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.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 07-06-07, 10:44 AM   #1
genec
genec
Thread Starter
 
genec's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: West Coast
Bikes: custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2
Posts: 24,573
Must be a result of "cyclist inferiority syndrome... "

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/e...on/6277086.stm

Green experts ban cycling to work

TfL are keen for more people to cycle in London
A firm which advises councils on green transport has come under fire for banning its staff from cycling to work. Jacobs Engineering Group has sent an email to employees advising them to drive or use public transport.

The firm, which has advised Transport for London (TfL) on sustainable transport, said it wanted to protect staff from road accidents.

TfL said it found Jacobs's attitude "bizarre" and had urged the firm to rethink the ban.

'Hypocritical' move

Jacobs said cycling would only be permitted when it was essential for the job, such as carrying out surveys along river banks and towpaths.

On its website, Jacobs states: "In the area of cycling, we can offer expert resources at every stage from cycle policy and promotion through to the detailed design and implementation of cycle schemes."

The company's work for TfL has included monitoring the effects of the London congestion charge.

A TfL spokesman said it was committed to encouraging Londoners to use their bikes as much as possible.

"Our serious investment in growing cycling has seen journeys by bike on soar by 83% since 2000," she said.

She said investment in safety improvements had led to a 28% fall in the number of cyclists killed or injured since the mid-nineties.

London Assembly member Jenny Jones, who advises the mayor on green transport, said TfL should consider cancelling its contracts with Jacobs.

She said: "It is hypocritical to offer advice on promoting cycling, but at the same time ban your staff from using bikes.

"If Jacobs does not understand how important cycling is to TfL, we need to ask whether they are the right sort of company to work with."

Jacobs was unavailable for comment.

*************************************************************

I wonder if this is any more hypocritical than the writer of "Effective Cycling" working with a group that promotes an auto centeric viewpoint for development...

http://www.americandreamcoalition.org/
Note the speakers bureau: http://www.americandreamcoalition.org/forester.html
genec is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-06-07, 03:11 PM   #2
CB HI
Cycle Year Round
 
CB HI's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Honolulu, HI
Bikes:
Posts: 11,651
Must be a result of "cyclist inferiority syndrome... "

or

Company President lost 15 seconds of his time driving behind an employee cyclist as they both commuted into work.
Solution: Keep cyclist from getting in motorist way by banning cycling.
CB HI is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-06-07, 05:36 PM   #3
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
Quote:
Originally Posted by genec
I wonder if this is any more hypocritical than the writer of "Effective Cycling" working with a group that promotes an auto centeric viewpoint for development...

http://www.americandreamcoalition.org/
Note the speakers bureau: http://www.americandreamcoalition.org/forester.html
I'd say it's about the same, except that a cyclist "advocate" that actually advocates for automobiles is a little bit worse than a hypocrite.
sbhikes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-06-07, 06:48 PM   #4
zeytoun
Non-Custom Member
 
zeytoun's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Portland, Oregon
Bikes: 1975-1980 SR road bike
Posts: 1,613
Quote:
Company President lost 15 seconds of his time driving behind an employee cyclist as they both commuted into work.
Was the cyclist riding vehicularly?
zeytoun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-06-07, 07:03 PM   #5
Cyclaholic
CRIKEY!!!!!!!
 
Cyclaholic's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Bikes: several
Posts: 4,270
Quote:
Originally Posted by genec
I wonder if this is any more hypocritical than the writer of "Effective Cycling" working with a group that promotes an auto centeric viewpoint for development...

http://www.americandreamcoalition.org/
Note the speakers bureau: http://www.americandreamcoalition.org/forester.html
This company ban on employees commuting by bike is hypocritical. What the author of 'Effective Cycling' does is far far worse.
__________________
There are 10 types of people in the world - the ones that can count in base 2, the ones that can't count in base 2, and the ones that didn't expect this to be in base 3.
Cyclaholic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-07-07, 11:56 AM   #6
John Forester
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Bikes:
Posts: 4,071
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyclaholic
This company ban on employees commuting by bike is hypocritical. What the author of 'Effective Cycling' does is far far worse.
The minds of those who argue as you do are pictures of emotional illogical irrationality. Cyclists need good roads with equitable operating procedures and the standard skills of operating accordingly. That is what I work for, and only people with twisted minds would consider that hypocritical.

You bicycle advocates, on the other hand, are working your guts out in promoting the system that was designed to discriminate against cyclists and to limit their operating space, being based on the principle that bicycle riders don't really belong on the roadway because, so the excuse goes, they are incapable of doing so. Advocacy for cyclists you think that is? Nothing could be more hypocritical than your arguments, and you either cannot understand that, or you refuse to do so for ideological reasons associated with opposition to motoring. Doubly hypocritical that, first for being against the interests of cyclists, second for being controlled by the cyclist-inferiority superstition that was invented by motorists.
John Forester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-07-07, 06:07 PM   #7
I-Like-To-Bike
Been Around Awhile
 
I-Like-To-Bike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Burlington Iowa
Bikes: Vaterland and Ragazzi
Posts: 23,407
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Forester
The minds of those who argue as you do are pictures of emotional illogical irrationality. Cyclists need good roads with equitable operating procedures and the standard skills of operating accordingly. That is what I work for, and only people with twisted minds would consider that hypocritical.

You bicycle advocates, on the other hand, are working your guts out in promoting the system that was designed to discriminate against cyclists and to limit their operating space, being based on the principle that bicycle riders don't really belong on the roadway because, so the excuse goes, they are incapable of doing so. Advocacy for cyclists you think that is? Nothing could be more hypocritical than your arguments, and you either cannot understand that, or you refuse to do so for ideological reasons associated with opposition to motoring. Doubly hypocritical that, first for being against the interests of cyclists, second for being controlled by the cyclist-inferiority superstition that was invented by motorists.
Classic Forester on cycling advocacy! Recommend that the mods assign a special place for this post and steer all posters (and mods) to it when they try like the dickens to be even-handed conciliators and urge all bicyclists to join hands with the Forester clan to sing Kumbaya.
I-Like-To-Bike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-07-07, 10:33 PM   #8
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
jhon foresterr, what a fraud.
Bekologist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-08-07, 05:25 AM   #9
genec
genec
Thread Starter
 
genec's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: West Coast
Bikes: custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2
Posts: 24,573
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Forester
The minds of those who argue as you do are pictures of emotional illogical irrationality. Cyclists need good roads with equitable operating procedures and the standard skills of operating accordingly. That is what I work for, and only people with twisted minds would consider that hypocritical.

You bicycle advocates, on the other hand, are working your guts out in promoting the system that was designed to discriminate against cyclists and to limit their operating space, being based on the principle that bicycle riders don't really belong on the roadway because, so the excuse goes, they are incapable of doing so. Advocacy for cyclists you think that is? Nothing could be more hypocritical than your arguments, and you either cannot understand that, or you refuse to do so for ideological reasons associated with opposition to motoring. Doubly hypocritical that, first for being against the interests of cyclists, second for being controlled by the cyclist-inferiority superstition that was invented by motorists.
John why might a company in the UK "which advises councils on green transport" communicate to employees "advising them to drive or use public transport?"

Could it be that "cycling advocates" see such acts and realize that apparently even green firms nor "cycling experts" are not even really working for "good roads with equitable operating procedures" when "advocates" here can clearly see such things as "automobile promotion" which leads to urban freeway like conditions including 50MPH+ roads, promoted by certain land use developers. And in this specific case, also a "green transit" firm that suggests that it's employees NOT ride cycles to work?

Specifically the American Dream Coalition states: "...your car is designed to be most effective at speeds of 50 to 60 miles per hour. Actions that reduce speeds below this level will lead to more pollution."

ADC states "The American Dream Coalition supports automobility and all the benefits it provides." They also decry the use of traffic calming.

Does that sound like an environment or a directive that promotes safe cycling?
genec is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-09-07, 05:41 AM   #10
mandovoodoo
Violin guitar mandolin
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Friendsville, TN, USA
Bikes: Wilier Thor, Fuji Professional, LeMond Wayzata
Posts: 1,171
Hi John, Long time no see, you won't remember me.

Jacobs Engineering - I think I'm still listed as a part time employee. They allow cycling to work here in TN. But I can see how an individual office could put out diametrically opposed viewpoints. Jacobs (not alone in the corporate world) can be quite fragmented in their approach to things. Amazingly un-integrated in their presentation to the outside world. Many of these companies are quite capable of presenting opposite viewpoints for different clients. And this really isn't a problem. Their job, like the job of a lawyer, is to evaluate and present their client's viewpoints or advance their client's missions. Real conflicts arise when a client wants some specific thing promoted, but the job is to do a neutral and balanced analysis. An attorney can strongly and powerfully defend a client accused of harassment while simultaneously developing an internal anti-harassment policy. Similarly, Jacobs can develop bicycle stuff while having an internal policy that's anti-bicycle. It just looks weird from the outside.

I'd be more concerned at the attempt to invade employees' private decisions outside the office when those decisions involve legal acts that do not place the company at risk. That's a much more interesting issue than some silly incongruence of positions advanced for a client and internal policies.
mandovoodoo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-09-07, 07:20 AM   #11
genec
genec
Thread Starter
 
genec's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: West Coast
Bikes: custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2
Posts: 24,573
Quote:
Originally Posted by mandovoodoo
Similarly, Jacobs can develop bicycle stuff while having an internal policy that's anti-bicycle. It just looks weird from the outside.

I'd be more concerned at the attempt to invade employees' private decisions outside the office when those decisions involve legal acts that do not place the company at risk. That's a much more interesting issue than some silly incongruence of positions advanced for a client and internal policies.
Darn right it looks strange... rather like Nokia saying their employees shouldn't carry cell phones.

You are right though that the more interesting issue is "the attempt to invade employees' private decisions." Gee, how socialistic of them. But the reality is that this sort of thing is done all the time... drug testing for instance is a similar "invasion of privacy."
genec is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-09-07, 11:52 AM   #12
John Forester
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Bikes:
Posts: 4,071
Quote:
Originally Posted by genec
John why might a company in the UK "which advises councils on green transport" communicate to employees "advising them to drive or use public transport?"

Could it be that "cycling advocates" see such acts and realize that apparently even green firms nor "cycling experts" are not even really working for "good roads with equitable operating procedures" when "advocates" here can clearly see such things as "automobile promotion" which leads to urban freeway like conditions including 50MPH+ roads, promoted by certain land use developers. And in this specific case, also a "green transit" firm that suggests that it's employees NOT ride cycles to work?

Specifically the American Dream Coalition states: "...your car is designed to be most effective at speeds of 50 to 60 miles per hour. Actions that reduce speeds below this level will lead to more pollution."

ADC states "The American Dream Coalition supports automobility and all the benefits it provides." They also decry the use of traffic calming.

Does that sound like an environment or a directive that promotes safe cycling?
Does Jacobs Engineering promote safe cycling? I have no knowledge of what they advocate. However, since most bicycle advocacy and the corresponding actions are ill-thought-out results of the cyclist-inferiority superstition, I think it likely that the report that they advised their London employees to not cycle to work has some substance to it. As I have been writing for decades, bike planning is a mess that has neither theoretical nor empirical basis. The results that it has produced are largely those from appealing to the cyclist-inferiority superstition.

As for the American Dream Coalition, their goal is to support automotive mobility against the attacks upon it. They have no incentive to oppose bicycle transportation, and they oppose those aspects of bike planning that happen to be bad for cyclists, because those things happen to be bad for motorists also. Which is why I sometimes talk to them and their audiences.

There are a few things that typical bicycle advocates should get right, but have so far largely refused to do so.

The first is that the automotive suburbia has grown up because people want to live that way and the car provides the ability to do so. It happens to be true that the automotive suburbia and its life style provide fewer opportunities for bicycle transportation than did the streetcar city, and those opportunities involve longer travel distances, for which higher cycling speeds are desirable. There's little that bicycle advocates can do about that; we need to work out how best to cycle in automotive suburbia, and influence the desirable improvements within that framework. I think that it is unrealistic to expect to replace any transportationally significant part of that motoring with bicycle transportation.

The second is that the proper way to cycle on the roadway is according to the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles. I notice that most of the discussants on these lists say that they ride accordingly, although they also advocate facility designs that are based on the opposite principle of cyclist-inferiority. There are only two reasons for such hypocrisy. One is that they actually believe that cyclists are inferior roadway users, despite their own contrary actions. The other is that they recognize that the general public, suffering as it does from the cyclist-inferiority superstition, can be attracted to cycling only by facilities whose magical powers counteract the superstition.

The third is that the facilities that are based on the cyclist-inferiority superstition are as they are because they were designed by motorists to make motoring more convenient, with the twin excuses that cycling in traffic is exceedingly dangerous and requires untypical levels of ability. Both of these are false, being nothing but the cyclist-inferiority superstition.

Real bicycle advocacy needs to be directed at improving the level of cyclist competence to that expected of normal drivers, persuading society and government that vehicular operation actually is the proper way, and advocating those roadway designs and improvements that are adapted to accommodating lawful, competent cyclists.
John Forester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-09-07, 12:26 PM   #13
genec
genec
Thread Starter
 
genec's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: West Coast
Bikes: custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2
Posts: 24,573
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Forester
Does Jacobs Engineering promote safe cycling? I have no knowledge of what they advocate. However, since most bicycle advocacy and the corresponding actions are ill-thought-out results of the cyclist-inferiority superstition, I think it likely that the report that they advised their London employees to not cycle to work has some substance to it. As I have been writing for decades, bike planning is a mess that has neither theoretical nor empirical basis. The results that it has produced are largely those from appealing to the cyclist-inferiority superstition.

As for the American Dream Coalition, their goal is to support automotive mobility against the attacks upon it. They have no incentive to oppose bicycle transportation, and they oppose those aspects of bike planning that happen to be bad for cyclists, because those things happen to be bad for motorists also. Which is why I sometimes talk to them and their audiences.

There are a few things that typical bicycle advocates should get right, but have so far largely refused to do so.

The first is that the automotive suburbia has grown up because people want to live that way and the car provides the ability to do so. It happens to be true that the automotive suburbia and its life style provide fewer opportunities for bicycle transportation than did the streetcar city, and those opportunities involve longer travel distances, for which higher cycling speeds are desirable. There's little that bicycle advocates can do about that; we need to work out how best to cycle in automotive suburbia, and influence the desirable improvements within that framework. I think that it is unrealistic to expect to replace any transportationally significant part of that motoring with bicycle transportation.

The second is that the proper way to cycle on the roadway is according to the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles. I notice that most of the discussants on these lists say that they ride accordingly, although they also advocate facility designs that are based on the opposite principle of cyclist-inferiority. There are only two reasons for such hypocrisy. One is that they actually believe that cyclists are inferior roadway users, despite their own contrary actions. The other is that they recognize that the general public, suffering as it does from the cyclist-inferiority superstition, can be attracted to cycling only by facilities whose magical powers counteract the superstition.

The third is that the facilities that are based on the cyclist-inferiority superstition are as they are because they were designed by motorists to make motoring more convenient, with the twin excuses that cycling in traffic is exceedingly dangerous and requires untypical levels of ability. Both of these are false, being nothing but the cyclist-inferiority superstition.

Real bicycle advocacy needs to be directed at improving the level of cyclist competence to that expected of normal drivers, persuading society and government that vehicular operation actually is the proper way, and advocating those roadway designs and improvements that are adapted to accommodating lawful, competent cyclists.
John, two comments... you have always addressed cyclist inferiority syndrome as primarily an American issue... and usually contrast drivers here with drivers "over there." The response of the Jacobs company shows that drivers "over there" also seem to be infected with cyclist inferiority syndrome... How can that be?

And how comfortable do think even experienced cyclists will be with cycling on roads that are built to ADC "standards:"
Quote:
Specifically the American Dream Coalition states: "...your car is designed to be most effective at speeds of 50 to 60 miles per hour. Actions that reduce speeds below this level will lead to more pollution."
Now we are not talking freeways here with wide shoulders and plenty of room to ride... we are talking at best, WOL multilaned roads... without bike lanes. I won't deny that these roads can be ridden... but the class of rider that will enjoy these, is rare indeed.

You yourself state in Effective Cycling that negotiation with fast moving drivers can be difficult. (this is paraphrased... I don't have my copy of EC handy at the moment.)
genec is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-09-07, 12:33 PM   #14
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
sorry, john, but vehicular cyclists can ride vehicularily in a bike lane, dude.

vehicular cyclists can advocate for bike specific infrastructure as well, to make suburbia more bike-friendly for more of the public.

get off your high horse - it's fradulent.
Bekologist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-09-07, 01:58 PM   #15
Roody
Sophomoric Member
 
Roody's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Dancing in Lansing
Bikes:
Posts: 23,351
Nice troll gene!

__________________

"Think Outside the Cage"
Roody is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-09-07, 02:28 PM   #16
genec
genec
Thread Starter
 
genec's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: West Coast
Bikes: custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2
Posts: 24,573
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roody
Nice troll gene!

Yeah? Doesn't seem to be catching much...

One would think a "consulting firm" that recommends "green transportation solutions" and then tells it's employees not to ride bikes... might be a bit controversial.

One would think the writer of "Effective Cycling" working with a group that believes all cars should move at 50-60MPH, might be a bit controversial.

Kind of like waging war for peace.
genec is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-09-07, 02:49 PM   #17
I-Like-To-Bike
Been Around Awhile
 
I-Like-To-Bike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Burlington Iowa
Bikes: Vaterland and Ragazzi
Posts: 23,407
Quote:
Originally Posted by genec
Yeah? Doesn't seem to be catching much...

One would think a "consulting firm" that recommends "green transportation solutions" and then tells it's employees not to ride bikes... might be a bit controversial.
I think it is useful to wait for a clear description of what exactly the firm is telling its employees about transportation requirements. Are they addressing how employees are to get about the city when on company business, or how the employee is "permitted" to commute to and from work? All I've read is a lot of guesswork and speculation about alleged insurance company edicts; facts are few.
I-Like-To-Bike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-09-07, 03:03 PM   #18
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
I think it's totally unAmerican to tell people what to do on their off-hours. But corporate takeover of our entire lives, including our once Democracy is nearly complete. Seems to be spreading to Brittain as well.
sbhikes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-09-07, 03:13 PM   #19
genec
genec
Thread Starter
 
genec's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: West Coast
Bikes: custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2
Posts: 24,573
Quote:
Originally Posted by I-Like-To-Bike
I think it is useful to wait for a clear description of what exactly the firm is telling its employees about transportation requirements. Are they addressing how employees are to get about the city when on company business, or how the employee is "permitted" to commute to and from work? All I've read is a lot of guesswork and speculation about alleged insurance company edicts; facts are few.
OK this is from the London Times... so it again is a second hand source of info:

Quote:
Originally Posted by London Times
From The Times
July 6, 2007

Green transport specialist tells its workers to 'get off your bikes'

Ben Webster, Transport Correspondent


One of Britain's biggest engineering companies has banned staff from travelling on bicycles or motorbikes after declaring them too dangerous.

Jacobs Babtie advises local authorities on sustainable transport projects - including how to get more people to switch from four wheels to two.

It has told staff at its 36 offices across Britain that they must drive or use public transport. They can use bicycles only if they are working away from roads, such as on canal towpaths.

In an e-mail to all employees, a copy of which has been obtained by The Times, the company's health and safety manager says: "It's patently obvious that if you are struck by a wayward vehicle when you are on a bicycle or motorbike you are going to be more severely affected than if you were in a car. The reason for this policy is to protect our employees from other vehicles on the road.

There will be a few limited exceptions when employees will be permitted to travel by bicycle, but that would be when that mode of transport is required to undertake the job, for example, carrying out surveys along river banks and tow paths."

The ban on cycling on company business has infuriated several staff, who have been cycling without any serious safety incidents for years. They believe the ban is partly the result of conditions in the company's insurance policy. The e-mail acknowledges that staff are unhappy about the ban and admits it "could be construed as being at odds with our environmental policy and the requirement to be environmentally responsible".

It also acknowledges the concerns among employees that the company will lose important contracts because the ban "will not please our environmentally friendly clients".

One of Jacobs' biggest customers is Transport for London, which has a target of achieving a fivefold increase in the level of cycling by 2025, and this weekend will host the opening races in the Tour de France.

TfL paid Jacobs 6 million last year for various projects, including monitoring the impact of the congestion charge and measuring how many people have switched from driving to walking or cycling.

On its website, Jacobs states: "In the area of cycling, we can offer expert resources at every stage from cycle policy and promotion through to the detailed design and implementation of cycle schemes."

Jenny Jones, the green transport adviser to Ken Livingstone, the Mayor of London, said TfL should consider cancelling its contracts with Jacobs. She said: "It is hypocritical to offer advice on promoting cycling but at the same time ban your staff from using bikes. If Jacobs does not understand how important cycling is to TfL, we need to ask whether they are the right sort of company to work with."

A TfL spokesman said: "We find the attitude of Jacobs bizarre and we will be urging them to rethink this decision. TfL is committed to encouraging Londoners to get on their bikes whenever and wherever possible. Our serious investment in growing cycling has seen journeys by bike on soar by 83 per cent since 2000. The number of number of cyclists killed or seriously injured has fallen by 28 per cent since the mid to late 1990s."

In Britain, 146 cyclists were killed last year compared with 203 in 1996.

Kevin Mayne, the director of the Cyclists Touring Club, said: "Banning cycling on health and safety grounds is ironic; forcing people off their bikes and into cars just reduces their fitness and increases the danger they pose to other road users. Jacobs' policy shows a complete lack of understanding of transport risk assessment. For TfL and local authorities to pay a company which bans cycling for advice on sustainable transport is like asking the lunatics to help run the asylum."

A US medical study found that people who cycled regularly beyond their mid30s lived on average two years longer. The British Medical Association has said that the health benefits of cycling far outweigh risks.

The Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety said that Jacobs should give its employees training in how to be safer cyclists rather than banning them from cycling.

Jacobs refused to comment.
Of course with that last line, this is pretty much a closed deal.

Now about that "cycling expert" that is consulting to a group that doesn't believe in traffic calming and insists that autos must move at 50-60MPH...

Having read the group's mission statement, (which is pretty much "zoom zoom") and what the "expert" has on record as his "testimony," I would have to wonder about the "cycling expert's" motives.

What it comes down to for me is this... if these are "friends..." I'd hate to see the "enemies."
genec is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-09-07, 03:28 PM   #20
sggoodri
Senior Member
 
sggoodri's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Cary, NC
Bikes: 1983 Trek, 2001 Lemond, 2000 Gary Fisher
Posts: 3,073
Quote:
Originally Posted by genec
Specifically the American Dream Coalition states: "...your car is designed to be most effective at speeds of 50 to 60 miles per hour. Actions that reduce speeds below this level will lead to more pollution."

ADC states "The American Dream Coalition supports automobility and all the benefits it provides." They also decry the use of traffic calming.
In truth, minimum pollution per mile for typical ICE cars moving at constant speed is obtained closer to 30-35 mph, not 50-60. With electric drive, it is even slower.

Stop-and-go traffic does increase pollution per mile for normal ICE cars, but much of this increase can be overcome with hybrid engines. Replacing stop signs with roundabouts (traffic calming?) can result in less speed variance and improve efficiency for all drivers.

Since Americans choose many of their travel habits based on travel time rather than distance, one should also consider the pollution per hour of travel rather than per mile of travel when speculating what pollution effects may result due to changes in average travel speeds.

While I certainly support freeways and well designed cross-town arterials, it is my observation that many surface streets are overdesigned, with design speeds far in excess of what is appropriate for their surrounding land uses. For instance, when building a street that will go between a middle school and a park complex that includes a skate park and popular greenway link, is a 50 mph design speed appropriate? If a street ends in "T" intersections at both ends, each with a single turn lane in each direction, does the street really need to be five lanes in between?

These are the questions I keep posing to our local traffic engineers. Some of them are starting to listen.
sggoodri is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-09-07, 03:39 PM   #21
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
Quote:
Originally Posted by genec



One would think the writer of "Effective Cycling" working with a group that believes all cars should move at 50-60MPH, might be a bit controversial.
You don't say....
Bekologist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-09-07, 03:54 PM   #22
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
Quote:
Originally Posted by genec
OK this is from the London Times... so it again is a second hand source of info:



Of course with that last line, this is pretty much a closed deal.

Now about that "cycling expert" that is consulting to a group that doesn't believe in traffic calming and insists that autos must move at 50-60MPH...

Having read the group's mission statement, (which is pretty much "zoom zoom") and what the "expert" has on record as his "testimony," I would have to wonder about the "cycling expert's" motives.

What it comes down to for me is this... if these are "friends..." I'd hate to see the "enemies."
Not just that but this consulting company doesn't seem to hold much faith in the results of its own advice. How good can they if their consultations don't provide results good enough for the company to stand behind with its actions? I'd fire them if it was my decision.

Just like I fire John Forester about every day I go for a bike ride
sbhikes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-09-07, 04:10 PM   #23
genec
genec
Thread Starter
 
genec's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: West Coast
Bikes: custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2
Posts: 24,573
Quote:
Originally Posted by sggoodri
In truth, minimum pollution per mile for typical ICE cars moving at constant speed is obtained closer to 30-35 mph, not 50-60. With electric drive, it is even slower.

Stop-and-go traffic does increase pollution per mile for normal ICE cars, but much of this increase can be overcome with hybrid engines. Replacing stop signs with roundabouts (traffic calming?) can result in less speed variance and improve efficiency for all drivers.

Since Americans choose many of their travel habits based on travel time rather than distance, one should also consider the pollution per hour of travel rather than per mile of travel when speculating what pollution effects may result due to changes in average travel speeds.

While I certainly support freeways and well designed cross-town arterials, it is my observation that many surface streets are overdesigned, with design speeds far in excess of what is appropriate for their surrounding land uses. For instance, when building a street that will go between a middle school and a park complex that includes a skate park and popular greenway link, is a 50 mph design speed appropriate? If a street ends in "T" intersections at both ends, each with a single turn lane in each direction, does the street really need to be five lanes in between?

These are the questions I keep posing to our local traffic engineers. Some of them are starting to listen.
I do believe you've got it... now perhaps someone can explain it to the folks over at ADC. And "that book" author...
genec is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-09-07, 04:15 PM   #24
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
that author suffers from a terminal case of motorist superiority disorder. pathalogical obsession with a 'cars first and foremost' mentality; strikingly unfitting for a self-ascribed bike advocate.

A curious contradiction....and not at all flattering.
Bekologist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-09-07, 05:34 PM   #25
John Forester
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Bikes:
Posts: 4,071
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bekologist
sorry, john, but vehicular cyclists can ride vehicularily in a bike lane, dude.

vehicular cyclists can advocate for bike specific infrastructure as well, to make suburbia more bike-friendly for more of the public.

get off your high horse - it's fradulent.
Why do you repeat the same silly claim time after time, when you have never demonstrated its relevance. For that matter, you have never qualified that claim as logic would require, and as has been discussed many times on this list. It is obvious that you can read and write; it is the thought process between that is defective.

Do you mean that a vehicular cyclist can sometimes ride properly in a bike lane? The rest of us have agreed that that is so. Do you mean that a vehicular cyclist can always ride in a bike lane (and remain in the vehicular manner), if one is present? The rest of us have agreed that that is not so. Do these qualifications reach your understanding? If not, in what way do you disagree? And what is the relevance of these thoughts to the discussion of vehicular cycling, or to bike-lane advocacy?
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 10:58 PM.