Advertise on Bikeforums.net



User Tag List

Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 76
  1. #1
    genec genec's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    san diego
    My Bikes
    custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2
    Posts
    22,530
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    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

  2. #2
    Cycle Year Round CB HI's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Honolulu, HI
    Posts
    11,420
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    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.

  3. #3
    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)
    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.
    ~Diane
    Recumbents: Lightning Thunderbolt, '06 Catrike Pocket. Upright: Trek Mountain Bike.
    8.5 mile commute. I like bike lanes.

  4. #4
    Non-Custom Member zeytoun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Portland, Oregon
    My Bikes
    1975-1980 SR road bike
    Posts
    1,613
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Company President lost 15 seconds of his time driving behind an employee cyclist as they both commuted into work.
    Was the cyclist riding vehicularly?
    I am a mutated sig Virus. Please put me in your sig so that I can continue to replicate and mutate, blah!.

  5. #5
    CRIKEY!!!!!!! Cyclaholic's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    My Bikes
    several
    Posts
    4,193
    Mentioned
    13 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    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.

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    4,069
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    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.

  7. #7
    Been Around Awhile I-Like-To-Bike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Burlington Iowa
    My Bikes
    Vaterland and Ragazzi
    Posts
    19,515
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    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.

  8. #8
    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
    18,016
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    jhon foresterr, what a fraud.
    "Evidence, anecdote and methodology all support planning for roadway bike traffic."

  9. #9
    genec genec's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    san diego
    My Bikes
    custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2
    Posts
    22,530
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    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?

  10. #10
    Violin guitar mandolin
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Friendsville, TN, USA
    My Bikes
    Wilier Thor, Fuji Professional, LeMond Wayzata
    Posts
    1,171
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    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.

  11. #11
    genec genec's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    san diego
    My Bikes
    custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2
    Posts
    22,530
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    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."

  12. #12
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    4,069
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    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.

  13. #13
    genec genec's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    san diego
    My Bikes
    custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2
    Posts
    22,530
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    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:"
    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.)

  14. #14
    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
    18,016
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    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.
    "Evidence, anecdote and methodology all support planning for roadway bike traffic."

  15. #15
    Sophomoric Member Roody's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Dancing in Lansing
    Posts
    20,372
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Nice troll gene!



    "Think Outside the Cage"

  16. #16
    genec genec's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    san diego
    My Bikes
    custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2
    Posts
    22,530
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    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.

  17. #17
    Been Around Awhile I-Like-To-Bike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Burlington Iowa
    My Bikes
    Vaterland and Ragazzi
    Posts
    19,515
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    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.

  18. #18
    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 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.
    ~Diane
    Recumbents: Lightning Thunderbolt, '06 Catrike Pocket. Upright: Trek Mountain Bike.
    8.5 mile commute. I like bike lanes.

  19. #19
    genec genec's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    san diego
    My Bikes
    custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2
    Posts
    22,530
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    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."

  20. #20
    Senior Member sggoodri's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Cary, NC
    My Bikes
    1983 Trek, 2001 Lemond, 2000 Gary Fisher
    Posts
    3,068
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    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.

  21. #21
    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
    18,016
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    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....
    "Evidence, anecdote and methodology all support planning for roadway bike traffic."

  22. #22
    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)
    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
    ~Diane
    Recumbents: Lightning Thunderbolt, '06 Catrike Pocket. Upright: Trek Mountain Bike.
    8.5 mile commute. I like bike lanes.

  23. #23
    genec genec's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    san diego
    My Bikes
    custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2
    Posts
    22,530
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    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...

  24. #24
    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
    18,016
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    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.
    "Evidence, anecdote and methodology all support planning for roadway bike traffic."

  25. #25
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    4,069
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    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?

Page 1 of 4 123 ... 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
  •