike lanes, but not by taking away motor vehicle space of the road.
Motor Vehicle drivers pay insurance, licensing fees, air care, 35% parking tax, property tax, income tax, and gas tax and are getting no improvements in return. No new roads, no safer and more affordable parking spaces, no less time spent idling in traffic jams causing pollution.
Bike riders pay NO gas tax, pay NO insurance, pay NO license fees, and get new bike lanes, more parking spaces, get to block traffic with their Critical Mass protests, break traffic laws and hit other cars without licenses and insurance for mitigation.
Where is the justice in that?
I wonder if the individual or group responsible for this site is the same one(s) responsible for hacking into the VACCs site and shutting it down for a day just before the vote on the lane?
#71
Godfather of Soul
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 1,517
Bikes: 2002 Litespeed Vortex, 2010 Specialized Tricross Expert,2008 Gary Fischer Hi Fi Carbon, 2002 Specialized S-Works hard tail, 1990 Kestrel KM 40
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
One thought is that some people don't like the change in status quo and will set up a website to fight initiatives like the mayor has brought forth.
ROADJUSTICE.CA
ABOUT US
We are concerned citizens who have organized into a non-profit non-partisan coalition to have a fair voice for increased justice on our roads.
We feel that it`s time to end unmitigated taxpayer funded lobby organizations such as Vancouver Area Cycling Coalition who are receiving taxpayers dollars to lobby our elected officials causing removal of valuable road space from motor vehicle use.
OUR STATEMENT
We stand for Justice on Our Roads.
We support bike lanes, but not by taking away motor vehicle space of the road.
Motor Vehicle drivers pay insurance, licensing fees, air care, 35% parking tax, property tax, income tax, and gas tax and are getting no improvements in return. No new roads, no safer and more affordable parking spaces, no less time spent idling in traffic jams causing pollution.
Bike riders pay NO gas tax, pay NO insurance, pay NO license fees, and get new bike lanes, more parking spaces, get to block traffic with their Critical Mass protests, break traffic laws and hit other cars without licenses and insurance for mitigation.
Where is the justice in that?
I wonder if the individual or group responsible for this site is the same one(s) responsible for hacking into the VACCs site and shutting it down for a day just before the vote on the lane?
ROADJUSTICE.CA
ABOUT US
We are concerned citizens who have organized into a non-profit non-partisan coalition to have a fair voice for increased justice on our roads.
We feel that it`s time to end unmitigated taxpayer funded lobby organizations such as Vancouver Area Cycling Coalition who are receiving taxpayers dollars to lobby our elected officials causing removal of valuable road space from motor vehicle use.
OUR STATEMENT
We stand for Justice on Our Roads.
We support bike lanes, but not by taking away motor vehicle space of the road.
Motor Vehicle drivers pay insurance, licensing fees, air care, 35% parking tax, property tax, income tax, and gas tax and are getting no improvements in return. No new roads, no safer and more affordable parking spaces, no less time spent idling in traffic jams causing pollution.
Bike riders pay NO gas tax, pay NO insurance, pay NO license fees, and get new bike lanes, more parking spaces, get to block traffic with their Critical Mass protests, break traffic laws and hit other cars without licenses and insurance for mitigation.
Where is the justice in that?
I wonder if the individual or group responsible for this site is the same one(s) responsible for hacking into the VACCs site and shutting it down for a day just before the vote on the lane?
#73
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Minneapolis
Posts: 2,470
Bikes: -1973 Motobecane Mirage -197? Velosolex L'Etoile -'71 Raleigh Super Course
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times
in
2 Posts
Groups like this make me very happy that bicycles are recognised by the UN, the Federal Gubbimint, and every State Gubbimint as "vehicles." And as such, bicycles are entitled to a full lane in every state in the Union. With all the rights, and all the prvileges, and all the responsibilites incumbent inherent. I can live with riding responsibly-- I do it every day, all the time. I don't see cagers doing the same. I DO see cagers acting like spoiled brats when they think their ascendence is going to be taken from them by Gubbimint fiat.
#74
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Bay Area, Calif.
Posts: 7,239
Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 659 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 7 Times
in
6 Posts
And I think you'll find restrictions on that entitlement to a full lane in most jurisdictions.
#75
Senior Member
Thread Starter
I'm sure they won't make much of an impact, but there are loonies in the world, so some will be drawn to it.