genec

John of course fails here as I was specifically referring to his logic as being at fault, NOT the rules of the road.

John Forester

Genec and I appear to agree, in conjunction with the traffic-engineering profession, on the logical proposition that if all drivers obeyed the rules of the road we would have very few collisions. Genec claims that vehicular cycling is based on the presumption that all drivers do obey these rules, and that therefore my logic is faulty because drivers make some mistakes. Genec's claim that I believe that traffic always obeys the rules of the road is just plain preposterous. There are sections of my writings that discuss how to avoid motorists' errors, and my retort to Genec in the immediately prior posting disproves that in a way that he should have understood. Here's what I told him: "What would you rather have, the degree of order that now exists or total anarchy?" The phrase "the degree of order that now exists" is an open admission that we do not have the ideal degree of order without mistakes.

genec

The solution John is more order. Sorting human powered vehicles away from high speed motor driven vehicles piloted by people that do not understand their responsibilities is a system that is "out of order," and the basis for this whole thread.

If on the other hand we had some method of ensuring that all road users were "in order," then indeed we would not face the chaos outlined by the OP of this thread.

hagen2456

You have absolutely no sense of language. Or you are a demagogue.

It was obvious to me what Genec meant. I believe it would be so to any person who is not obsessed. But not to you - or so you claim.

Mr. Forester, your spin was bordering on the insane. Please do yourself the favour of inspecting it closely yourself. If not for your own sake, then for the sake of this discussion not becoming absurd.

John Forester

The trouble with Genec's proposal is that "sorting human powered vehicles away from high speed motor driven vehicles", as implemented under the American system, produces a greater degree of disorder instead of greater order. That has been demonstrated for forty years.

Genec's description of American motorists as people who do not understand their responsibilities could refer to anything, such as their responsibilities to other motorists. However, Genec has used this description before in referring to the confused notion that is produced by that particular bit of American traffic law that refers to cyclists' position on the roadway, the far to the right (FTR) law. The basic traffic law for cyclists has always been that they have the rights and duties of drivers of vehicles. However, the FTR law denies that cyclists have the normal right of drivers of vehicles to use the roadway, making them second-class roadway users subservient to motorists, but then grudgingly gives back some rights, provided that in each case the cyclist, if challenged, must prove that one of the exceptions applies to his case. The FTR law started about 1940 and in 1976 was modified with more exceptions, exceptions introduced to preserve the principle that cyclists were second-class roadway users against the attack that the law required dangerous movements.

Of course, nobody understands this system of bicycle traffic law. Cyclists are drivers of vehicles, but they don't have the rights of drivers of vehicles, but, maybe, in some circumstances that must be proved, they do have some rights. The California government committee writing of this law in 1975 stated: "Testimony presented to the Committee indicates that this section has caused more confusion and frustration among motorists, bicyclists and law enforcement agencies than any other section in the California Vehicle Code. It is apparent that interpretation and enforcement of this section by local police agencies is not uniform throughout the State."

This section exists purely because it makes people believe that cyclists are second-class roadway users whose prime legal duty is to stay out of the way of motorists, which is exactly the kind of discrimination that motorists like to exercise. That discriminatory purpose demonstrates exactly why such a law should not exist in any nation that states that it promotes bicycle transportation, as the American government says it does. The way to start regaining order with respect to bicycle transportation is to repeal such laws wherever they exist.

John Forester

Originally Posted by John Forester This is the statement by genec to which we both refer:
Originally Posted by genec
It is a mindset locked into a logic circle... He is absolutely right, if everyone obeyed the rules of the road and the laws, there would be no collisions.

The problem is that reality rears it's ugly head and the fact is people don't know the laws and the laws they do know they tend to bend... then all the straight forward logic falls by the wayside... and the result is what we have. In this imperfect world, something other than laws has to come to the forefront... and he fails to acknowledge this. His supporters tend to also think this way... while turning a blind eye to reality. It is the thinking of the computer programmer, that knows the machine will follow code infallibly.. unfortunately as soon as you throw live humans into the mix, everything goes haywire.

I used to test CAD software for this one large ECAD company... their programmers demonstrated the same sort of thinking... they would give us scripts to enact as tasks... and yes, the software would work wonderfully as long as one held to the script... but as soon as one wanted to deviate from the script (as changes do occur in real life) and the user tried to use the software in a manner other than that which was scripted, the software would fall apart. John just keeps playing the script... and taking the position of the programmer... without any sight of reality.

John is also right in that as humans, neither the cyclist nor the motorist has any real priority (or rights) to use the road above the other... buy try to tell that to a motorist who has just harnessed 200 HP, that the 1/3 horsepower human is his equal.
================
As you can read, all of Genec's first statement is about the rules of the road. There is nothing about facilities. Therefore, his complaint that I have changed the subject, "the worst case of spin I have ever seen", is erroneous.


Please, Mr. Hagen, provide for us your interpretation of Genec's meaning, an interpretation that, so you claim, does not refer to the operation of the rules of the road.

Bekologist

spoken like utterances from the Ministry of Truth

genec

John again expresses his biases in his statement " "sorting human powered vehicles away from high speed motor driven vehicles", as implemented under the American system, produces a greater degree of disorder..."

But of course John steers the reader in a wayward direction by specifying... "under the American system."

Meanwhile the "American system" is changing and is adopting examples of "the European system" (for lack of a better term) which has been found to be quite satisfactory and has been working for over 40 years.

There are fine examples of these changes in many cities in the US... from Davis, to Portland, to even NYC.

Nowhere in the world has the "American System" been found to encourage cycling.

TheHen

I don't expect instant perfection or even a reasonable rate of total accommodation. However, there are some interesting aspects to the Davis implementation (most of which is forty years old) that I don't think anyone can really support. The main bike path that serves the west end of town has both an intersection that cyclists must yield to motorists who will be overtaking them and turning across their path (an eastbound cyclist must yield to an overtaking eastbound motorist who turns south) and an intersection where the bike path must yield to a parking lot (one mile west of hwy113 on hwy128). These sort of intersection failures are why a lot of us long-time cyclists aren't exactly thrilled with what is happening with cycling infrastructure. And yes, there are many other failures in Davis and I do have friends who have been injured while riding at those locations.

I guess what I am saying is that too many implementations of separated bike facilities fail to solve the intersection problem. I don't want to have to puzzle out what each jurisdiction has done that is exceptional, and perhaps creates unanticipated dangers, every time I travel to a new location on my bike. Who expects to have to yield to overtaking traffic? Who expects to yield to a driveway? It just adds to the chaos when poor bike infrastructure is created, in my opinion. I certainly hope Europe has a much more standardized infrastructure system than what has been happening here.

genec

I have not been everywhere in Europe, nor everywhere in the US... but what I have seen is just as disjointed as the road systems... The roads in the west in the US hardly resemble those in the east... as an example, cyclists in Mass. are not permitted to use roads with 50MPH speed limits, whereas it is quite common for cyclists in the west to have no choice but to use such high speed roads and even interstate freeways to make connections.

By the same token, the bike path system in Oulo Finland would make any cyclist green with envy as their system features paths that cross streets under the road way. Spanish bike lanes in Barcelona feature intersections that are corner cut to improve cyclist visibility to crossing traffic; Barcelona also has protected bike paths throughout the city... set up between parked cars and the sidewalks. Paris features bike lanes and bicycle specific traffic lights.

I have not yet been to Copenhagen, nor to Amsterdam, so I cannot directly speak about their systems.

With regard to Davis, admittedly I was rather disappointed in the "park-like" paths implemented throughout the city, but frankly I find that highly preferable to "sharing the road" on 50MPH and 65MPH arterial roads as I do here in San Diego.

The one thing I noticed in Finland was that motorists yielded to cyclists... (I actually tried to get hit) whereas in the US, you are lucky if a right turning motorist yields to a pedestrian, much less a cyclist... and heaven forbid if you as a cyclist expect to take your proper turn at a stop sign.

To sum up... to say that any country has a uniform system is a joke... but certainly where the automobile is given carte blanche, the bicycle does not fare all that well.

John Forester

It is not "bias" to specify, when discussing cycling in an American group, most of whose participants are American, that one is discussing American cycling. It is necessary to so specify to prevent people such as Genec from disputing facts because things are different in Finland, which is exactly what he does herein. Genec apparently believes that "there are fine examples of the European system in many cities in the US ... from Davis, to Portland, to even NYC. I have followed these developments as carefully as I can, and information is now easier to get than it was, and I find no examples "of the European system".

Genec states quite accurately that "Nowhere in the world has the 'American System' been found to encourage cycling." Of course it hasn't. It was designed by motorists to push cyclists aside for the convenience of motorists. That is why I have always worked against it, trying to allow cyclists to regain their lost rights to operate as legitimate drivers of vehicles instead of under the inferior class of cyclist that American traffic law tries very hard to impose. But that's been mostly a losing battle, because motorists, bicycle advocates, and environmentalists all want to keep cyclists inferior to motorists.

hagen2456

You know, my guess is that Genec, when speaking of "the American System" meant the tradition of seeing bicycles as vehicles on a par with cars, lorries etc., and only implementing bike infrastructure scattered here and there on a whim. You know: a system which sane people would call "discrimination", as it doesn't allow for the basic differences between motorized vehicles and human powered - bikes.

Bekologist

yes, expecting people on bikes to feel comfortable in the midst of fast, heavy traffic is truly where the disenfranchisement of the american bicyclist lies.

its hardly an equitable system of planning for bike traffic. what a vacuous, misleading position on bicycling.

Its common knowledge some have fought tooth and nail to keep bike traffic marginalized in america thru blocking and obstructing better planning for bikes in the transportation mix.

none of which is here nor there in discussing a motorist harassing kids on bikes, which could have easily have occurred in Arkansas, North Carolina or other states that statutorily treat bikes identical to other vehicles..

John Forester

I am the person who introduced the phrase "the American system" to refer to the "sorting" of types of vehicles, which, in America, is produced by two means: treating cyclists as second-class, not really legitimate, roadway users whose duty is to stay out of the way of motorists, and by American bikeways which were designed to implement this discrimination by shoving cyclists out of the way wherever motorists wish. The idea that cyclists were equal to motorists ceased being an American policy about 1940. One cannot consider equality of status to be an American tradition.

genec

Isn't amazing... apparently you can read and comprehend my writing just fine, yet John Forester wants to twist the words this way and that... I am really starting to wonder about his reading comprehension... as too are others...

John Forester

Not quite. Genec shows that he twisted my words regarding "the American system" of traffic law and bikeways into something contrary to what I wrote. So did Hagen, for that matter.

The American system of traffic law and bikeways is that cyclists are incapable of obeying the rules of the road and should therefore be shoved aside for the convenience of motorists.

DX-MAN

bump

hagen2456

Allow me to quote Bekologist: "none of which is here nor there in discussing a motorist harassing kids on bikes, which could have easily have occurred in Arkansas, North Carolina or other states that statutorily treat bikes identical to other vehicles..."

John Forester

Certainly it could, because this kind of harassment is justified by the belief that cyclists are not legitimate roadway users, just kind of second-class trespassers. The traffic laws of almost all American states specifically express this attitude, and therefore provide the legal and moral justification for it. The fact that the traffic laws of a very few American states don't specifically express this attitude makes no difference to the general public attitude throughout America. The attitude is wrong, making it important to remove the legal justification for it by repealing the anti-cyclist discriminatory traffic laws.

genec

The "American system" exists as folks like John Forester have insisted on telling legislators that cyclists can just share the road with motorists... the result is that cyclists have little choice but to find themselves on high speed arterial roads with nothing more than an occasional "share the road" sign or perhaps a line of paint. The American system is the history of the automobile pushing aside such things as horse drawn carriages, bicycles, trolleys, and even buses to the point that it becomes hard for the average American to envision "transportation" as anything but the single occupant privately owned motor vehicle.

John wants us to focus on merely bikeways as the "American system" and to assume that bikeways are discriminatory and lawless refuges for "incompetent" cyclists who would fumble and harm themselves in greater numbers and in more severe manner than if those cyclists had shared the roads with high speed automobiles.

The American system discourages people from using anything but the private automobile by making public transportation inconvenient to use and by discouraging the use of bicycles by emphasizing speed and flow rather than safety in the design of roadways.

genec

If in fact there are states that do not have "restrictive laws" as you imply, and the attitude of the motorists in those states is no different from that of other states, this exemplifies that the laws alone do not set the attitude... and I continue to maintain that the attitude of motorists toward cyclists is not based on the laws alone, but ignorance of the rights of cyclists, and the design of the roadways that discourages the use of anything but motorized vehicles.

Bekologist

Noted cyclotourist Russ Roca recently getting attacked in New Zealand -whose laws do not treat bicycle traffic differently - for riding assertively and courteously on a two lane each direction roadway blows johns 'american' theory about angry drivers right out of the water.

I'm confident motorist harassment of bicyclists occurs in Great Britain.

Some motorists endangering and harassing bicyclists is going to occur regardless of local traffic laws.

How could the issue in Carmel be countered?

GREATER legal protections for bicyclists, better bikeway planning, better safe routes to school programming, education of motorists, not a lack of these countermeasures.

John Forester

Bek, anecdotes do not constitute evidence. Outrages occur throughout the societies of the world. Evidence would concern such matters as rate and cause.

I've long concluded that American bicycle advocacy creates, or requires, strange methods of thought. So here are all you bicycle advocates going to considerable lengths to defend the American policy of legally discriminating against cyclists in favor of motorists.

genec

John, a system for cyclists need not be discriminating, it could actually be superior. And regardless of whether any "system" is built or not, motorists WILL discriminate against anything using the(ir) road that is slower and perceived to be "in the way."

hagen2456

As has been demonstrated in many places, even London with their crappy facilities, just about any kind of system for cyclists is "superior" in the sense that it increases cycling and decreases fatalities. It's counter-intuitive, I know.

That Dutch bikeways are indeed superior to the car roads is a matter of plain fact. The death toll of cyclists is way below that of drivers. I personally find it a little sad that car driving should be thus discriminated, but you know:you win some, you lose some