Yea I was like even a small town has a bike rack.

Interesting... in reading your book and your various postings on the net, I had long been lead to believe this was mainly an American issue... (you cite over and over "a problem in the US"**) But the reality is, that it is world wide. OK. Now we have that straightened out.

**for instance... Excuse me for being confused...

Isn't it in Effective Cycling that Forester compares the German model (motorist superiority/segregated cycling) to the British model (equal rights/VC)?

I'm pretty sure it's in there. Did you read and study the book, or just skim it?

I've been waiting for over 10 years for someone to provide a bicycle-specific infrastructure that came close the efficiency of unaltered roadways in my area.

Want percentages? Until about 2 years ago, my 15 mile inbound route to work was still over 90% pure roads. Today, it's still over 70%, but I still prefer the 100% that is pure road, even where there's a path or even a bike lane.

So what's all the fuss about, peeps? Keep building 'em. I can still go wherever I want on my bike. Nothing's changed (and give up the worn-out stereotype about "ubercyclists." What the h is an "ubercyclist?" I see people riding their bikes on the street without bike lanes or paths all the time around here--when the weather's nice. I'm still waiting for a climate-controlled bike facility... :) )

I'm not talking about Cauliflowernia. I'm talking about Geowgia (gimme some BBQ, baby.) ;)

EDIT: I removed references to Ralph Nader... :D Pass the boiled p-nuts so's I can have somethin' to wash down with this brew...

Hey, what'll we do with Critical Mass? I know, I know--make 'em ride on the bike paths and stop for those little driveway stop signs... :eek:

<burp> Skeaws.

The bottom line is that I think we - VC, AC, PP, CM, etc. - all want the same thing for cyclists: safer conditions, a little bit of recognition, equality on the roads, convenient transport to our destinations and so forth.

Each week I ride everywhere from the back alleys of my local neighborhood, to the MUP, to streets of all types, to a limited access highway, and a little bit of everything in between. There is no one right way, it's more like a little bit of everything and anything that works.

So my question is: why are we still bickering with each other instead of forming a unified front demanding cyclists' rights at each and every turn (on the roads, for more limited- access bicycle paths, etc., etc.)?

I read it... I did not study it, nor did I take notes or notate pages as apparently some did.

BTW even the Brits have bike lanes... So I have to wonder if VC is so effective, why have bike lanes grown there?

Here is a classic... a contra flow BL in the UK...

http://web.pdx.edu/~jdill/images/rev...20lane%203.JPG

Ebury Street?

Good point... very good point.

Why still bickering?

Because the Foresterites advocate auto-centric development and they want cycling to remain an elite sport rather than become mass transportation.

These photos were taken in central NC by myself and Wayne Pein. All of the cylists arre operating according to vehicular rules, on ordinary roadways without segregated bicycle facilities. They seem to be enjoying themselves.

http://www.humantransport.org/bicycl...cbd/img002.jpg
http://www.humantransport.org/bicycl...cbd/img004.jpg
http://www.humantransport.org/bicycl...cbd/img005.jpg
http://www.humantransport.org/bicycl...cbd/img007.jpg
http://www.humantransport.org/bicycl...ssing/WOL1.jpg
http://www.humantransport.org/bicycl...ssing/WOL2.jpg
http://www.humantransport.org/bicycl...ssing/NOL1.jpg
http://www.humantransport.org/bicycl...ssing/WOL3.jpg
http://www.humantransport.org/bicycledriving/img6.gif

Great question. Why, if cyclists already have rights to the road, do some cyclists want to implement bike lanes which serve to reduce those rights to the road? Cyclists already are legally allowed the space they are in (just like any other vehicle on the road) so bike lanes don't get you any more right to space than you already have. Bike lanes don't add pavement width so they do not on their own make passing by faster vehicles easier. I could go on but we've been through this so many times that it's barely worth discussing any more. My second sentence says it all for me.

This points out the chicken-and-egg paradox of cycling-related infrastructure. Imagine how unresponsive the government and business owners would have to be to provide no bicycle parking in a city with a high volume of bicycle trips.

Here in Cary, it is quite clear that the cyclists came first, and demanded bicycle parking, and got the government to pass a law to require it in new developments and retrofit all existing public properties. Similarly with wide outside lanes on busy roads. The facilities followed the cyclists. That's simply a government that responds to the people.

^^^
It's no paradox. It's just a first adopter vs. average cyclist curve; very familiar to a company trying to introduce a new product and create a new market.

I'm a first adopter. I bike because I love to bike and I do it for all the wrong reasons (wrong being that bicycling is extremely impractical when looked at by a purely economic point of view). But first adopters are the ones who work to define and shape the product until it is adopted more widely. This is the process for bicycling infrastructure.

The flip side of this is that the market will eventually abandon those first adopters like myself, and respond only to the "real" users who bicycle for all the right reasons. I think this is where some of the divide is relating to bike lanes and advocacy. For the most part, those opposed to bike lanes and other bicycle related infrastructure are those first adopters. But the market has moved on and really only responds to "real" users who are the majority.

I, myself, don't mind this. I've learned to bicycle in a multitude of environments, so bicycling infrastructure doesn't bother me, regardless of the form it takes. I will fight for a right to the road in general, but I won't fight against anyone trying to put in bike lanes or anything like that, because, really, I don't much care.

The bolded section is the weak link in this paragraph.

In my experience, bike lanes lubricate the road, making all traffic flow easier, more predictably, and more safely. I don't get overtly worried about requiring traffic to make overt, dramatic sweeps around my position. I don't get worried about some close passing, as long as the situation is orderly and predictable. That's the key in traffic: maintaining order and predictability. Bike lanes tend to do this more than WOLs or NOLs.

I have never been disinfranchised from my right to use the roadway when I need it. In fact, I am treated better, even if I am outside the bike lane, because motorists know that I am outside it temporarily and I have good reason. On arterial streets, those with bike lanes are more comfortable to ride in than those without; even WOLs. Again, in my experience.

I don't know what else to say. In the face of uncertainties, the lack of hard data and firm studies and models, I can only key on my experiences and the experiences of people who have more experience than myself. I'm not going to sit here and say that bike lanes are always good, nor am I going to be forced into any absolutist stance on some aspect of cycling. Traffic interaction is very complex at the level we are trying to deal with here. For example, both Forester and Hurst are extremely experienced but in different environments and they come to some differing conclusions. If pressed, I'd tell a newbie to read both, but pay more attention to Forester if he or she is in a suburban or rural environment, and pay more attention to Hurst if he or she is in an urban environment.

Talk to the people with the most experience in the environment which you ride. There is no one universal answer to cycling in traffic. Because we are trying to integrate a slow, pedal powered vehicule into a road system filled with massive, internal combustion powered cages with basically unlimited power and speed, riding a bicycle on the road is more art than science. So, you pick the most experienced person you know, and you talk with him on what types of facilities he prefers; free from dogma, superstition, flowery talk about phobias, and supposed universialities. You should never hear from anyone that a person who is a regular commuter commuting 30 miles a day all week is bicycling all wrong. You should never hear from anyone that a messenger working 50 hour weeks all year doesn't know a thing or two about bicycling in traffic.

I'm tired of the constant, recirculating back and forth regarding bike lanes. If people prefer one or the other and they are more experienced than you, then get at the "why" of their preference in a way which isn't confrontational and won't piss anyone off. Focus on what they actually feel when riding, not on some theoretical thought experiement or exercise in logic. There are no universialities on this subject, or rather, we haven't found them yet. If we talk and use our combined experiences (instead of yapping at each other and being argumentative), then perhaps some universialities can be found.

You are right... cyclists already have rights to the road.

And all cyclists know this, correct?

And motorists readily share the road, right?

Bike lanes do nothing more than point out that cyclists do indeed belong on the road. They also provide guidance to motorists who do no more (and know no more) than "stay between the lines."

Do we "need" BL; no more than we "need" cars that do 0-50 in five seconds.

gooooood.
I'm tired of it too.
it's just constant.
let's get over it.

Which proves absolutely nothing, sggoodri. Cyclists were operating according to the vehicular rules of the road long before John Forester wrote a book and spawned an ideology and political movement based on his unsubstaniated and absurd social and psychological pontifications.

You could post pictures of Emil Zatopek catching javelins but it wouldn't prove that javelin catching is the safer than javelin throwing.

We all do want the same things. And, yes, the reason we're still arguing about white paint is because of the Foresterites and the taboo against white lines (among other things) the Foresterites have worked so hard to create in the cycling community. It's honestly one of the silliest things I've seen in my life (and I've seen some silly stuff).

You obviously have a lot of good sense, sggoodri. I don't envy you trying to put a positive spin on some of the more absurd aspects of VC-ist dogma (you do a pretty good job, though, under very difficult circumstances).

EDIT: reference to "silly" removed.

Then stop saying stuff like this (the part in red is what I mean, particularly the all):

Bike lanes do the above?

Between intersections? Maybe. But if so, what exactly is the problem that needs solving with lubrication? Are cyclists really better off with all that slick lubrication? The flipside of the lubrication coin is increasing cyclist relative irrelevancy. Is that really good for cyclists? Is that really more safe? I, for one, prefer less lubrication/more friction so that they notice me and slow down a tad -- which allows me to verify that they have probably noticed me -- as they pass me.

I mean, we wear bright colorful clothes during the day and use bright lights and reflectors at night, all to be better noticed by motorists. Then we ask for segregated space demarcated by striping that make it easier for them to ignore us and drive as if we're not there (hence the lubrication effect). It makes no sense.

At intersections and their approaches, including midblock intersections with alleys, driveways, and mall entrances where bike lanes route through cyclists to the right of right-turning motorists? No way is it true. The bike lanes may lubricate all right, but this hardly makes all traffic flow easier, more predictably, and more safely. In particular, bike lane lubrication makes turning/crossing traffic flow less easy, less predictably and less safely.

Nice roads... gee, if the roads around my area looked like that, I too would not even think about BL.

The roads I use are more like freeways. Mulitlaned... 4 and 6 lanes... (I did not see a single multilaned road in your "presentation") and fast... every road is over 35MPH... many are 50MPH and one is 65MPH. I noticed the speed limit sign in one of your pics... 25MPH.

Got news for ya, not everywhere looks like centeral NC....

In some places, BL do exactly what Brian mentions... they "lubricate" the flow of heavy fast traffic.

For someone's opinion based on their experiences to have any meaning, it needs to be based on logic, not emotion. Otherwise, it's just a worthless opinion that anyone could have come up with. That traffic engineers ignore the logic built into the roadways everywhere else in order to stripe in bike lanes is a disgrace to their profession. Where bike lanes do not contradict normal traffic engineering, I have little issue with them but around me, there are basically no roads where this can happen. No road where cyclists are allowed has infrequent enough intersections to make bike lanes reasonable to install except in very short stretches..

"silly stuff"?

See, this is why I don't like talking with you, HH.

You say this like it's true. You are very confident in yourself.

There are a lot of emotional opinions here, I've bolded some of them. An honest and less emotional person would question why my experience differs from his own and try to understand the differences in experience to understand the difference in opinion. Not try to one-up me.

I don't disagree, but this addresses only same-direction traffic, which should not be ignored, but, relatively speaking, should be the least of our concern, particularly compared to turning/crossing traffic.

Yes, if you took a video from the air of roads with cyclists and relatively faster motor traffic the roads with bike lanes would probably appear more orderly and predictable. On the road without bike lanes the motorists are more likely to be affected by the cyclists presence, and you are more likely to see this from the air. They might slow a tad, or adjust, maybe even change lanes, before passing the slower cyclists. But is the "orderliness and predictablity" you would see on the roads with bike lanes necessarily a good thing? And is the appearance of "orderliness and predictablity" real? In particular, is the appearance of predictability, at intersections and their approaches, real? What's so predictable about a cyclist in a bike lane approaching an intersection? Is he going straight or turning? Who's to know?

Edited.

Don't hold your breath. Sometimes I just wish they'd fix the potholes around here and finish with all the road construction boondoggles.

That's pretty much the way I feel. Facilities or no facilities-- it doesn't matter a whole lot to me. I can deal. Somehow I don't think St. Louis will ever have a greatly functional network of bike facilites. I can already go wherever I want. But, OTOH, if facilities can get more people riding, I'm not opposed to them-- even if they're not perfect-- what government project ever is perfect? (don't get me started on what MODOT is doing I-64, the major commuter highway here-- if we can survive that, we can survive anything)

I'm talkin' about Missouri, so show me - but I have to warn you: I'm as stubborn as a Missouri mule.

I'm as free as a breeze
And I ride where I please
Saddle tramp, saddle tramp.

My point is that perfectly enjoyable cycling can happen on nice roads designed to treat cyclists as drivers of vehicles. Such nice roads can be planned and built to provide very useful networks for bicycle transportation. The opponents of vehicular cycling charge that vehicular cycling is obsolete; that cyclists won't do it. This clearly is not the case.

The opponents of vehicular cycling often accuse vehicular cycling supporters of promoting automobile-centric development where every useful through road is a multi-lane 50 mph thoroughfare. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Most vehicular cycling proponents support better access to destinations via lower speed streets, and to make the traffic signals detect bikes where those streets cross busier roads. For those inevitable corridors that carry high volumes of high speed traffic, vehicular cycling supporters promote wide enough pavement for motorists to be able to overtake without changing lanes. If the intersections are few enough and there are no roadside hazards to deal with, some vehicular cycling proponents support bike lane stripes that are reasonably routed, while others don't. I personally am more interested in how such lanes perform on high-speed roads (will they end up full of debris) than arguing over social issues.

But here in Cary, all the bike lane striping is being targeted toward the low-volume, 25 mph-35mph residential streets that previously had 16' and wider lanes. On the arterials, the parks and rec department designates the sidewalks as two-way bike paths. I suggest that a better approach, based on vehicular cycling, would be to leave the quiet residential streets alone, and provide wider lanes on the arterials, maybe even wide striped bike lanes on the fastest ones with the fewest junctions, if they were well designed and maintained, install sharrows outside the door zones where there is on-street parallel parking, and focus more on education and enforcement to reduce the high levels of motorist harassment and collisions involving sidewalk bicyclists that we currently have.