Advertise on Bikeforums.net



User Tag List

Page 8 of 25 FirstFirst ... 67891018 ... LastLast
Results 176 to 200 of 611
  1. #176
    genec genec's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    san diego
    My Bikes
    custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2
    Posts
    23,053
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Helmet Head
    "The best way for cyclists to conserve their already outstanding privileges is not to lobby for new bike paths, ..." - Robert Hurst
    That is a bit different from the diatribe of some here that have decried bike lanes "past, present and future."

  2. #177
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Wilmington, DE
    My Bikes
    2003 Specialized Hardrock, 2004 LOOK KG386i, 2005 Iron Horse Warrior Expert, 2009 Pedal Force CX1
    Posts
    8,851
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by zeytoun
    Bekologist isn't talking about bike paths. He already pointed this out.
    Bike lanes are one step closer to sidepaths.

  3. #178
    Senior Member rando's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Tempe, AZ
    Posts
    2,967
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    flaws of forester/HH brand VC:
    inflexibility (cyclists fare best when they...)
    anti-Bike lane
    Cyclist inferiority
    can put cyclists in danger (crossing multi-laned high speed traffic lanes)

    any more?

  4. #179
    Banned. Helmet Head's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    13,075
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Well, if you read the Hurst chapter, it's clear he means don't lobby for bike lanes as well as bike paths when he says not to lobby for bike paths. It's just clunky to write bike paths and bike lanes every time, and he apparently did not want to introduce the term bikeway to mean both. Remember, he's writing this in the context of arguing that right now we have the best of both worlds, that the goal of traffic engineers is to get bikes out of the way of motorists, and we don't want to rock the boat. This is also in the context of the "insidiousness of bike facilities" and the "psychological implications".

  5. #180
    Dominatrikes sbhikes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Still in Santa Barbara
    My Bikes
    Catrike Pocket, Lightning Thunderbold recumbent, Trek 3000 MTB.
    Posts
    4,920
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I will repeat myself:

    If VC is so good, the practice of it will automatically reduce the requests for "bikeways". Therefore you don't need to toss the anti-bike lane stuff, the cyclist inferiority and all that stuff in there. The bike lane argument will take care of itself if you simply teach people how to ride vehicularly.

    It's like a meta-ignore of the bike lane stripe.
    ~Diane
    Recumbents: Lightning Thunderbolt, '06 Catrike Pocket. Upright: Trek Mountain Bike.
    8.5 mile commute. I like bike lanes.

  6. #181
    Down 10# and 11 inches Ginny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Denver-ish
    My Bikes
    Jamis, Specialized, CoMotion
    Posts
    224
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    uhm, I know I'll get eaten alive for this, but what about different laws for the roads instead of new bike paths (which I love when I can find them)?
    What about making the laws better for the slower moving vehicles?
    Using the same roads we have, without extra money to widen lanes, add bike lanes, or anything else.
    If there are two lanes in the same direction, the right lane is for bikes and other slow moving vehicles. Cars can drive in them but when they see a bike/slow vehicle THEY must merge left. No sliding by taking up half the lane, no squeezing by. Gotta move completely into the left lane. Bikes can take the whole right lane because it's THEIR lane. This, all by itself, would make biking on a busy road safer. There aren't THAT many bikes on the road really, so cars wouldn't have to merge THAT many times. The number of potholes in Denver right now make riding anywhere but dead middle of the lane more dangerous. Especially on my commute.
    If the road is one lane each direction, the cars must give the bike at least three feet of space when passing. If the bike is taking the lane, the car must slow and wait patiently until the bike gives a signal that it is moving over to the right. The car then waits until the bike is over before passing SLOWLY.
    Honking at a bike for any reason except a demonstrable emergency would be ticketable offense.
    If car and bike are going in the same direction on a one lane each direction road and the bike is going speed limit (actual posted limit, which I know some of you can do pretty well) then car may not pass bike and bike may take the lane. If the bike needs to slow, it would then move to the right and slow down.

    Doesn't it make more sense to give the slower moving 'vehicles' more rights? Wouldn't that make more people want to take up the sport? I know most of the people I talk to would never commute to work or ride on the roads because the laws aren't in our favor.
    Am I dreaming?
    Be gentle. . .
    *-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
    Ginny in Denver
    05 Specialized Sirrus Comp (Mine)
    04 Jamis Nova Cyclocross (His)
    05 CoMotion Primera Tandem (Ours)

  7. #182
    Banned. Helmet Head's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    13,075
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by rando
    flaws of forester/HH brand VC:
    inflexibility (cyclists fare best when they...)
    anti-Bike lane
    Cyclist inferiority
    can put cyclists in danger (crossing multi-laned high speed traffic lanes)

    any more?
    How is "cyclists fare best when they act as vehicle drivers" inflexible?
    Is "drivers fare best when they follow the rules of the road" inflexible too?
    How about "pedestrians fare best when they look both ways before crossing a street". Inflexible too?

    How is being anti-Bike Lane a flaw of the VC brand. The underlying arguments are understood and supported in the cycling community outside of VC circles too. For example:

    "The best way for cyclists to conserve their already outstanding privileges is not to lobby for new bike paths, ..." - Robert Hurst

    Cyclist inferiority is a flaw of VC? Huh?

    Merging to make a left turn is dangerous? Not if you know what you're doing.

  8. #183
    Banned. Helmet Head's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    13,075
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by sbhikes
    I will repeat myself:

    If VC is so good, the practice of it will automatically reduce the requests for "bikeways". Therefore you don't need to toss the anti-bike lane stuff, the cyclist inferiority and all that stuff in there. The bike lane argument will take care of itself if you simply teach people how to ride vehicularly.

    It's like a meta-ignore of the bike lane stripe.
    Yes, I know Diane. Coincidentally, this is the approach of Lauren Cooper, a female VC advocate, and many other VC advocates. There may be something to it. But how do we get someone like Bek who thinks he understands VC to stop lobbying for bike lanes and paths?

    "The best way for cyclists to conserve their already outstanding privileges is not to lobby for new bike paths, ..." - Robert Hurst

  9. #184
    totally louche Bekologist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    A land that time forgot
    My Bikes
    the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes
    Posts
    18,026
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    you won't get me, a vehicular cyclist, from lobbying for greater infrastructure that benefits bicyclists of all ride and stripe. even foresterites ride in bike lanes.

    I see the wild fallacy inherent in demands that all bicyclists need to do is act vehicularily.


    I'm for increasing bicycling in communities, and adknowledge that bike specific infrastructure has an indispensible part in increasing ridership.
    "Evidence, anecdote and methodology all support planning for roadway bike traffic."

  10. #185
    Banned. Helmet Head's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    13,075
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Bekologist
    you won't get me, a vehicular cyclist, from lobbying for greater infrastructure that benefits bicyclists of all ride and stripe. even foresterites ride in bike lanes.

    I see the wild fallacy inherent in demands that all bicyclists need to do is act vehicularily.


    I'm for increasing bicycling in communities, and adknowledge that bike specific infrastructure has an indispensible part in increasing ridership.
    Logic and reason has no effect on a jihadist.

    "The best way for cyclists to conserve their already outstanding privileges is not to lobby for new bike paths, ..." - Robert Hurst

  11. #186
    totally louche Bekologist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    A land that time forgot
    My Bikes
    the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes
    Posts
    18,026
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    huh? I'm a jihadist?

    I believe 'zealot' has been self-ascribed to yourself, weekend rider.
    "Evidence, anecdote and methodology all support planning for roadway bike traffic."

  12. #187
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Wilmington, DE
    My Bikes
    2003 Specialized Hardrock, 2004 LOOK KG386i, 2005 Iron Horse Warrior Expert, 2009 Pedal Force CX1
    Posts
    8,851
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Ginny
    uhm, I know I'll get eaten alive for this, but what about different laws for the roads instead of new bike paths (which I love when I can find them)?
    What about making the laws better for the slower moving vehicles?
    Using the same roads we have, without extra money to widen lanes, add bike lanes, or anything else.
    If there are two lanes in the same direction, the right lane is for bikes and other slow moving vehicles. Cars can drive in them but when they see a bike/slow vehicle THEY must merge left. No sliding by taking up half the lane, no squeezing by. Gotta move completely into the left lane. Bikes can take the whole right lane because it's THEIR lane. This, all by itself, would make biking on a busy road safer. There aren't THAT many bikes on the road really, so cars wouldn't have to merge THAT many times. The number of potholes in Denver right now make riding anywhere but dead middle of the lane more dangerous. Especially on my commute.
    Depending on which state you live in, your state's laws probably already grant you full use of the right hand lane (assuming normal, narrow width) regardless of the presence of a shoulder when there are two lanes in each direction. DE, PA, and NJ all do. Too bad most cyclists don't know or agree with this.

  13. #188
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Denver
    Posts
    1,621
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Helmet Head
    Logic and reason has no effect on a jihadist.

    "The best way for cyclists to conserve their already outstanding privileges is not to lobby for new bike paths, ..." - Robert Hurst
    "...but to continue riding the streets in a manner that is smooth, quiet and cooperative."

    Robert

  14. #189
    totally louche Bekologist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    A land that time forgot
    My Bikes
    the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes
    Posts
    18,026
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    head, i see no inherent discrepancies between riding on the streets in a cooperative manner and riding on streets with bike facilities that are well designed and maintained for bicyclists.

    riding in a bike lane and vehicular bicycling are not mutually exclusive, mr. head. vehicular cyclists can advocate for greater bike infrastructure in their communities.
    "Evidence, anecdote and methodology all support planning for roadway bike traffic."

  15. #190
    Banned. Helmet Head's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    13,075
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by RobertHurst
    "...but to continue riding the streets in a manner that is smooth, quiet and cooperative."

    Robert
    Right. I included that, and commented on it, in post #166.

    While you're here, just to confirm, when you wrote

    "The best way for cyclists to conserve their already outstanding privileges is not to lobby for new bike paths, ..."

    Did you intend for it to apply to only bike paths, or did you mean for this to apply to all segregated cycle facilities (including bike lanes)?

  16. #191
    totally louche Bekologist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    A land that time forgot
    My Bikes
    the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes
    Posts
    18,026
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    good lord, a wiki link to segregationist prattle!

    I'll say it again, in case you have forgotten, head-

    riding in a bike lane and vehicular bicycling are not mutually exclusive.
    "Evidence, anecdote and methodology all support planning for roadway bike traffic."

  17. #192
    Banned. Helmet Head's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    13,075
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Bekologist
    head, i see no inherent discrepancies between riding on the streets in a cooperative manner and riding on streets with bike facilities that are well designed and maintained for bicyclists.

    riding in a bike lane and vehicular bicycling are not mutually exclusive, mr. head.
    I agree so far.

    vehicular cyclists can advocate for greater bike infrastructure in their communities.
    I agree with that too. But, cycling advocates should not advocate for new bike facilities for the reasons Robert provides in his book. See post #166 for a summary.

  18. #193
    Al noisebeam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    AZ
    My Bikes
    Cannondale SuperSix, Lemond Poprad. Retired: Jamis Sputnik, Centurion LeMans Fixed, Diamond Back ascent ex
    Posts
    13,974
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Bekologist
    head, i see no inherent discrepancies between riding on the streets in a cooperative manner and riding on streets with bike facilities that are well designed and maintained for bicyclists.
    Do you think other drivers view me as being cooperative when I leave the bike lanes when approaching intersections?
    Do you think they view me as being cooperative when I ride on the bike lane stripe because the BL has substanial debris that accumulates faster than 2wk sweeping schedule (such as scattered with 1/2" landscaping rocks that routinely get kicked in lane by bored folks at the bus stop?)
    Do you think they view me as cooperative when I ride outside the BL because I am traveling at 25mph and want to stay at least 4-5' from curb?

    Al

  19. #194
    totally louche Bekologist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    A land that time forgot
    My Bikes
    the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes
    Posts
    18,026
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    what the HECK allows you to make that fallacious jump in logic, that cycling advocates shouldn't advocate for new bike facilites?

    you clearly are out of touch in your internet fantasy bicycling world, head.
    "Evidence, anecdote and methodology all support planning for roadway bike traffic."

  20. #195
    Banned. Helmet Head's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    13,075
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Bekologist
    what the HECK allows you to make that fallacious jump in logic, that cycling advocates shouldn't advocate for new bike facilites?
    What part of see post #166 for the reasons Robert Hurst provides for this do you not understand?

    you clearly are out of touch in your internet fantasy bicycling world, head.
    Prove to us that you actually think about the basis for your opinions, Bek, by at least addressing Robert's argument, if you don't care to address mine.

  21. #196
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    3,946
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Continuing to post a quote simply doesn't make it so.

  22. #197
    totally louche Bekologist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    A land that time forgot
    My Bikes
    the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes
    Posts
    18,026
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    head, my rebuttal is in post #168.

    robert hurst rightfully describes the use of bike PATHS as being anti-vehicular. and true, dat.

    a big flaw of VCists is wrongfully purporting vehicular bicycling and bike lanes as mutually exclusive.
    "Evidence, anecdote and methodology all support planning for roadway bike traffic."

  23. #198
    Senior Member randya's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    in bed with your mom
    My Bikes
    who cares?
    Posts
    13,696
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    notice that this thread has gotten derailed like all the others in this subforum and that Serge and the Foresterologists have no real response to the OP, which is that the Foresterologists simply don't know how to package and market their product effectively, which results in consumers not buying it.
    Last edited by randya; 05-31-07 at 01:59 PM.

  24. #199
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    4,070
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Bekologist
    head, my rebuttal is in post #168.

    robert hurst rightfully describes the use of bike PATHS as being anti-vehicular. and true, dat.

    a big flaw of VCists is wrongfully purporting vehicular bicycling and bike lanes as mutually exclusive.
    One more unsupported claim by Bekologist. Bekologist, you should provide support for your claims. What is it?

  25. #200
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    4,070
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by randya
    notice that this thread has gotten derailed like all the others in this subforum and that serge and the Foresterologists have no real response to the OP, which is that the Foresterologists simply don't know how to package and market their product, which results in consumers not buying it.
    That is simply not correct. Your assumption is that any product can be packaged and marketed so that consumers will buy it. No marketing professional will support that hypothesis. The product itself must provide some perceived value to the consumer before the packaging and marketing can do their work.

    It is correct that we vehicular cyclists have not had what you call marketing success, but consider the situation. America has had a history of more than sixty years of opposition to vehicular cycling. America is a nation in which there is not much use for bicycle transportation. American governments have for thirty five years operated a bikeway program that is opposed to vehicular cycling. American environmentally-inded bicycle activists have for thirty years opposed vehicular cycling by frantically advocating that bikeway system.

    I suggest, randya, that you admit, even boast, of the success of you and your associates in preventing vehicular cycling from being accepted by the public.

Page 8 of 25 FirstFirst ... 67891018 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •