John Forester

Don't read much, do you, Diane? How many times have I written in these discussions that the motoring establishment attempted to limit cyclists' use of the roadway and that I led the cyclists in their opposition to those efforts? And how do you explain that you, hypocrit that you are, ardently promote exactly what the motoring establishment invented as a means of discriminating against you?

That you cannot understand what has been written time after time in plain English is just another demonstration of the cyclist-inferiority phobia.

skanking biker

And that my friends is the nature of the disputes on this forums. I'm not 18 anymore, but forgive me if I haven't become completely cynical and still believe people can make a difference and change the system. Mr. Forester, with all due respect, you seem to be suffering from defeatist inferiority syndrome---having fought the system and lost, you are so convinced that things cannot be changed that you have now become a defender of the system. Forgive me for harboring the "totally irrational" view that it is the motorist lobby whose interests and aims are antithetical to cyclists rights rather than the cyclists themselves.

John Forester

I know of no standards for road design promoted by the American Dream Coalition.

You say that the class of cyclist that will enjoy riding on multi-lane roads with wide outside lanes is rare, indeed. But, you imply by the introduction of the phrase "without bike lanes", many more will enjoy cycling on these roads. However, there is no practical distinction between the two conditions; the distinction is that the person who feels inferior to cars thinks that the bike-lane stripe has some magical effect. The trouble with believing in magic is that those who place their faith in magic both lose the incentive to operate according to facts and spread the superstition around. That is much worse when it is the government who spreads this superstition. And, of course, the superstition was originally invented by motorists precisely to keep cyclists in what motorists considered to be their proper place.

And now for the British comparison. For more than twenty years I have observed the rot of cyclist inferiority and bike planning growing in Britain, driven by the same anti-motoring forces active here. Indeed, the foremost bike planner in America received his law degree in Britain and worked for years for one of the British anti-motoring organizations before coming to the USA, leading the bike planning organization and the League of American Bicyclists at different times.

Yes, I state that negotiating for lane changes in traffic that is moving more than 15 mph faster than the cyclist is difficult, and that when such is required it is best to time your move between platoons of traffic. However, this is completely irrelevant to a discussion of bike lanes.

Bekologist

what a fraud.

John Forester

Your argument is both inaccurate and illogical. It is inaccurate in that I have not become a defeatist through my battles (some won, some lost) against the motoring establishment. Of course, I have always held that, had cyclists not joined the bikeway advocates, we would have beaten the motoring establishment over the bikeways restrictions.

What changes do I think it impossible for cyclists to make? I think that it is impossible for cyclists to destroy suburbia and the suburban life style. I have studied transportation all my life, and I understand the forces that both motivated suburbia and allowed suburbia to grow as it has. If anyone on these lists thinks otherwise, I would like to see some evidence of such change. That is why I say that cyclists need to work out how best to cycle in urban environments of which a large proportion is suburbia. I think that some redirection may be produced in the areas still under growth, in the way of requiring better road connections. The probability that areas with almost-new roads can have their road systems rebuilt is vanishingly small. Even in Florida, where they built what are rural slums with insufficient infrastructure have great difficulty in bringing themselves up to a reasonable standard.

Now consider what I think you might consider to be one of your key thoughts: "Forgive me for harboring the "totally irrational" view that it is the motorist lobby whose interests and aims are antithetical to cyclists rights rather than the cyclists themselves." Haven't you been reading my essays all through these discussions? You totally agree with me that it is the motoring establishment (as I call it) that opposes cyclists rights to use the roadways. What ought to puzzle you is the extent to which bicycle advocates spend so much of their effort in promoting exactly what the motoring establishment designed to limit cyclists rights. It is no wonder that bicycle advocates have such a difficult time applying logic to their efforts when they are strongly advocating exactly the program that opposes their interests.

skanking biker

What puzzles me is why you continue to defend the motoring lobby's system of 1950s suburban America when it is that very system that threatens cyclists' interests.

Furthermore, in case you haven't noticed, many major metropolitan areas are experiencing a surge of suburbanites who are returning to the cities. Everywhere you go some old factory or wharehouse is being converted into highrise lofts or apartments. Thus, I do see evidence of people rejecting the suburbia paradigm. As more people move back to the cities, transportational systems will need to be redesigned to take into account this change.

sbhikes

Not to mention that lots of places have to fight against the developers who foist all this suburbia upon communities, whether the communities want it or not. Did it even occur to anyone that suburbia isn't necessarily giving the people what they want but actually the maximum profit-making way to develop the land?

genec

And yet motorists also believe in the superstition of lines... depending heavily on their guidance daily... especially that thin line in the middle of the road. Bike lanes may not be anywhere perfect... as with other traffic control devices, some trial and error may be required to tune them. (note the experiments with new traffic lights now occuring in El Cajon... as an instance of other traffic control devices, still being refined)

However sir, this conversation is not about bike lanes... it is about realizing and embracing the differences between motor traffic and human powered traffic, and recommending road engineering that allows sharing of the road. The 50-60 mile per hour recommendations of the ADC, while not yet "standards" per se, are part of their charter. Therefore, these speed limits will be pushed as an agenda by this group until they have achieved satisfaction. No, it is not yet a formal standard, but it is their declared direction... their modus operandi, sir. Surly you can see that. (they declare it in their introductions.) Surly you also understand the issues of a cyclist negotiating with fast motorists... as you agree in your quotes below.
So effectively the "Vehicular Style" appears to not have "staying power" in spite of a history of it working fine on British streets in the past.

And below you admit that if motorists are moving much faster than cyclists, life is "difficult" for cyclists (to paraphrase). Why then endorse a group that counters cyclists and motorists working together in Harmony as a true Vehicular system should be?
Just for clarification... we were not talking about bike lanes. We are talking about people and businesses that declare support for cyclists or cycling and then work against cyclists and cycling by their actions and endorsements.

patc

Well said.

I'm 35, and I have seen a great many changes, changes which impact me directly, in my few decades of life. These changes came because people fought the status quo, argued their case, and refused to give up. The system can be changed, and it really disheartening to see a so-called advocate like Forester repeatedly claim otherwise. It is also very dishonest.

Never listen to the "can't be done" types. If they had their way, we would still be living in trees.

John Forester

The action by Jacobs Engineering Co. referred to cycling while in the course of business, not cycling outside of business hours.

sbhikes

JF says cars supposedly run best at 50-60 mph. Best for whom? Perhaps they need to be geared down or better made so they can be efficient and a pleasure to drive at speeds that don't kill so many pedestrians, cyclists, animals and children on their way to school.

This is motorist-centric thinking at its finest example. Let's see. We have a machine. It works best this way. Let's design our entire community, economy and way of life around its optimal conditions. Let's ignore that the machine kills so many people every day. Let's pretend it doesn't harm the environment in its making and use. Let's pretend we didn't kill 10s of thousands of people trying to secure a source for its fuel. And let's call anybody who doesn't agree with us superstitious or terrorist.

John Forester

You are one more nasty argumenter. All that I wrote was that since negotiating for a lane change was difficult when other traffic was moving more than 15 mph faster than the cyclist, it was advisable to plan one's lane changes to occur between platoons of cars. Which I have stated for years. But then you state that this makes roads with such traffic "difficult" for cyclists. That's using semantic foolishness to turn a plain and accurate statement into what is a lie.

John Forester

Diane, you have just written more lies. Is it any wonder that people such as you give environmentalism a bad name? To say nothing about giving cyclists the appearance of being those liars who do it.

John Forester

The discussion concerned the development of suburbia. I have not seen any evidence that cyclists have managed to reduce the extent of suburbia and the motoring that is part of suburbia. Rather, both have been increasing in all parts of the world with the money to produce and use them. You claim, as to this discussion, is merely fatuous.

Brian Ratliff

The observance that cars are most efficient in the 60-70mph range and therefore the roads should be made to accomodate this is an exercise in circular reasoning. Cars are just machines. They can be made to be most effient at any randomly chosen speed range, depending on engine size, valve timing and gearing.

With gas at $3/gal, if the government suddenly mandated 45mph on interstates, in a year or so time you'll see cars tuned to 45 mph. They are currently tuned to 60-70mph simply because that is the speed limit for interstates currently.

John Forester

More semantic foolishness about "lines" as if all lines were the same. The problem with the lines that are bike-lane stripes is that they limit cyclists to the margin of the roadway. No other kind of stripe does that, and that's what's wrong with them. Of course, a bunch of you argue that bike-lane stripes do not do that, citing the exceptions that are sometimes made. However, just the need to make exceptions demonstrates the actual effect of the bike-lane stripes.

Brian Ratliff

You'll have to explain this comment better. I saw some retoric in Diane's post, but no lies. And as for her last sentence, have you followed the iraqi war "debates" at all? Yes, some good, honest people were smeared as being terrorists for wanting to do something to conserve energy and lessen dependence on middle eastern oil. And you, yourself, see all your "enemies" as having a mental disease - I believe you have accused everyone here on this forum who holds a different opinion to yourself as harboring "cyclist inferiority syndromes". It makes it difficult to have an intelligent discussion with you if you can never recognize an honest difference of opinion.

genec

Sir it is hardly "semantic foolishness" to cite the obvious and reflect what I actually encounter on local roads. I typically do about 16MPH as an average, so any motorists moving above about 35-40MPH ARE difficult to negotiate with. And with local mulitlaned arterials marked at 50MPH, the motorists are driving faster than that, and can be difficult to negotiate with.

It is hardly "semantic foolishness" to quote you.

Have you personally spent any time on local arterials... such as Miramar road, or El Camino Real? Or are you still recalling the days of your youth?

genec

I think he has even made disparaging remarks about folks that "worship" him...
Was stated by JF in reference to HH's entries on Wikipedia RE Vehicular cycling.

John Forester

If you read the London Times article, you will see that the Cyclists' Touring Club opposed the action by Jacobs Engineering by stating that cycling is not nearly as dangerous as many people think. Which is exactly the historic position of cyclists in Britain, and is my own as well. This contrasts with the devotion to bikeways demonstrated by the League of American Bicyclists, which has been led by the British lawyer who worked with British anti-motoring organizations before coming to America to take the lead position among American bike planners. In other words, it is not British cyclists who have given up on vehicular cycling, it is the British public which has become increasingly motorized so that its views have become typical, just as in America.

You American bikeways advocates are doing exactly what the motorists want, instead of fighting against motorist dominance for equal treatment on the roadways. What are you, all cowards afflicted with the cyclist-inferiority phobia? That looks like the most accurate diagnosis.

genec

Apparently the "American bikeway advocates" have also struck in Belgium... I saw wonderful bike lanes there, while watching stage 2 of the Tour d'France. Very wide, dashed with the same stripes as used elsewhere on the road. Red areas where the BL cross intersections. The intersections BTW were sweeping intersections, and of course traffic circles. But I would be willing to bet the speed limits were not 50-60MPH on these roads.

Brian Ratliff

But they don't. I don't honestly know where you get this idea. Is there some physical difficulty in changing lanes across a line of paint? Cars do it all the time. I do it as a cyclist. What's the problem?

Lines on the road are for the sole purpose of ordering the traffic flow. Slower to the right, faster to the left, left turners to the left, right turners to the right, etc. Special purpose lanes, naturally, are placed where they are most natural to use for the vehicle they are designed for. Bus lanes to the right. HOV lanes to the left. Truck lanes to the right. Etc.

As for the line being solid. Well, that's generally how special use lanes are designated in the US. In Europe, according to Tour of France coverage I've seen, the bike lanes are indicated by "dotted" or short dashed lines.

There are complaints about laws restricting cyclists to the bike lane. It is a compromise to gain a more efficient road - most traffic laws restrict truckers from the left lane of the freeway for the same reasons; so this type of restriction isn't without precident. Most laws of this type are littered with exceptions, which are broad and all encompassing. These exceptions include all the instances when a cyclist will be prompted to leave the right side of the road. Overzealous enforcement is sometimes an issue, but it is everywhere, isn't it? That's what traffic court is for.

Anyway. Just to point out that if the above is the lynchpin for your argument; it is weak and unconvincing.

Brian Ratliff

An amazing style for having a discussion.

You should stop with the accusations; at least to humor us. Please?

Bekologist

jhon forester is a fraud. calling bicyclists cowards. the gall of that quixotic, acerbic, has-been.

Many of us posting to this forum are transportational bicyclists, john, commute everyday on all manner of roads. hardly 'cowardly'...

some of us ride hundreds of miles a week. I'd hazard a bet we all ride 'vehicularily' - but to get that, first you'll have to comprehend that vehicular bicyclists can ride vehicularily in a bike lane - when that's the road position most appropriate for a vehicular bicyclist.

Most of us that post here see clearly the benefits of planning for bicycling on public rights of way.

calling people that don't share jhons dystopic, cars first point of view 'cowards'

what a piece of work!

Ed Holland

I'm torn between a strong interest in cycling advocacy, and the pointlessness of many of these arguments (this comment is not aimed at anyone in particular BTW).

What I have learned in many years of riding, much of it commuting in traffic, is that cycle specific "accommodations" can be very useful if correctly implemented. I'm not inferior to traffic, but equally, I cannot keep pace with traffic on a road with speed limits above 35 mph. If there is a lane provided, I will use it, if not then I can still ride comfortably without fear thanks to years of riding in the UK.

Guess I have a cycling style wrt motorists along the lines of "If they don't bother us we won't bother them". It works.

[Re-rail attempt]
Oh yes and the original subject of the thread - very silly indeed, and hypocritical. Besides, no employer can enforce rules regarding the mode of transport used by their workforce, especially outside work hours.
[/Rerail]

Ed