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.

View Poll Results: can vehicular cyclists advocate for bike specific infrastructure and enhancements?
YES. 20 80.00%
NO. 0 0%
Chocolate. 9 36.00%
why? I drive most of the time. 2 8.00%
Multiple Choice Poll. Voters: 25. You may not vote on this poll

User Tag List

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 04-26-07, 02:49 PM   #26
noisebeam
Al
 
noisebeam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: AZ
Bikes: Cannondale SuperSix, Lemond Poprad. Retired: Jamis Sputnik, Centurion LeMans Fixed, Diamond Back ascent ex
Posts: 14,112
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 379 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Ratliff
BTW, noisebeam, you do realize that if you ride, say 6" to the right of the bike lane line, and the line is 8" wide, you are not actually impinging on the adjacent lane, right? A cyclist is roughly 2" wide, take half of that is 12", 6"+8"=14" means that you are not intruding into the adjacent lane by 2".
It does make me happy to know that a truck driver who stays within their lane could pass me with 2" of clearance. Much better than being hit.

Or do motorists also get this 8" of extra lane allowance? Are they legally riding within their lane if the mirror of the vehicle they are piloting hangs 6" into the 8" stripe, or do cyclists get a special exception?

Al
noisebeam is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-26-07, 03:05 PM   #27
Brian Ratliff
Senior Member
 
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 noisebeam
It does make me happy to know that a truck driver who stays within their lane could pass me with 2" of clearance. Much better than being hit.

Or do motorists also get this 8" of extra lane allowance? Are they legally riding within their lane if the mirror of the vehicle they are piloting hangs 6" into the 8" stripe, or do cyclists get a special exception?

Al
Again, in practice, this hasn't been a problem - vehicles aren't as wide as the lane and all pass without difficulties to themselves or to me. I'm not understanding your perspective. Has this been a problem for you in practice?

I suspect you are generating these arguments just to be argumentative.
__________________
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 04-26-07, 03:47 PM   #28
noisebeam
Al
 
noisebeam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: AZ
Bikes: Cannondale SuperSix, Lemond Poprad. Retired: Jamis Sputnik, Centurion LeMans Fixed, Diamond Back ascent ex
Posts: 14,112
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 379 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Ratliff
Has this been a problem for you in practice?
It hasn't as I generally get out of the right or BL when traveling thru major ntersections where this debris accumulates.

I do see vehicles passing just outside the BL as in this photo. That would be 2" of clearance if the cyclist was riding 1' inside stripe.

Al
Attached Images
File Type: jpg 060426-AMtp0002c.jpg (46.3 KB, 3 views)
noisebeam is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-26-07, 03:57 PM   #29
Brian Ratliff
Senior Member
 
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 noisebeam
It hasn't as I generally get out of the right or BL when traveling thru major ntersections where this debris accumulates.

I do see vehicles passing just outside the BL as in this photo. That would be 2" of clearance if the cyclist was riding 1' inside stripe.

Al
It's not like everything is static out there or anything, or that drivers don't move when presented with this situation. Again, it hasn't been a problem, so I don't know what else to say.
__________________
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 04-26-07, 09:07 PM   #30
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)
That's just silly, Al. If you were riding one inch from the line, the traffic would move over to pass you. I see this all the time when I ride my trike, which often doesn't fit in narrower bike lanes. I frequently have to ride with one wheel slightly over the line. The cars and trucks just move over.

For crying out loud, traffic isn't like a speeding train on a track.
sbhikes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-26-07, 10:20 PM   #31
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 John Forester
What an utterly foolish question. All kinds of people can, and do, advocate the most absurd agendas. That says nothing one way or the other.

It looks to me as though Bekelogist (didn't he start this?) is up to his old tricks of trying to make arguments based on semantic wordplay rather than on facts and reason.
We all learned it from Helmet Head.

randya is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-26-07, 11:03 PM   #32
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 randya
We all learned it from Helmet Head.

Sadly, many of you cannot differentiate a genuine effort to convey meaning versus disingenuous semantic wordplay (a Chipcom speciality, whose technique is insidious while Bek's is much more harmless due to its transparency).

For example, Chip posted this today:

Quote:
Originally Posted by chipcom
IMO, if one feels the need to emulate an automobile while on a bicycle, I'm thinking it is they who have the issues and not those of us who are quite secure with the fact our bicycle is is a bicycle.
Discussion of "cyclist inferiority syndrome"

The fact that Chipcom knows that no one on this forum has ever expressed a "need to emulate an automobile while on a bicycle", and in fact this misconception has been corrected countless times, does not prevent him from shamelessly throwing it out there. These tactics are really harmful to reasonable and respectful discourse on this forum.

For the umpteenth time, it was corrected today as well, this time by Steve:

Quote:
Originally Posted by sggoodri
This is why I often reiterate that vehicular cycling does not mean that one treats the bicycle as an automobile; it means that one treats the bicycle as a vehicle.

Cyclists fare best when bicyclists, traffic engineers, and other drivers understand that the kinematics, dynamics and the perceptual, cognitive, and reactive abilities of a bicyclist on a bicycle have very much in common with that of drivers of other vehicles. Certainly one should observe that they have different masses, widths, and maximum top speeds, but these parameters do not generally override the other operational aspects, particularly on normal, typical streets.

Last edited by Helmet Head; 04-26-07 at 11:10 PM.
Helmet Head is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-26-07, 11:10 PM   #33
wethepeople
Long haired freak.
 
wethepeople's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Still stuck in hell.
Bikes: 2011 SE Old Man Flyer.
Posts: 6,281
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Bike lanes are the cause of global warming!
__________________

"the bus came by and I got on, that's when it all began...there was Cowboy Neal at the wheel of a bus to never-ever land."

wethepeople is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-26-07, 11:20 PM   #34
pj7
On Sabbatical
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Bikes:
Posts: 1,543
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Helmet Head
Sadly, many of you cannot differentiate a genuine effort to convey meaning versus disingenuous semantic wordplay (a Chipcom speciality, whose technique is insidious while Bek's is much more harmless due to its transparency).

For example, Chip posted this today:


Discussion of "cyclist inferiority syndrome"

The fact that Chipcom knows that no one on this forum has ever expressed a "need to emulate an automobile while on a bicycle", and in fact this misconception has been corrected countless times, does not prevent him from shamelessly throwing it out there. These tactics are really harmful to reasonable and respectful discourse on this forum.

For the umpteenth time, it was corrected today as well, this time by Steve:
And it's not possible that he meant "vehicle", after all, to everyone else in the world the two words are almost synonymous. also, the post he replied to used "autos" alot, so isn't it also likely that he possibly had the word "auto" in his head when he made that post? C'mon now, you know it's possible.

Spell SPOT out loud 4 times real fast.
Now tell me, what do you do when you come to a green light?
Most people answer "stop" to this question because it has been impressed upon them right before asked.

For someone so quick to make psychological assessments of others you sure missed this basic concept of psychology.
pj7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-26-07, 11:24 PM   #35
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 pj7
And it's not possible that he meant "vehicle", after all, to everyone else in the world the two words are almost synonymous. also, the post he replied to used "autos" alot, so isn't it also likely that he possibly had the word "auto" in his head when he made that post? C'mon now, you know it's possible.

Spell SPOT out loud 4 times real fast.
Now tell me, what do you do when you come to a green light?
Most people answer "stop" to this question because it has been impressed upon them right before asked.

For someone so quick to make psychological assessments of others you sure missed this basic concept of psychology.
Chip knows better. He knew exactly what he was doing. He even used "automobile" instead of "car".
He's very devious. Remember, he's a politician at heart. Beware.

Forester and I clearly are not.
Helmet Head is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-26-07, 11:30 PM   #36
pj7
On Sabbatical
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Bikes:
Posts: 1,543
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Helmet Head
Chip knows better. He knew exactly what he was doing. He even used "automobile" instead of "car".
He's very devious. Remember, he's a politician at heart. Beware.

Forester and I clearly are not.
Clearly not what? Politicians at heart? You must be joking.
And your post exemplifies my quote about making psychological judgements about others.
Where did you and JF get your psychological certifications again?
pj7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-07, 07:45 AM   #37
sggoodri
Senior Member
 
sggoodri's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Cary, NC
Bikes: 1983 Trek, 2001 Lemond, 2000 Gary Fisher
Posts: 3,073
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by pj7
Clearly not what? Politicians at heart? You must be joking.
I used to consider my facilities advocacy as just promotion of good engineering, until a reporter who was interviewing me pointed out that it was really politics due to the existence of controversy and the involvement of government.

A lot of us on this list are playing politics - on and off list. Some of us test our arguments on-list before using them off-list, with the local government and public. And some people just like to argue, politicians or not.

I see a number of people on this list argue both sides of the vehicular cycling controversy, trying to push people toward what they consider a moderate, practical view. They have different ideas of what moderate is, however, and so they may not completely agree among themselves. But I think of moderation advocacy as a political aim just as much as promoting extremes. Also, it is possible to adopt a principled and practical position that happens to align with a so-called moderate view.

I sometimes take more "extreme" principled positions when it suits the political context. When I get involved in advocacy with other cyclists, and we are trying to effect change, we may play good cop, bad cop. I often get to take turns. For instance, when dealing with Clear Channel Radio, I played good cop, and let the protesters calling into the station and scaring away their sponsors play bad cop. When dealing with NCDOT, I often play bad cop, and let the local bike/ped planners play good cop.

Bad cop is more fun from a distance. Good cop is more pleasant in person.

Last edited by sggoodri; 04-27-07 at 07:57 AM.
sggoodri is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-07, 08:49 AM   #38
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)
I would like to answer the main question: Can vehicular cyclists also advocate for bike lanes and paths? The answer is they already do, and yes, they should. (And to be clear, I mean vc, not VC(TM), cyclists because the Foresterites simply won't advocate for these things so they are irrelevant.)

Why should vehicular cyclists advocate for these things? Because they are the ones with the empiricle experience who understand the problems of poor design of traffic systems. They have expertise the engineers often lack. They are also the ones who will reject designs where the motivation is to "push cyclists out of the way". They are the true stakeholders in the system who can ensure lanes and paths don't hinder their mobility or inhibit access for others. When left to to motorists and people who ride on the sidewalk (as it may very well be in many areas) what gets built largely lacks utility.

I believe vc cyclists have a responsibility to be part of the process that advocates for lanes and paths. This means you offer what support you can: money, letters, votes, time, whatever.
sbhikes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-07, 09:01 AM   #39
sggoodri
Senior Member
 
sggoodri's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Cary, NC
Bikes: 1983 Trek, 2001 Lemond, 2000 Gary Fisher
Posts: 3,073
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by sbhikes
I would like to answer the main question: Can vehicular cyclists also advocate for bike lanes and paths? The answer is they already do, and yes, they should. (And to be clear, I mean vc, not VC(TM), cyclists because the Foresterites simply won't advocate for these things so they are irrelevant.)

Why should vehicular cyclists advocate for these things? Because they are the ones with the empiricle experience who understand the problems of poor design of traffic systems. They have expertise the engineers often lack. They are also the ones who will reject designs where the motivation is to "push cyclists out of the way". They are the true stakeholders in the system who can ensure lanes and paths don't hinder their mobility or inhibit access for others. When left to to motorists and people who ride on the sidewalk (as it may very well be in many areas) what gets built largely lacks utility.

I believe vc cyclists have a responsibility to be part of the process that advocates for lanes and paths. This means you offer what support you can: money, letters, votes, time, whatever.
I agree. My caveat is that I think vehicular cyclists must advocate for bicyclist-friendly engineering, and not advocate for "bike lanes and paths" as a concept, sight unseen.

The simplistic "I advocate bike paths" statement implies that one advocates paths in any corridor, including sidewalk bike paths, and the "I advocate bike lanes" statement implies that one advocates stripes and stencils for separation by vehicle on any road, including in door zones. This is why many vehicular cyclists hesitate to make such statements.

My biggest headache is the propensity of some advocates for a particular facility type to promote continuing that type of facility through an area where it doesn't belong, "for contiguity." For example, as a proponent of bicyclist-friendly engineering, I might support a bike path that connects two neighborhoods, or runs through a rail or stream corridor, and continues as a cross-town route on roadways via wayfinding signs and perhaps sharrows outside the door zone of on-street parking. But a "path advocate," of which we have plenty in my area, will reject the idea of changing facility types, and promote conversion of the sidewalk to a designated, marked two-way bike path. This is where I must reject the idea of advocacy for a specific engineering solution, and instead promote best practices to serve the interests of the bicyclist herself.
sggoodri is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-07, 09:40 AM   #40
noisebeam
Al
 
noisebeam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: AZ
Bikes: Cannondale SuperSix, Lemond Poprad. Retired: Jamis Sputnik, Centurion LeMans Fixed, Diamond Back ascent ex
Posts: 14,112
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 379 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by sbhikes
That's just silly, Al. If you were riding one inch from the line, the traffic would move over to pass you. I see this all the time when I ride my trike, which often doesn't fit in narrower bike lanes. I frequently have to ride with one wheel slightly over the line. The cars and trucks just move over.

For crying out loud, traffic isn't like a speeding train on a track.
Thats the difference I guess between perfect SB and the hell hole of metro-Phx.

Traffic here does move like a speeding train on a track. Actually I think it was Gene who first used this description of traffic here.

But the question I have, is if drivers move left for cyclist near line and some cyclists/tricyclist ride over the line, what is the purpose of the line?

Also how soon before the debris field must one signal with left arm and bias left in BL for passing drivers to be able to notice and move left for the cyclist?

Here is one minor example of a truck/trailer driver that didn't adjust left passing me. I saw them in mirror and adjusted right instead. Of course the driver really didn't have much room to move left
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=otpWDv8d24M

Al

Last edited by noisebeam; 04-27-07 at 10:04 AM.
noisebeam is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-07, 11:27 AM   #41
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 sggoodri
I agree. My caveat is that I think vehicular cyclists must advocate for bicyclist-friendly engineering, and not advocate for "bike lanes and paths" as a concept, sight unseen.

The simplistic "I advocate bike paths" statement implies that one advocates paths in any corridor, including sidewalk bike paths, and the "I advocate bike lanes" statement implies that one advocates stripes and stencils for separation by vehicle on any road, including in door zones. This is why many vehicular cyclists hesitate to make such statements.

My biggest headache is the propensity of some advocates for a particular facility type to promote continuing that type of facility through an area where it doesn't belong, "for contiguity." For example, as a proponent of bicyclist-friendly engineering, I might support a bike path that connects two neighborhoods, or runs through a rail or stream corridor, and continues as a cross-town route on roadways via wayfinding signs and perhaps sharrows outside the door zone of on-street parking. But a "path advocate," of which we have plenty in my area, will reject the idea of changing facility types, and promote conversion of the sidewalk to a designated, marked two-way bike path. This is where I must reject the idea of advocacy for a specific engineering solution, and instead promote best practices to serve the interests of the bicyclist herself.
I'm amazed that you have 'pure path' advocates in significant numbers. Almost all of Portland's bike routes/'facilities' are hybrid in one way or another.
randya is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-07, 11:39 AM   #42
invisiblehand
Part-time epistemologist
 
invisiblehand's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Washington, DC
Bikes: Jamis Nova, Bike Friday NWT, STRIDA, Austro Daimler Vent Noir, Haluzak Horizon, Salsa La Raza, Hollands Tourer, Bike Friday tikit
Posts: 5,636
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 41 Post(s)
I saw Steve's rides ... I have a bud that is an Asst. Professor at NC State. A few of us are thinking of visiting him and bringing the bikes. Perhaps I will get some chocolate too!

But the straight forward answer to Bek's question is yes.
invisiblehand is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-07, 01:35 PM   #43
sggoodri
Senior Member
 
sggoodri's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Cary, NC
Bikes: 1983 Trek, 2001 Lemond, 2000 Gary Fisher
Posts: 3,073
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by randya
I'm amazed that you have 'pure path' advocates in significant numbers. Almost all of Portland's bike routes/'facilities' are hybrid in one way or another.
The "pure path" advocates typically include:

-Those mountain bikers who are not also road cyclists, who like to ride to their singletrack trails, but eschew roadways in favor of sidewalks and greenways.

- Those novice cyclists who ride only on paths and sidewalks, and never on roadways if a sidewalk is available.

- Parents who insist that their kids should never ride on roadways.

- Some career greenway designers and planners, who have a financial stake in greenway projects, but gain nothing from roadway projects.

- Some parks and rec officials, who claim all paths as their domain, but will have nothing to do with roads, either financially or logistically. Some parks and rec departments have considered themselves to be THE bikeway system for their city, and do not want to let the road engineers take over that responsibility, since this might reduce funding for paths.

- Some runners, who want wide sidewalks made of asphalt (the standard material for our designated sidewalk bikeway/MUPs) rather than the standard width portland cement concrete.

Last edited by sggoodri; 04-27-07 at 01:50 PM.
sggoodri is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-07, 02:16 PM   #44
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)
Well then, it seems like the VCers and the PPers need to come to some sort of mutually acceptable agreement. Roads and Paths both! Better engineering for all! Plus anything else that is useful for Adaptive Cycling. Then the rest of us middle of the roaders can just relax and ride our bikes. It seems really simple to me.

randya is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-07, 02:31 PM   #45
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 randya
Well then, it seems like the VCers and the PPers need to come to some sort of mutually acceptable agreement. Roads and Paths both! Better engineering for all! Plus anything else that is useful for Adaptive Cycling. Then the rest of us middle of the roaders can just relax and ride our bikes. It seems really simple to me.

The difficulty in implementing such a naive goal is that there has to be agreement about what is proper for the road system and what is proper for a path system, and how to allocate resources, such as space and money, when recommendations conflict. No such agreement looks likely considering the differences in opinion. I would say that the proper agreement would say design for vehicular cycling on roads and build transportational paths in those locations where a path would serve a transportational need and can be built with very few intersections with motor-vehicle traffic. Paths for recreation would need the same absence of crossing motor traffic, but need not be located to serve a transportational need, but would be paid for out of recreation funds. Of course, appropriate safety design standards must apply to all.
John Forester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-07, 03:16 PM   #46
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
...

I would say that the proper agreement would say design for vehicular cycling on roads and build transportational paths in those locations where a path would serve a transportational need and can be built with very few intersections with motor-vehicle traffic. Paths for recreation would need the same absence of crossing motor traffic, but need not be located to serve a transportational need, but would be paid for out of recreation funds. Of course, appropriate safety design standards must apply to all.


Is this something everyone can live with?
If not, why not?
Helmet Head is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-07, 08:58 PM   #47
Bekologist
totally louche
Thread Starter
 
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)
at risk of inflaming ol' mossy john,

it sounds like even the most vehemently dogmatic VC can advocate for bike lanes. 'design for vehicular cyling on roads' well, vehicular cyclists can and do use bike lanes, daily, all over the country. thousands of us. tens of thousands of vehicular cyclists use bike lanes daily. safely, competantly, in accordance with vehicular rules of the road.

mossy john states in another thread, that vehicular cyclists CAN ride in a bike lane, and vehicular cyclists should advocate for vehicular cycling, so logically, some advocating for bike lanes is within the aegis of vehicular cyclists' aganda.

interesting.
Bekologist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-28-07, 09:46 AM   #48
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
at risk of inflaming ol' mossy john,

it sounds like even the most vehemently dogmatic VC can advocate for bike lanes. 'design for vehicular cyling on roads' well, vehicular cyclists can and do use bike lanes, daily, all over the country. thousands of us. tens of thousands of vehicular cyclists use bike lanes daily. safely, competantly, in accordance with vehicular rules of the road.

mossy john states in another thread, that vehicular cyclists CAN ride in a bike lane, and vehicular cyclists should advocate for vehicular cycling, so logically, some advocating for bike lanes is within the aegis of vehicular cyclists' aganda.

interesting.
More semantic tricks that demonstrate only that Bekologist has no reasonable agenda that he can advance by reasonable means. There's nothing there.
John Forester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-28-07, 10:33 AM   #49
Bekologist
totally louche
Thread Starter
 
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)
actually, John,

it's obvious. and simple.

cyclists that ride vehicularily, according to the rules of the road, i.e. vehicular cyclists, can also advocate for bike lanes.

vehicular cyclists can advocate for bike lanes and bike paths; vc and bike specific infrastructure are NOT mutually exclusive.
Bekologist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-28-07, 11:31 AM   #50
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
actually, John,

it's obvious. and simple.

cyclists that ride vehicularily, according to the rules of the road, i.e. vehicular cyclists, can also advocate for bike lanes.

vehicular cyclists can advocate for bike lanes and bike paths; vc and bike specific infrastructure are NOT mutually exclusive.
The two concepts that you mention are based on opposite views of the status of cyclists and what to do about that status. Vehicular cycling is based on the view that cyclists should operate as drivers of vehicles, while bike lanes are based on the view that cyclist should not be considered to be drivers of vehicles. While vehicular cyclists can ride in bike lanes, that's not the point. The two views are so opposite that social and governmental policies for the two are incompatible. That's the problem.

So far as paths go, some are based on the view that cyclists don't belong on the road, others are based on the view that they provide either transportational benefits or recreational benefits without reference to roadway cycling. The first are bad (and are not recommended in the AASHTO Guide and similar standards), the second can be beneficial.
John Forester 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 02:46 PM.