That's not what you stated. If that's the context you wanted, that's the context you should have stated.Originally Posted by John Forester
It wasn't a rebuttal to anything. It was a comment.I had remarked that in the days of the high wheeler, articles in the cycling press urged their members to get off the sidewalks, which were the paved areas and therefore smoother, because riding among pedestrians jeopardized the public acceptance of cycling. To which Blue Order replied: "The high wheeler was dead by the time the bicycle craze of the 1890s hit." That falls rather flat as a rebuttal to my statement, being made either from ignorance or as dissimulation. I know the dates of the high wheeler, and I meant exactly what I wrote. (See Effective Cycling, 6th ed, pgs 421-2 for a discussion of the history of my family in those days) My source for the statement that the cycling press carried articles urging cyclists to get off the sidewalk is a private collection of papers (not owned by me) concerning the early days of the League of American Wheelmen, and that is just one of the items that I remember. However, here is Andrew Ritchie's comment about cycling conditions in the 1870s: "Riders were fined for often trivial reasons, although most of them accepted a fine for footpath riding as an occupational hazard." (King of the Road, pg 84)
Get over yourself. You can't even read, apparently; I never made any such claim.The source for Blue Order's claim that bike lanes were a very early development,
I never said there was a connection. If you think I did, quote me. Or maybe you should throw up a wall of obfuscation, like your disciple does, when his shaky claims fall apart.during the 1890s bicycle craze, for the benefit of cyclists, not a discrimination, is as follows: "Sometimes they [some large cities] paved strips adjacent to the curbs on either side of the street to provide some smooth surfaces ... " (Robert A. Smith, The Social History of the Bicycle, pg 216.) Although at least part of the motive was to get cyclists off the sidewalks, which had a long history, as discussed above. In any case, there is no physical, social, or traffic connection between these long-gone facilities and the bicycle lanes invented by motorists of 1970 to clear the roadways of bicycle traffic for the convenience of motorists, none of whom, most probably, knew of these events of 70 years before. Indeed, I had not remembered Smith's statement from when I read his book many years ago.
NYC revised it's collection of traffic laws into a coherent code in 1897. It's right there in Smith's book, Page 202, if you don't want to take my word for it. I quote:And I rather dispute Blue Order's claim, apparently based on Smith's book, that the traffic law rules of the road started with laws regarding bicycling rather than with Eno's traffic code for New York City of 1903, which, as I reported earlier, is considered by may authorities, including the Institute of Traffic and Transportation Engineers, to be the first traffic code. There is a very great difference between a collection of laws from different places enacted to fix particular problems, such as cycling on the sidewalk, and a well thought out code that is designed to make traffic flow safely and effectively. That was Eno's contribution, and it was a new concept.
Originally Posted by Robert A. Smith