Cycling and bicycle discussion forums. 
   Click here to join our community Log in to access your Control Panel  


Go Back   > > >

Vehicular Cycling (VC) No other subject has polarized the A&S members like VC has. Here's a place to share, debate, and educate.

User Tag List

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 04-25-07, 09:36 PM   #126
John Forester
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Bikes:
Posts: 4,071
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by sbhikes
All this lofty language about one's beliefs and faiths and blah blah blah... What does that do practically, on the ground, to make cycling more accessible to regular people?

I do web development for a living. I can fire up some stupid program like Front Page and whip out a web page and say, with all the confidence I can muster, that because I believe my web site to be superior, because it works perfectly in Internet Explorer (and all those other browsers are too inferior to worry about) and because I have faith that the message I've written on my web page is so important everybody will want to read it, my web page is top notch.

Then the reality sinks in. The code doesn't validate. The accessibility to screen readers and text browsers sucks. Google can't give it a decent page rank because you've got no semantic structure and hardly any meaningful text near the top of the page. In short, your faith and confidence means el-zippo. Nobody is going to find your message, and only a small few who do will be able to read it.

What are you VC zealots doing to improve the user interface out there? Absolutely nothing, that's what!

Most of us regular posters ride plenty VC but we want the environment to improve. We want the motorists to believe in our right to the roads and we want easily-navigable roads.
Your observations about web page development are completely irrelevant to a discussion of proper roadway traffic-cycling technique.
John Forester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-25-07, 09:38 PM   #127
joejack951
Senior Member
 
joejack951's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Wilmington, DE
Bikes: 1984 Trek 660, 2003 Specialized Hardrock, 2004 LOOK KG386i (RIP), 2005 Iron Horse Warrior Expert, 2009 Pedal Force CX1, 2014 Islabikes CNOC 14 (son's)
Posts: 10,189
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 189 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Forester
Very good, joejack951, but it not quite correct to say that "Even John Forester agrees that wider lanes ... " The "Even" is incorrect, for I have been advocating wide outside lanes for thirty years, because that makes sense in the context of obeying the rules of the road.
Good point. I'll make that clearer from now on.
joejack951 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-25-07, 09:39 PM   #128
LCI_Brian
Senior Member
 
LCI_Brian's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: in the hills of Orange, CA
Bikes:
Posts: 1,355
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Ratliff
How in the WORLD did this get to be about bike lanes AGAIN?!

Jesus, people. Is that all that defines a Vehicular Cyclist? I'm starting to think this is the defining issue, the opposition to bike lanes. EVERY discussion ends up being about how you guys are completely against bike lanes.

Let it go, folks.
Can someone start a thread about chocolate and see how many posts it takes to get to bike lanes?
LCI_Brian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-25-07, 09:40 PM   #129
joejack951
Senior Member
 
joejack951's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Wilmington, DE
Bikes: 1984 Trek 660, 2003 Specialized Hardrock, 2004 LOOK KG386i (RIP), 2005 Iron Horse Warrior Expert, 2009 Pedal Force CX1, 2014 Islabikes CNOC 14 (son's)
Posts: 10,189
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 189 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Ratliff
How in the WORLD did this get to be about bike lanes AGAIN?!

Jesus, people. Is that all that defines a Vehicular Cyclist? I'm starting to think this is the defining issue, the opposition to bike lanes. EVERY discussion ends up being about how you guys are completely against bike lanes.

Let it go, folks.
See post #112 for the assertion that bike lanes remove cyclists from traffic. I'm well aware that not every bike lane proponent feels this way but I believe that far too many do.
joejack951 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-25-07, 09:45 PM   #130
Brian Ratliff
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Brian Ratliff's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Near Portland, OR
Bikes: Three road bikes. Two track bikes.
Posts: 10,065
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by joejack951
See post #112 for the assertion that bike lanes remove cyclists from traffic. I'm well aware that not every bike lane proponent feels this way but I believe that far too many do.
And you feel you have to correct such obviously wrong assertions, don't you? Let it go. Let other's have their opinions. If you want to discuss some aspect of bike lanes, get your own thread. It's pretty easy. There's a link at the top of the page that says "Click here to start a new thread."
__________________
Cat 2 Track, Cat 3 Road.
"If you’re new enough [to racing] that you would ask such question, then i would hazard a guess that if you just made up a workout that sounded hard to do, and did it, you’d probably get faster." --the tiniest sprinter
Brian Ratliff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-25-07, 09:55 PM   #131
joejack951
Senior Member
 
joejack951's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Wilmington, DE
Bikes: 1984 Trek 660, 2003 Specialized Hardrock, 2004 LOOK KG386i (RIP), 2005 Iron Horse Warrior Expert, 2009 Pedal Force CX1, 2014 Islabikes CNOC 14 (son's)
Posts: 10,189
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 189 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Ratliff
And you feel you have to correct such obviously wrong assertions, don't you? Let it go. Let other's have their opinions. If you want to discuss some aspect of bike lanes, get your own thread. It's pretty easy. There's a link at the top of the page that says "Click here to start a new thread."
I felt as though it relates to the thread topic. Maybe I should have made my point more clearly and stated that a vehicular cyclist will realize that even when he is riding in the space demarcated by a bike lane that he is still a part of the traffic on the roadway. You seem to agree that it's obviously wrong to believe the opposite which could imply that you feel it is an important distinction to make, right? Could it not be included as a way to distinguish between two cyclists both riding in a bike lane, where one has a vehicular attitude and one does not?
joejack951 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-25-07, 10:14 PM   #132
randya
Senior Member
 
randya's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: in bed with your mom
Bikes: who cares?
Posts: 13,689
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Ratliff
And you feel you have to correct such obviously wrong assertions, don't you? Let it go. Let other's have their opinions. If you want to discuss some aspect of bike lanes, get your own thread. It's pretty easy. There's a link at the top of the page that says "Click here to start a new thread."
Please, we're dying for a poll!!!!

randya is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-25-07, 10:47 PM   #133
Bekologist
totally louche
 
Bekologist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: A land that time forgot
Bikes: the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes
Posts: 18,025
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
i believe i mentioned in post #2 the true believers of CV have to oppose on road bike infrastructure, even if they use them.

I think for guys like head and ol' mossy, it IS all about the bike lanes. they don't want to have more people out riding bikes because of bike infrastructure. they want to keep riding bikes elitist because of their own psychological disorders.

those punters (head, old mossy) suck tailpipe. and neither ride in traffic much!
Bekologist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-25-07, 10:56 PM   #134
Helmet Head
Banned.
 
Helmet Head's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: San Diego
Bikes:
Posts: 13,075
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
DISCLAIMER: THIS POST IS A PARODY (PLEASE DO NOT QUOTE WITHOUT THE DISCLAIMER)

Quote:
Originally Posted by chipcom
I'm sorry that your faith has let you down so badly.
I'm sorry that you're wrong.

(do these types of posts exchanging baseless statemens of pure opinion contribute anything positive to the forum?)

DISCLAIMER: THIS POST IS A PARODY (PLEASE DO NOT QUOTE WITHOUT THE DISCLAIMER)
Helmet Head is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-25-07, 11:01 PM   #135
randya
Senior Member
 
randya's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: in bed with your mom
Bikes: who cares?
Posts: 13,689
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
^^ off your meds again???
randya is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-25-07, 11:09 PM   #136
Brian Ratliff
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Brian Ratliff's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Near Portland, OR
Bikes: Three road bikes. Two track bikes.
Posts: 10,065
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Helmet Head


I'm sorry that you're wrong.

(do these types of posts exchanging baseless statemens of pure opinion contribute anything positive to the forum?)
No, you are wrong.

PS. I do this just to piss him off.
__________________
Cat 2 Track, Cat 3 Road.
"If you’re new enough [to racing] that you would ask such question, then i would hazard a guess that if you just made up a workout that sounded hard to do, and did it, you’d probably get faster." --the tiniest sprinter
Brian Ratliff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-25-07, 11:13 PM   #137
Brian Ratliff
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Brian Ratliff's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Near Portland, OR
Bikes: Three road bikes. Two track bikes.
Posts: 10,065
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by joejack951
I felt as though it relates to the thread topic. Maybe I should have made my point more clearly and stated that a vehicular cyclist will realize that even when he is riding in the space demarcated by a bike lane that he is still a part of the traffic on the roadway. You seem to agree that it's obviously wrong to believe the opposite which could imply that you feel it is an important distinction to make, right? Could it not be included as a way to distinguish between two cyclists both riding in a bike lane, where one has a vehicular attitude and one does not?
First, the "space demarcated by a bike lane" is "the bike lane." To say it like you have it written would be "the space demarcated by a bike lane line." But, I know, a true VC'ist cannot bring himself to admit that the "space demarcated by a bike lane line" is, in fact, a "bike lane." That would be to admit that the bike lane, is *gasp* a lane!

Second, I am not following you. What does a bike lane have to do with being a Vehicular Cyclist?
__________________
Cat 2 Track, Cat 3 Road.
"If you’re new enough [to racing] that you would ask such question, then i would hazard a guess that if you just made up a workout that sounded hard to do, and did it, you’d probably get faster." --the tiniest sprinter
Brian Ratliff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-25-07, 11:30 PM   #138
Helmet Head
Banned.
 
Helmet Head's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: San Diego
Bikes:
Posts: 13,075
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Ratliff
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeJack951
I felt as though it relates to the thread topic. Maybe I should have made my point more clearly and stated that a vehicular cyclist will realize that even when he is riding in the space demarcated by a bike lane that he is still a part of the traffic on the roadway. You seem to agree that it's obviously wrong to believe the opposite which could imply that you feel it is an important distinction to make, right? Could it not be included as a way to distinguish between two cyclists both riding in a bike lane, where one has a vehicular attitude and one does not?
First, the "space demarcated by a bike lane" is "the bike lane." To say it like you have it written would be "the space demarcated by a bike lane line." But, I know, a true VC'ist cannot bring himself to admit that the "space demarcated by a bike lane line" is, in fact, a "bike lane." That would be to admit that the bike lane, is *gasp* a lane!
It's not a "line", Ratliff, it has breadth (4 to 6" wide) and thickness (it's painted). It's a stripe. Sheesh!

Quote:
Second, I am not following you. What does a bike lane have to do with being a Vehicular Cyclist?
Ask and answered:

Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeJack951
See post #112 for the assertion that bike lanes remove cyclists from traffic.
And (from above):
"A vehicular cyclist will realize that even when he is riding in the space demarcated by a bike lane [stripe] that he is still a part of the traffic on the roadway."

JJ argues that recognizing that riding in a bike lane does not separate you from traffic -- that you're just as much a part of traffic as you would be if the bike lane stripe was not there -- is a distinguishing characteristic of a vehicular cyclist. It's part of "what makes a Vehicular Cyclist". Note that your father, for one, has demonstrated that this distinguishing characteristic does not apply to him. And here is what natelutkjohn wrote, which clearly implies that he beliefs bike lanes separate cyclists from motor traffic:

Quote:
Originally Posted by natelutkjohn
Others need to travel from place to place, but not all choose to ride with traffic on fast roads for whatever reason ..., therefore, would it not seem proper to allow them to ride to their destination by means of a segregated/marked path/lane?

Last edited by Helmet Head; 04-25-07 at 11:35 PM.
Helmet Head is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-25-07, 11:47 PM   #139
Bekologist
totally louche
 
Bekologist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: A land that time forgot
Bikes: the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes
Posts: 18,025
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
ho hum. the "vehicular cyclist" that hardly rides his bike pontificates once again.

Last edited by Bekologist; 04-26-07 at 12:05 AM.
Bekologist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-26-07, 01:55 AM   #140
natelutkjohn
Cheesmonger Extraordinair
 
natelutkjohn's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Bikes:
Posts: 417
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Helmet Head
And (from above):
"A vehicular cyclist will realize that even when he is riding in the space demarcated by a bike lane [stripe] that he is still a part of the traffic on the roadway."

JJ argues that recognizing that riding in a bike lane does not separate you from traffic -- that you're just as much a part of traffic as you would be if the bike lane stripe was not there -- is a distinguishing characteristic of a vehicular cyclist. It's part of "what makes a Vehicular Cyclist". Note that your father, for one, has demonstrated that this distinguishing characteristic does not apply to him. And here is what natelutkjohn wrote, which clearly implies that he beliefs bike lanes separate cyclists from motor traffic:
And you imply you don't bicycle much at all, therefore you must not.... I believe they are the same as having a slow lane and a fast lane - much safer to go in the slow lane if you are slow then in the fast lane if you are fast. Also, slow-moving LARGE vehicles tend to be much easier to see with thier flags and occasional signs. A motorist comes over a hill/around a corner/just not paying attention at 45mph and a dude is going 5mph in the center of the lane all VC like and no matter what any of you its say, it is not just as safe as if they were in a "slow" bike lane doing the same speed. Although, yes, he sure has the right to ride in that jane JJ, but he shouldn't have to if he wants to go to work.

As a side note, what about the elderly who like to ride? Many are fit as a fiddle and can handle high speeds, others are not, should they be forced to get off the bike to drive places because they don't have the strength or 100% coordination to fully power a bicycle at safe speeds and super straight lines, fighting headwinds, cross winds etc? A slower lane is much safer then not having one at all - at least give people an option you control freaks.
But wait, why did I ask this question? I keep forgetting that HH, JF and others know whats best for me and the rest of us. THANKS dads!

Last edited by natelutkjohn; 04-26-07 at 02:03 AM.
natelutkjohn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-26-07, 08:31 AM   #141
sbhikes
Dominatrikes
 
sbhikes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Still in Santa Barbara
Bikes: Catrike Pocket, Lightning Thunderbold recumbent, Trek 3000 MTB.
Posts: 4,920
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Another thing that makes one a Vehicular Cyclist(TM) is you have to be blind to anything to the right of certain stripes on the road (but not others). The whole road must simply vanish to the right of certain kinds of stripes.

You have to become incapable of recognizing some roadway markings as being part of the roadway. And you have to be able to convice yourself that the same exact markings on the road are a valid part of the roadway if they aren't associated with bicycles.

You must also have such a severe fear of the rear that you feel a need to ensure evasive manuevers occur with every approaching vehicle before you will yield (of course you'll naturally have to yield anyway, but you like to think you are in control so you learn to fool yourself this way that you're in control and "safe".)

I think these are called deslusional beliefs, using the non-psychiatric definition. So basically, to be VC(TM) (with capital letters) you must have delusions.
sbhikes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-26-07, 10:30 AM   #142
Helmet Head
Banned.
 
Helmet Head's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: San Diego
Bikes:
Posts: 13,075
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by natelutkjohn
I believe they [bike lanes] are the same as having a slow lane and a fast lane - much safer to go in the slow lane if you are slow then in the fast lane if you are fast.
Imagine a road with a slow and fast lane. Now, remove the stripe. Is it any less safe? At first glance it may seem so, but not if you think it through. What actually happens is that all traffic slows down because of the ambiguity caused by the lack of clear demarcated stripes. What stripes do to a road is not make it safer, but make it just as safe at higher speeds. That is, all the bike lane stripe does is allow the cars passing you in the adjacent space to be passing you at a higher speed. Is that a benefit to cyclists?

Same with slow truck lanes. That's not a benefit to the truck drivers. It's a benefit to the drivers of cars who can now pass the slow trucks easier, without having to slow down. I don't see the Teamsters lobbying for more slow truck lanes. It's silly for bike advocates to be lobbying for essentially the same thing for cyclists, particularly in areas with intersections (pretty much any urban or suburban street). We should be encouraging traffic calming measures, like removing bike lane stripes, not adding them.

Quote:
Also, slow-moving LARGE vehicles tend to be much easier to see with thier flags and occasional signs. A motorist comes over a hill/around a corner/just not paying attention at 45mph and a dude is going 5mph in the center of the lane all VC like and no matter what any of you its say, it is not just as safe as if they were in a "slow" bike lane doing the same speed. Although, yes, he sure has the right to ride in that jane JJ, but he shouldn't have to if he wants to go to work.
Yes, this is easy to imagine, but there is no evidence that shows there is any truth to this claim. On my commute is a blind right-hand curve where motorists at 50+ mph are regularly taking the inside track, driving in the bike lane. Evidence for this is:
  1. that part of the bike lane is always noticably cleaner than the rest of it,
  2. the stripe is more worn there
  3. I see it just about any time I drive or bike there.
Never-the-less, when there is a bike in the bike lane, they always see him and move left (I watch them do this in my mirror regularly) just as they would if the stripe were not there.

Quote:
As a side note, what about the elderly who like to ride? Many are fit as a fiddle and can handle high speeds, others are not, should they be forced to get off the bike to drive places because they don't have the strength or 100% coordination to fully power a bicycle at safe speeds and super straight lines, fighting headwinds, cross winds etc? A slower lane is much safer then not having one at all - at least give people an option you control freaks.
But wait, why did I ask this question? I keep forgetting that HH, JF and others know whats best for me and the rest of us. THANKS dads!
Your question is based on the assumption that "a slower lane is much safer than not having one at all", the very issue we are debating. That's called "putting the cart before the horse", and is a common logical fallacy.

I just explained the reasons I believe this assumption is not true. Do you accept these reasons, or not? If not, what are your reasons? (assuming your position is based in reason, pardon me if it isn't, in which case we have nothing to discuss).
Helmet Head is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-26-07, 10:32 AM   #143
Bekologist
totally louche
 
Bekologist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: A land that time forgot
Bikes: the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes
Posts: 18,025
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
lets remember, everybody, that vehicular cyclists can and do use bike lanes, all over the country, to ride vehicularily on roads.
Bekologist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-26-07, 10:34 AM   #144
Bekologist
totally louche
 
Bekologist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: A land that time forgot
Bikes: the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes
Posts: 18,025
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
why do all the threads degenerate into a noobie telling all the other riders on this forum how flawed road engineering design is if it includes a bike lane?

what is up with a team fred weekender dissing on other, much more vehicular cyclists' points of view on this forum?
Bekologist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-26-07, 10:45 AM   #145
John Forester
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Bikes:
Posts: 4,071
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Ratliff
First, the "space demarcated by a bike lane" is "the bike lane." To say it like you have it written would be "the space demarcated by a bike lane line." But, I know, a true VC'ist cannot bring himself to admit that the "space demarcated by a bike lane line" is, in fact, a "bike lane." That would be to admit that the bike lane, is *gasp* a lane!
That's nothing but semantic foolishness. Nobody suggests that a bike lane is not a lane. It is the repeated appearance of such foolishness that demonstrates the lack of intellectual basis for "bicycle advocacy", put deliberately in quotes because it is not advocacy for cyclists.
John Forester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-26-07, 10:47 AM   #146
Bekologist
totally louche
 
Bekologist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: A land that time forgot
Bikes: the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes
Posts: 18,025
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
so you agree, mossy? why belittle a point you agree with?
Bekologist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-26-07, 10:48 AM   #147
BLIZZ
Senior Member
 
BLIZZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Missouri
Bikes: Scott CR1-Gary Fisher Sugar-Litespeed Ultimate
Posts: 336
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Helmet Head
Imagine a road with a slow and fast lane. Now, remove the stripe. Is it any less safe? At first glance it may seem so, but not if you think it through. What actually happens is that all traffic slows down because of the ambiguity caused by the lack of clear demarcated stripes. What stripes do to a road is not make it safer, but make it just as safe at higher speeds. That is, all the bike lane stripe does is allow the cars passing you in the adjacent space to be passing you at a higher speed. Is that a benefit to cyclists?
In the winter time when the snow removes the lines from visibility {at least in my area of the country**, traffic doesn't move more efficiently.
When drivers are left to their own ideas of were the lines in the road should be, they come up with all kinds of different ideas. Some drive in the middle, where the line is between two same direction lanes. Some are right on the curb, and some take some of the space dedicated to oncomming traffic!
Drivers seem to need a bit of a visual indication of where they should place their car. This can be complicated by the fact that a lot of people don't have any indea where the corners of their car are.{they pass you much closer than they think sometimes**.
BLIZZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-26-07, 10:52 AM   #148
Helmet Head
Banned.
 
Helmet Head's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: San Diego
Bikes:
Posts: 13,075
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Forester
That's nothing but semantic foolishness. Nobody suggests that a bike lane is not a lane. It is the repeated appearance of such foolishness that demonstrates the lack of intellectual basis for "bicycle advocacy", put deliberately in quotes because it is not advocacy for cyclists.
To be fair, I have argued that a bike "lane" is not treated by drivers or traffic engineers as a real "lane", but, rather, more like a shoulder. I suspect this might be what Ratliff the younger was referring to.
Helmet Head is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-26-07, 10:55 AM   #149
John Forester
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Bikes:
Posts: 4,071
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bekologist
i believe i mentioned in post #2 the true believers of CV have to oppose on road bike infrastructure, even if they use them.

I think for guys like head and ol' mossy, it IS all about the bike lanes. they don't want to have more people out riding bikes because of bike infrastructure. they want to keep riding bikes elitist because of their own psychological disorders.

those punters (head, old mossy) suck tailpipe. and neither ride in traffic much!
Falsehoods from beginning to end, falsehoods that have been corrected so many times that repeating them has now degenerated into telling lies to suit your ideology. There's nothing elitist about cycling in accordance with the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles. Therefor, there is nothing elitist in opposing the views and programs that are opposed to cycling properly. We do not wish to limit cycling to some elitist few; all that we wish is that more cyclists rode properly and safely, and that society supported such operation instead of opposing it.
John Forester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-26-07, 11:01 AM   #150
natelutkjohn
Cheesmonger Extraordinair
 
natelutkjohn's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Bikes:
Posts: 417
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Helmet Head
Imagine a road with a slow and fast lane. Now, remove the stripe. Is it any less safe? At first glance it may seem so, but not if you think it through. What actually happens is that all traffic slows down because of the ambiguity caused by the lack of clear demarcated stripes. What stripes do to a road is not make it safer, but make it just as safe at higher speeds. That is, all the bike lane stripe does is allow the cars passing you in the adjacent space to be passing you at a higher speed. Is that a benefit to cyclists?

Same with slow truck lanes. That's not a benefit to the truck drivers. It's a benefit to the drivers of cars who can now pass the slow trucks easier, without having to slow down. I don't see the Teamsters lobbying for more slow truck lanes. It's silly for bike advocates to be lobbying for essentially the same thing for cyclists, particularly in areas with intersections (pretty much any urban or suburban street). We should be encouraging traffic calming measures, like removing bike lane stripes, not adding them.


Yes, this is easy to imagine, but there is no evidence that shows there is any truth to this claim. On my commute is a blind right-hand curve where motorists at 50+ mph are regularly taking the inside track, driving in the bike lane. Evidence for this is:
  1. that part of the bike lane is always noticably cleaner than the rest of it,
  2. the stripe is more worn there
  3. I see it just about any time I drive or bike there.
Never-the-less, when there is a bike in the bike lane, they always see him and move left (I watch them do this in my mirror regularly) just as they would if the stripe were not there.


Your question is based on the assumption that "a slower lane is much safer than not having one at all", the very issue we are debating. That's called "putting the cart before the horse", and is a common logical fallacy.

I just explained the reasons I believe this assumption is not true. Do you accept these reasons, or not? If not, what are your reasons? (assuming your position is based in reason, pardon me if it isn't, in which case we have nothing to discuss).

There really is nothing to discuss with a hard head like you. I should have just stopped long ago man. I don't have the time to pick your asinine posts apart and then re-quote every part with a reply that has nothing to do with what was said, just so you can get an unrelated point across to your peanut gallery acolytes.
natelutkjohn is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:32 PM.