Bike Forums

Bike Forums (http://www.bikeforums.net/forum.php)
-   Vehicular Cycling (VC) (http://www.bikeforums.net/vehicular-cycling-vc/)
-   -   VC- its all about convenience for the motorists (http://www.bikeforums.net/vehicular-cycling-vc/377269-vc-its-all-about-convenience-motorists.html)

Bekologist 01-08-08 12:43 AM

VC- its all about convenience for the motorists
 
Well, having read john's rants in this forum for the last few months, I have become increasing appraised of how much the vc camp kowtows to the motorists.

shoulders for bikes on high speed roads more acceptable than bike lanes -even if the bike lane could be built 100% vehicularily -shoulder riding can largely get the bikes off the road alltogther.

banning bikes from high speed 'freeways' so as to not impede high speed motorized travel. banning bikes from certain types of road.

I predict johns handlers at the ADC won't be happy just banning bikes from freeways, it will soon become the accepted vc mantra to ban bikes from limited access highways, then 50MPH high speed artertials, so as to not impede the motorists.

John's assertions about how, given the scarcity of transportation infrastructure dollars, bicyclists shouldn't be considered. we should be designing the roads for the motorists.

anyway, I find john's obsession about the supremacy of the automoble in the transportation heirarachy is very disturbing and anti-bicyclist.

StrangeWill 01-08-08 05:03 AM

Better idea: Put up with the bike lanes, or the shoulders, or however the road is built for cycling. I've never see a larger group of whining sissies ever. Since when did the city build roads to MY specification for my specific method of travel under my own opinion of what is safer? Lets put it this way: People here think that the minority (anti-bike laners) of a minority (bicyclists in general) should get roads designed THEIR way. Can someone please explain this really slowly again and again throughout every thread it's mentioned from now on?

Put your bike on the road, your feet on the pedals and shut your mouth. Just makes cyclists look like idiots when you'll squabble over every imperfection on the state owned road when you end up paying less taxes because you ride a bike instead of drive a car. Get in your car, drive it, notice how many bad designs there are in driveways, merge lanes, traffic signals. Then park your car, get on foot and walk for a good 15 miles and realize how bad some crosswalks are placed, light cycles are inefficient for peds, bad uneven sidewalks, or even the lack thereof where they should be. Then realize, it's going to be this way for a LONG LONG time. For motorists and cyclists and pedestrians, and guess who isn't coming first in the fix! Especially on subjects so opaque as bike lane safety. Could you imagine signing into a ped forum and all they can argue about is the difference between how safe a white stripped crosswalk is as opposed to a yellow parallel lined crosswalk is?

I'm pretty sure if any real amount of city working road designers saw the **** that went on in here they'd urge the banning of bicycles from anything but kid-safe padded ground playgrounds being as we can't ride on the road without being terrified of a damned line painted on the road.

I swear this forum is about bickering about absolutely nothing so everyone can be self-proclaimed experts.


The majority of cyclists get on their bike and figure it out.


VC: It's about being right in one's own mind, not about safety. Not surprised, it's the human condition to want to be right, but damn, it's a forum about it.

Roody 01-08-08 04:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bekologist (Post 5944055)
Well, having read john's rants in this forum for the last few months, I have become increasing appraised of how much the vc camp kowtows to the motorists.

shoulders for bikes on high speed roads more acceptable than bike lanes -even if the bike lane could be built 100% vehicularily -shoulder riding can largely get the bikes off the road alltogther.

banning bikes from high speed 'freeways' so as to not impede high speed motorized travel. banning bikes from certain types of road.

I predict johns handlers at the ADC won't be happy just banning bikes from freeways, it will soon become the accepted vc mantra to ban bikes from limited access highways, then 50MPH high speed artertials, so as to not impede the motorists.

John's assertions about how, given the scarcity of transportation infrastructure dollars, bicyclists shouldn't be considered. we should be designing the roads for the motorists.

anyway, I find john's obsession about the supremacy of the automoble in the transportation heirarachy is very disturbing and anti-bicyclist
.

I don't know who this "john" is (;)), but he sure sounds like somebody who's never done anything to popularize cycling. From the sounds of it, he doesn't know the first thing about riding a bike safely.

My own POV is that eventually roads should (and will) be designed primarily for bikes, walkers and buses. Some city streets, but not many, might have a narrow striped lane for cars, off to the side of the roadway. But until that happens (and it probably won't be within my lifetime, unfortunately), I'm going to concentrate on keeping safe on the streets I'm stuck with. In my experience, that means I'll mostly ride vehicularly with a defensive flavor, while staying flexible enough to come up with some new adaptive ideas.

John Forester 01-09-08 03:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bekologist (Post 5944055)
Well, having read john's rants in this forum for the last few months, I have become increasing appraised of how much the vc camp kowtows to the motorists.

shoulders for bikes on high speed roads more acceptable than bike lanes -even if the bike lane could be built 100% vehicularily -shoulder riding can largely get the bikes off the road alltogther.

banning bikes from high speed 'freeways' so as to not impede high speed motorized travel. banning bikes from certain types of road.

I predict johns handlers at the ADC won't be happy just banning bikes from freeways, it will soon become the accepted vc mantra to ban bikes from limited access highways, then 50MPH high speed artertials, so as to not impede the motorists.

John's assertions about how, given the scarcity of transportation infrastructure dollars, bicyclists shouldn't be considered. we should be designing the roads for the motorists.

anyway, I find john's obsession about the supremacy of the automoble in the transportation heirarachy is very disturbing and anti-bicyclist.

Oh, deary me! Bekologist here shows the depth of his anti-motoring ideology that causes him to misunderstand, or to lie about, most of what has been written. Bekologist's aim to allow cyclists on freeways is evidently, from his own words, so that the cycle traffic will impede motorists. He's a fool, of course, in that aim, but it is not mine at all. I see no harm whatever, and considerable good, when we let motorists have their own high-speed routes, just so long as we cyclists can reach the same locations at the speed that suits us. After all, motor traffic that is on the freeway is where it won't bother us.

Of course I never wrote that so little transportation funds are available that cyclists should not be considered. That's just another of Bekologist's lies. What I did write was that society should not spend valuable funds to suit Bekologist's superstitions about greatly exaggerated dangers of same-direction motor traffic; there are better ways to spend money to improve cyclists' safety and convenience than catering to foolish superstitions that are motivated by anti-motoring ideology.

And, of course, a man who is filled with anti-motoring anger just cannot stand a person remarking that a very large part of the population find that motoring suits their needs better than cycling. To a person who is obsessed by the idea that motoring has to be below cycling, the attitude that there is no hierarchy at all, that each mode should be assessed by the individual user according to which will best suit that user for that particular trip, is absolutely infuriating.

John Forester 01-09-08 03:31 PM



Might as well snip all of this, for I am going to discuss the title that Bekologist has given to this particular discussion: "VC -- It's all about convenience for the motorist."

Bekologist has given us an absolutely wonderful title to contain his rants, for the system that he advocates, that he finds he can advocate only through illogicality, absurdity, and lies, is that which was designed by motorists for their own convenience, giving them the legal way to discriminate against cyclists and to shove cyclists out of motorists' way, for the convenience of motorists.

So now Bekologist is trying to argue that those who fight against this discrimination against cyclists for the convenience of motorists are actually working for the convenience of motorists. If he believes that, he's a fool, while if he does not believe that, he lies.

Helmet Head 01-09-08 04:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by StrangeWill (Post 5944401)
People here think that the minority (anti-bike laners) of a minority (bicyclists in general) should get roads designed THEIR way.

Huh??? Where on earth did you get that idea?

The most that is going on is that the majority (pro bike-laners) of a minority (bicyclists in general) think that roads should get designed THEIR way.

The minority (anti bike-laners) of that minority simply disagrees with that. We just ride and use the roads as drivers, as they are designed for drivers of all types of vehicles, thank you very much.

The only design changes we seek are relatively minor: good pavement, traffic signal detectors that detect bicyclists, lack of wheel-swallowing grates with slots parallel to the roadway, etc.

The Human Car 01-09-08 04:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Forester (Post 5953407)
Bekologist's aim to allow cyclists on freeways is evidently, from his own words, so that the cycle traffic will impede motorists.

There is at least one other option then ether ban cyclists or allow cyclists to impede motorists and that is called a shoulder. This is just one of many examples how JF promotes superior facilities for cyclists, by pretending there is no other option.

This conversation is nuts, if person A says they would rather not ban cyclists on freeways then person B else accuses them of impeding motorists. If person A says they would rather not imped motorists person B accuses them of an irrational fear of same directional traffic.

John Forester 01-09-08 06:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Human Car (Post 5954038)
There is at least one other option then ether ban cyclists or allow cyclists to impede motorists and that is called a shoulder. This is just one of many examples how JF promotes superior facilities for cyclists, by pretending there is no other option.

This conversation is nuts, if person A says they would rather not ban cyclists on freeways then person B else accuses them of impeding motorists. If person A says they would rather not imped motorists person B accuses them of an irrational fear of same directional traffic.

I remind you of what Bekologist wrote: " banning bikes from high speed 'freeways' so as to not impede high speed motorized travel. banning bikes from certain types of road." Bekologist is the person who stated that, in his mind, the purpose of permitting bicycle traffic on freeways is to impede motorists. It's not my fault that Bekologist uses phrasing that betrays his intention.

gcottay 01-09-08 08:40 PM

StrangeWill and Roody seem to be of topic here with discussion of vehicular cycling in a thread dedicated, uh, well, sometime or another.

Bekologist 01-09-08 11:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Forester (Post 5954352)
I remind you of what Bekologist wrote: " banning bikes from high speed 'freeways' so as to not impede high speed motorized travel. banning bikes from certain types of road." Bekologist is the person who stated that, in his mind, the purpose of permitting bicycle traffic on freeways is to impede motorists. It's not my fault that Bekologist uses phrasing that betrays his intention.

WHAT?

jhon, YOU want bikes banned from freeways. I don't, but I have no interest in 'impeding motorists'. Where did you get THAT idea? I want to use that transportation cooridor. YOU want to ensure bikes CAN'T impede the cars by banning us from some roads (freeways)

and since you DO support banning bikes from freeways if a slow speed alternative is available (I believe you support banning bikes is for the conveinence of the motorists, yes?) why should I believe the vc camp won't soon support banning bikes from high speed arterials if a slower speed road is available?

You already support banning bikes from some transportation cooridors. I do not, nor do I believe letting bikes onto freeway cooridors with wide shoulders would in any way 'impede motorists'.

You might not like the way the truth sounds, john, and neither do I. but realize the facts are indisputable:

For the conveinence of motorized traffic, john forestor supports banning bikes from some transportation cooridors if slow speed alternatives are available.

That sounds like some serious motorist superiority disorder you're suffering from , johnjon.

StrangeWill 01-10-08 03:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Helmet Head (Post 5953834)
Huh??? Where on earth did you get that idea?

The most that is going on is that the majority (pro bike-laners) of a minority (bicyclists in general) think that roads should get designed THEIR way.

The minority (anti bike-laners) of that minority simply disagrees with that. We just ride and use the roads as drivers, as they are designed for drivers of all types of vehicles, thank you very much.

The only design changes we seek are relatively minor: good pavement, traffic signal detectors that detect bicyclists, lack of wheel-swallowing grates with slots parallel to the roadway, etc.

Majority of bike lane threads I see from anti bike-laners are "bike lanes are dangerous and it's safer without them", I feel like you're practically lying to my face the way you put it being as I've seen on this very forum the exact opposite of what you claim. Especially seeing how much anti-bike lane propaganda there is around these parts about how flat out dangerous they are (though for some reason, playing with 4000lb vehicles operated by idiots is assumed to be safe... I'm not even safe behind an equally sized vehicle... but lets ignore that).

However, on one of my routes I was quite humored by a bike lane that went right into a grate, so someone did think of bicyclists using the road, but put a damn grate in there anyway.

Wait why are you complaining about grates? What happened to taking the lane?

noisebeam 01-10-08 10:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by StrangeWill (Post 5957008)
...about how flat out dangerous they are (though for some reason, playing with 4000lb vehicles operated by idiots is assumed to be safe... I'm not even safe behind an equally sized vehicle... but lets ignore that).

However, on one of my routes I was quite humored by a bike lane that went right into a grate, so someone did think of bicyclists using the road, but put a damn grate in there anyway.

Wait why are you complaining about grates? What happened to taking the lane?

You are still very much interacting with other vehicles whether there is a striped bike lane or not.

Grates/hazards can occur anywhere in the roadway, not just at the margins. The latest lengthwise 1.5" crack I am working with the city to fix happens to be in the middle of a narrow outside lane.

Al

John Forester 01-10-08 05:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bekologist (Post 5956416)
WHAT?

jhon, YOU want bikes banned from freeways. I don't, but I have no interest in 'impeding motorists'. Where did you get THAT idea? I want to use that transportation cooridor. YOU want to ensure bikes CAN'T impede the cars by banning us from some roads (freeways)

and since you DO support banning bikes from freeways if a slow speed alternative is available (I believe you support banning bikes is for the conveinence of the motorists, yes?) why should I believe the vc camp won't soon support banning bikes from high speed arterials if a slower speed road is available?

You already support banning bikes from some transportation cooridors. I do not, nor do I believe letting bikes onto freeway cooridors with wide shoulders would in any way 'impede motorists'.

You might not like the way the truth sounds, john, and neither do I. but realize the facts are indisputable:

For the conveinence of motorized traffic, john forestor supports banning bikes from some transportation cooridors if slow speed alternatives are available.

That sounds like some serious motorist superiority disorder you're suffering from , johnjon.

Bekologist, these statements that you call truth are just another of your packages of lies. I have never argued that cycling on a freeway shoulder impedes motorists. In fact, the thought that anyone would be so foolish as to think of that result had never crossed my mind until I read that you have postulated it. I have cycled some hundreds of miles of freeway shoulders, quite a few of them more than once. I do know of what I write.

The issue is not one of motorist convenience, because, as you write, that is irrelevant to the situation being considered. The issue as I and my many associates see it is one of political reality. Motorists feel very strongly that traffic capable only of slow speeds should not be using freeways. We see no reason to dispute with them about this issue except for the particular situations in which the freeway is clearly better and safer. For those situations we have fought, and that has been the basis of the compromise between motorists and cyclists over the freeway issue, a compromise settled decades ago, although new particular situations arise as the highway system changes.

I repeat, you are either ignorant of very basic aspects of bicycle transportation, or you are an ideological liar telling your lies to cause trouble.

Helmet Head 01-10-08 06:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by StrangeWill (Post 5957008)
Majority of bike lane threads I see from anti bike-laners are "bike lanes are dangerous and it's safer without them", I feel like you're practically lying to my face the way you put it being as I've seen on this very forum the exact opposite of what you claim.

I have no idea what you're talking about. How is saying "bike lanes are dangerous and it's safer without them" "the exact opposite of what [ I ] claim"?

Quote:

Originally Posted by StrangeWill (Post 5957008)
Especially seeing how much anti-bike lane propaganda there is around these parts about how flat out dangerous they are (though for some reason, playing with 4000lb vehicles operated by idiots is assumed to be safe... I'm not even safe behind an equally sized vehicle... but lets ignore that).

When I say bike lanes are dangerous, I mean they are dangerous for cyclists who don't know how to use them safely (which I believe is the vast majority of cyclists), primarily because how they typically misroute cyclists and motorists at intersection and junctions, and how they tend to instill a false sense of security (and who is "playing" with 4000lbs vehicles??? What are you talking about, and what does that have to do with bike lanes?).

Quote:

Originally Posted by StrangeWill (Post 5957008)
However, on one of my routes I was quite humored by a bike lane that went right into a grate, so someone did think of bicyclists using the road, but put a damn grate in there anyway.
Wait why are you complaining about grates? What happened to taking the lane?

I hope you don't somehow think that vehicular cycling is all about taking the lane all the time. VC is much more, and less, than that.

Speed positioning requires slower traffic to keep right between intersections, when same-direction faster traffic is present. Complying with this principle can bring cyclists close to grates.

Bekologist 01-10-08 07:25 PM

john, you are so afflicted with motorist superiority disorder-it's reprehensible. your last post is stunning in its expose.

StrangeWill 01-11-08 12:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Helmet Head (Post 5961331)
I have no idea what you're talking about. How is saying "bike lanes are dangerous and it's safer without them" "the exact opposite of what [ I ] claim"?

You claim they don't want it changed, that is simply dumb to state.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Helmet Head (Post 5961331)
When I say bike lanes are dangerous, I mean they are dangerous for cyclists who don't know how to use them safely (which I believe is the vast majority of cyclists), primarily because how they typically misroute cyclists and motorists at intersection and junctions, and how they tend to instill a false sense of security (and who is "playing" with 4000lbs vehicles??? What are you talking about, and what does that have to do with bike lanes?).

My complaint was on the people on these forums that complain about bike lanes being DANGEROUS, you defended them. Dur.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Helmet Head (Post 5961331)
I hope you don't somehow think that vehicular cycling is all about taking the lane all the time. VC is much more, and less, than that.

No, it's your motto.

**** you're really dense tonight aren't you?

Helmet Head 01-11-08 03:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by StrangeWill (Post 5962971)
You claim they don't want it changed, that is simply dumb to state.

I claim who doesn't want what changed?

Here are your words: "People here think that the minority (anti-bike laners) of a minority (bicyclists in general) should get roads designed THEIR way."

By "roads designed THEIR way" did you mean, "bike lane stripes eliminated"? To the extent that that may be true, it's way down on the priority list of most "anti-bike laners" I know, and it's hardly fair to characterize that preference as thinking that they "should get roads designed THEIR way". It's the pro-bike laners who demand road design changes to match what they want, not the anti-bike laners.

Anti-bike laners want bike lanes removed where:
  1. Bike lanes contradict the rules of the road, specifically at intersections and junctions and their approaches, where they route through bike traffic to the right of right-turning motor traffic, and rational designs (BL to left of RTOL) are not a feasible option. This isn't about designing roads THEIR way, it's about designing bike lanes consistent with THE way roads are designed.
  2. There are too many bike lanes. It doesn't take too many streets to have bike lanes before most everyone starts assuming that they are practically required on a street for anyone to be able to ride a bike on that street, especially busy streets. That's not even a road design issue.
So the claim that anti-bike laners want "roads designed THEIR way" is pure folly.

Quote:

Originally Posted by StrangeWill (Post 5962971)
My complaint was on the people on these forums that complain about bike lanes being DANGEROUS, you defended them. Dur.

So your way of complaining about people that complain about bike lanes being DANGEROUS was to say that they think they "should get roads designed THEIR way"? Okay... :rolleyes:

Quote:

Originally Posted by StrangeWill (Post 5962971)
No, it's your motto.

What is my motto?

Quote:

Originally Posted by StrangeWill (Post 5962971)
**** you're really dense tonight aren't you?

Perhaps, but your obtuse language does not help.

BarracksSi 01-18-08 04:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bekologist (Post 5961505)
john, you are so afflicted with motorist superiority disorder-it's reprehensible. your last post is stunning in its expose.

It's not "motorist superiority" -- it's recognition that motor vehicles are much faster than bicycles, so bikes should not try to mix when it would create more dangerous situations.

"Impeding motorists" means that I would put myself at serious risk of staining the pavement. If you think that I'm going to ride on a freeway around here, you're nuts. Even if I had a "right" to do it, there's no way I would.

LittleBigMan 01-22-08 08:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bekologist (Post 5944055)
Well, having read john's rants in this forum for the last few months, I have become increasing appraised of how much the vc camp kowtows to the motorists.

shoulders for bikes on high speed roads more acceptable than bike lanes -even if the bike lane could be built 100% vehicularily -shoulder riding can largely get the bikes off the road alltogther.
banning bikes from high speed 'freeways' so as to not impede high speed motorized travel. banning bikes from certain types of road.

I predict johns handlers at the ADC won't be happy just banning bikes from freeways, it will soon become the accepted vc mantra to ban bikes from limited access highways, then 50MPH high speed artertials, so as to not impede the motorists.

John's assertions about how, given the scarcity of transportation infrastructure dollars, bicyclists shouldn't be considered. we should be designing the roads for the motorists.

anyway, I find john's obsession about the supremacy of the automoble in the transportation heirarachy is very disturbing and anti-bicyclist.

Poo-poo. :)

However, I respect the diversity of cyclists' opinions, and support Bekologist's (and others') desire to use bike facilities. I'm not selfish (but I have to laugh at his attempt to "flip the script" and claim VC is an attempt by John Forester to get cyclists off the road. :roflmao: )

I think we should build a special bike lane for Bekologist on 65 mph (really 75-85 mph) highways so he doesn't have to "take the shoulder." (Although I loved his thread asking where we would ride on a beautiful two-lane highway with a wide shoulder, one he praised to the skies and said he loved to ride on. Great pics! :beer: )

Bekologist 01-22-08 09:05 PM

come on, dude. you obviously aren't following along......

given the choice road improvements for bikes between shoulder riding or a vehicular bike lane, vc road redesign will lobby for the shoulder - a clear case of vc preffering bikes outside of the travelled way versus integrated with road traffic in preffered class lanes.

john also thinks its okay to ban bikes from high speed roads for the conveinence of the motorists.

vc is more about getting bikes out of the way of motorists that you realize, lil' big. john forester now claims he's hugging the edge on narrow laned 65 mph roads. a dangerous road position to be sure, but out of the way of the faster motorists! the billously deluded john now states he hugs the edge in high speed lanes too narrow to be safely shared~!

vc is a fraud.

LittleBigMan 01-23-08 08:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bekologist (Post 6031947)
vc is more about getting bikes out of the way of motorists that you realize, lil' big.

Oh, pleeze.

;)

Schwinnhund 02-12-08 06:07 AM

I don't understand what the ranting is about? I must've missed something. Is Bekologist labeling all American Citizens who exercise thier Constitutional right of petitioning the government for a redress of grievances as 'whiners'? Does he think that people who would like some considersation for the enormous amount of taxes we pay are somehow 'wrong'?

There is absolutely no reason in the world why all public roads in this country cannot be made safe for cars, bikes and pedestrians. We could do it for less than 5% of what we are spending on the Iraqi War, or less than 10% of what we spend on Foreign Aid to countries that hate us. Most of us pay through the nose in taxes every April 15th, so it is already payed for. We just need to demand that our elected officials do thier jobs, and hold them accountable when they don't. America should have a Nation-Wide system of safe routes for bikes and pedestrians.

Semper Fi!


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:58 AM.