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.

User Tag List

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 03-22-08, 07:47 AM   #51
WaltPoutine
GNU Cyclist
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: La Belle Province
Bikes:
Posts: 185
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Human Car View Post
To add validity to your spin you add original design intent that cannot ever change. That comes across as "If god wanted men to fly, he would have given him wings." I'm sorry but I am at a loss to find any sort of valid argument that is dependent on original historic design intent taht can make or break an argument. If something fails, failure under current conditions is far superior then failure in the past. The only time I see this form of argument of original intent is from a highly biased point of view.
What you say is interesting and in some ways true. In molecular biology there are numerous arguments concerning the "purpose" or "function" of cellular machinery. There are many mechanisms which originally evolved for one particular purpose (or none at all, e.g. spandrels) and then gradually became adapted or re-purposed to new ends. Sometimes tracing the original "design constraints" of the original function give clues as to why the present machinery does an imperfect job. In a similar way it can be useful to consider all the different pressures which have given rise to the current use/function/design of bikelanes.

The recent pressure from motorists is something which only a True Believer In Facilities would find hard to ignore or deny. Keep it up chaps!
WaltPoutine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-08, 07:52 AM   #52
WaltPoutine
GNU Cyclist
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: La Belle Province
Bikes:
Posts: 185
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by randya View Post
if we provide sidewalks for pedestrians and freeways for motorists, why shouldn't we provide bike lanes for cyclists?
Because bike lanes offer neither the advantages of sidewalks obtained by pedestrians or the benefits of freeways used by cars.

Quote:
Originally Posted by randya View Post
Conversely, if we aren't going to provide bike lanes, shouldn't we also remove the freeways and sidewalks?
I don't mind the freeways being removed as I don't drive but I find the sidewalks useful. Bike lanes however cause me inconvenience and danger and I'd rather not have them. K THX BYE!
WaltPoutine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-08, 08:43 AM   #53
Script
Senior Member
 
Script's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Florida,Indiana,Pennsylvania
Bikes: Seven (brand, not number....
Posts: 179
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Forester View Post
WOLs allow motorists the space to overtake cyclists without delay, in accordance with the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles, but without imposing any separation that contradicts the rules of the road and applies a stigma on cyclists as being only fit for the side of the road. WOLs provide sufficient space, without generating any other complication. That is their virtue. The same goes for shoulders, because there is no implication that cyclists should be limited to shoulders.

One would think that these matters are readily understandable. That they are not, for many people, demonstrates the obduracy of unthinking prejudices.
How much time have you really spent riding on WOL's as opposed to opining the result?

My experience with WOL's further encourages me to side with the BL folks. Maybe it has to do with the areas I ride, but WOL's cause motorists to weave and not be sure where in that big lane they're supposed to be. Your statement about not generating any other complication is not true.

It seems to also make the motorist forget about any kind of space to pass as well. They'll speed by two abreast being more concerned with staying away from the motor vehicle in the other lane than giving me space.
Script is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-08, 08:49 AM   #54
CTAC
Senior Member
 
CTAC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Bikes:
Posts: 387
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by WaltPoutine View Post
Because bike lanes offer neither the advantages of sidewalks obtained by pedestrians
What advantages?
CTAC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-08, 08:55 AM   #55
Script
Senior Member
 
Script's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Florida,Indiana,Pennsylvania
Bikes: Seven (brand, not number....
Posts: 179
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by CTAC View Post
What advantages?
Keeps 'em out of the bike lanes and off the freeways?
Script is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-08, 09:34 AM   #56
Allister
Devilmaycare Cycling Fool
 
Allister's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Wynnum, Australia
Bikes: 1998 Cannondale F700
Posts: 3,819
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Forester View Post
I am sure, Allister, that you do not always ride at the edge of the road, although your statement so indicates.
You apparently missed the 'if there's room' caveat.

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Forester View Post
The trouble with the bike-lane stripe is that it was designed to shove incompetently discourteous cyclists aside (the designers said so, several times), and when courtesy is enforced by a physical stripe it just goes wrong. Courtesy depends on the situation at the place, time, and traffic, and cannot be enforced by a permanent stripe.
Don't be so melodramatic. It's just another lane.

Incompetently discourteous is a double negative. If you're incompetent at being discourteous, that means you're courteous, right? Anyway, I think you meant 'incompetent and discourteous', no? In which case, I think aside is the best place for them, if not off the road altogether. Them buggers are a bloody menace. Same goes for car drivers of a similar ilk.
Allister is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-08, 09:42 AM   #57
Allister
Devilmaycare Cycling Fool
 
Allister's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Wynnum, Australia
Bikes: 1998 Cannondale F700
Posts: 3,819
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Forester View Post
There is a great deal of difference between normal lane stripes, which simply allow drivers to obey the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles, and the bike-lane stripe, which distinguishes between one type of driver and another type of driver, with the result of sometimes contradicting the rules of the road.
And while you continue your bleating, in the real world, designs are improving by people who think engineering problems should be solved rather than moaned about. Where have you been?

All your complaints about 'contradicting the rules of the road' can be solved simply by directing the bikelane to the left of right-turning traffic, which seems to be the standard on all new lanes marked around here. Seems simple enough to me, and you could save yourself hours of typing on here.
Allister is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-08, 09:46 AM   #58
Allister
Devilmaycare Cycling Fool
 
Allister's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Wynnum, Australia
Bikes: 1998 Cannondale F700
Posts: 3,819
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by randya View Post


why don't you humble yourself and offer to help design better bike lanes and paths, John? That would actually be a useful contribution.
I'm not sure he could if he wanted to.

Quote:
Originally Posted by randya View Post
bike lanes can have better destination positioning if done right, and paths can be done better too with careful route selection and selective use of grade eliminations and other treatments. The money might actually be out there in the near future to do it better.
There's a lot of political capital in being seen to be green. If they accidentally do some actual good in the process, that's a plus.
Allister is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-08, 10:00 AM   #59
TRaffic Jammer
Dances With Cars
 
TRaffic Jammer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Toronto, Canada
Bikes: TBL Onyx Pro(ss converted), Pake SS (starting to look kinda pimped)
Posts: 10,527
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
*snikker*
TRaffic Jammer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-08, 10:05 AM   #60
WaltPoutine
GNU Cyclist
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: La Belle Province
Bikes:
Posts: 185
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by CTAC View Post
What advantages?
They provide a good place for cafes to put tables in the summertime.
WaltPoutine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-08, 10:07 AM   #61
maddyfish
Senior Member
 
maddyfish's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Ky. and FL.
Bikes: KHS steel SS
Posts: 3,945
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Human Car View Post
I just wanted to chime in that Segways are the only vehicle that enjoys a dual pedestrian and vehicle status.
Thats' an electric scooter right?
maddyfish is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-08, 10:11 AM   #62
maddyfish
Senior Member
 
maddyfish's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Ky. and FL.
Bikes: KHS steel SS
Posts: 3,945
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by randya View Post
please try to remain on topic.

if we provide sidewalks for pedestrians and freeways for motorists, why shouldn't we provide bike lanes for cyclists?
As long as the cars have 'must use' laws and may only use the freeways that's fine.
maddyfish is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-08, 10:27 AM   #63
Indyv8a
Senior Member
 
Indyv8a's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Reisterstown Maryland
Bikes: Austro-Daimler Olympian Trek 800, Giant OCR C3
Posts: 427
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
All this complaining and tossing of insults, yet who is offering a true incentive to get out and ride for practical purposes? Who is doing an actual study of safer conditions for cycling? Where can we get data actually related to bike usage, skill and safety? Please, can we stop being collectively stupid and snide and get this on track?
Indyv8a is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-08, 10:45 AM   #64
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
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
who is offering a true incentive? the accomodationalist notion of well designed and implemented bike infrastructure.
Bekologist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-08, 11:54 AM   #65
John Forester
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Bikes:
Posts: 4,071
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Indyv8a View Post
All this complaining and tossing of insults, yet who is offering a true incentive to get out and ride for practical purposes? Who is doing an actual study of safer conditions for cycling? Where can we get data actually related to bike usage, skill and safety? Please, can we stop being collectively stupid and snide and get this on track?
You are asking quite a reasonable question, but the answer is unpleasant because there is so much superstition on one side. I assume that your question was asked about American activities and conditions. In any case, I answer with respect to American activities and conditions.

The essential facts have been known for thirty years and have never been successfully challenged. That is, the best way to reduce American cycling casualties and to improve American bicycle transportation is to improve the traffic behavior of American cyclists, getting them to operate in the vehicular manner instead of the ways in which they do operate. Going beyond that, toward a society that accepts vehicular cycling as the proper mode of operation, would be better still.

However, the vehicular cycling policy is not popular. American society, for various reasons, has always believed, wrongly of course, that vehicular cycling is a dangerous activity that requires great skill. American society educated its children to cycle in a childish manner that placed exaggerated priority on staying out of the way of same-direction motor traffic lest the cyclist be killed by that same-direction motor traffic. The American bikeway program is the physical implementation of that popular view and its early bike-safety training.

Some people believe that it is extremely important to transfer a significant portion of American personal motoring to bicycling. Nearly all of those people have chosen the bikeway policy, for either or both of two reasons. They either believe the superstition that bikeways make cycling much safer, particularly for beginners, or they cynically recognize that the public strongly believe that superstition.

The anti-motoring bikeway promoters base their strategy on two assumptions.

The first is that bikeways make cycling safe, particularly for beginners. The second is that if cycling is seen to be much safer, then a transportationally significant portion of motorists will transfer a transportationally significant portion of their trips from motoring to bicycling. The first assumption was disproved by the facts thirty years ago, and that situation has not been changed by later information, which only confirms the early data.

The second assumption is based on the idea that Americans motor so much because they are afraid of cycling. It is certainly true that Americans are afraid of cycling, but that does not mean that they motor for that reason. Americans motor because it is convenient, because it suits their purposes. Furthermore, Americans have developed their cities and all their urban activities, except for older urban cores, in the ways allowed by the convenience of motoring. This means that an ever-decreasing proportion of motoring trips are suitable for cycling. I think that this reasoning, far from being only hypothetical, is the explanation for why the thirty years of the American bikeway program have not produced this hoped-for transfer of a transportationally significant portion of motoring trips to cycling trips.

The anti-motoring bikeway advocates are in the position of trying to argue in a supposedly reasonable way for a program whose only support is the superstition of the cycling-ignorant American public. In such a situation, nastiness all too frequently comes to the fore.

Well, there are the two sides. The vehicular cycling side does the best for cyclists, but will not make bicycle transportation popular. The bikeways side does harm to cyclists by reinforcing the popular cycling-ignorant superstition, and probably will never make bicycle transportation popular. I know which side I prefer.

To make bicycle transportation popular in America will require a great change in those conditions that cause motoring to be more useful than cycling. If such occurs, bicycle transportation has the possibility of becoming popular, but predictions of this magnitude have a very high error rate and should not be counted on until imminent.
John Forester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-08, 11:58 AM   #66
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
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
blech. your entire argument is based on the fallacy that the best way to improve bicycle transportation in america is to improve the cyclists! wrong.

that presumption falls flat in the face of worldwide evidence of higher modal shares and lower accident rates in well accomodated communities, john.


it is VEHICULAR CYCLING as a model for improving bicycling transportation that has failed Britian and the USA, john. miserably. your putsch failed.

The Accomodation model of well implemented redesigns of public space and transportation cooridors with bicyclists bears the nearly universal fruits of higher bicycling participation and lower accident rates.

Last edited by Bekologist; 03-22-08 at 12:07 PM.
Bekologist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-08, 12:17 PM   #67
The Human Car
-=Barry=-
 
The Human Car's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Baltimore, MD +/- ~100 miles
Bikes:
Posts: 4,077
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Forester View Post
You keep repeating that the bicycle was invented to create the as then unimagined sport of cycling, despite my telling you of the truth of the matter. Your persistence in repeating error simply shows the strength of prejudices. Inventing the bicycle to create some sport that was undreamed of at that time? Ludicrous, that is.
Well you and the local bike historian are going to have to have some words is all I can say. And great point that something has to already exist before it can be invented.

So going with your argument then it is recreational/sport use of the bicycle that just can't be because it is beyond the consistency in function of the original intent. As original intent defines the scope and that scope can never change. For example phones were meant for long distance communications so they can never have clocks, calenders, alarms, cameras, games and play music as that is all outside the consistency in function. Public opinion about the nature or function of nursery rhymes can never change from the original intent. Some things stick to the original intent and other things can take on a life of their own that goes far beyond what was originally intended. It all comes down current use defines what a thing does, history really does not need to enter into it, especially if it is used to counter current use/intent.

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Forester View Post
I consider your argument using separation, as you call it. "You can spin anything, even your own advocacy for WOLs and shoulders can be spun as shoving bicycle traffic to the side of road. Despite all your carefully worded explanations it still comes down to some sort of separation of space and time as desirable by motorist." In that you are entirely wrong. WOLs allow motorists the space to overtake cyclists without delay[/COLOR], in accordance with the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles, but without imposing any separation that contradicts the rules of the road and applies a stigma on cyclists as being only fit for the side of the road. WOLs provide sufficient space, without generating any other complication. That is their virtue. The same goes for shoulders, because there is no implication that cyclists should be limited to shoulders.
I'm sorry but my statement (in blue) and your rebuttal (in black) is the same. As to the points you added:

Bike lanes:
1) Contradicts the rules of the road
The contradiction of the bike lane continuing to the right of a right hand turn lane is no longer accepted practice. You keep making this statement yet you claim a VC can ride bike lanes without a contradiction of the rules of the road this seems contradictory to me, when I call you on this somehow "rules of the road" becomes what's in the mind of drivers which is the same as your point 2 so rather then having two objections you only have one.

2) Stigma on cyclists as being only fit for the side of the road
They also create an impression that bikes are vehicles that are fit for the road and not sidewalks and wrong way cycling. You seem to conveniently forget that sidewalk and wrong way cycling are significantly more of a safety issue for cyclists then the dreaded right hook. So without bike lanes we have the stigma on cyclists as being not being fit for the road at all.


WOL:
1) Contradicts the rules of the road
The contradiction that two vehicles can share the same lane side by side is what put right hooks up on the top ten list of cyclists problems in the first place.

2) Stigma on cyclists as being only fit for the side of the road
Few state have mandatory bike lane use laws but all states have mandatory stay to the right laws, so WOLs contribute as much to the stigma as do bike lanes. WOLs may fix some problems but they also create other problems. Proper and safe use of a WOL by a cyclist is at best undefined by the rules of the road, that has its advantages and disadvantages but it does not make it clear winner.


Quote:
Originally Posted by John Forester View Post
One would think that these matters are readily understandable. That they are not, for many people, demonstrates the obduracy of unthinking prejudices.
Hmmm, I'm thinking the same thing. You are the one with the argument that rests on static consistency in function as defined by original intent that equates to "If god wanted men to fly, he would have given him wings." if that is not unthinking prejudices I don't know what is.
__________________
Cycling Advocate
http://BaltimoreSpokes.org
. . . o
. . /L
=()>()
The Human Car is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-08, 12:21 PM   #68
John Forester
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Bikes:
Posts: 4,071
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bekologist View Post
blech. your entire argument is based on the fallacy that the best way to improve bicycle transportation in america is to improve the cyclists! wrong.

that presumption falls flat in the face of worldwide evidence of higher modal shares and lower accident rates in well accomodated communities, john.


it is VEHICULAR CYCLING as a model for improving bicycling transportation that has failed Britian and the USA, john. miserably. your putsch failed.

The Accomodation model of well implemented redesigns of public space and transportation cooridors with bicyclists bears the nearly universal fruits of higher bicycling participation and lower accident rates.
It is only your superstition that enables you to believe that the correlation between bikeways and bicycle modal share is actually a causal relationship, because neither facts nor reasoning provide a better explanation than does superstition.
John Forester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-08, 12:46 PM   #69
The Human Car
-=Barry=-
 
The Human Car's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Baltimore, MD +/- ~100 miles
Bikes:
Posts: 4,077
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by maddyfish View Post
Thats' an electric scooter right?
This is a Segway:


An electric scooter (2 wheels in-line) follows the same rules as a cyclist except they are not allowed on MUPs. Unless it is an electric scooter (3 or more wheels) that is designed to replace a wheelchair, then pedestrian rules apply (including driving against traffic when no sidewalk.) I find it interesting all this mishmash of laws.
__________________
Cycling Advocate
http://BaltimoreSpokes.org
. . . o
. . /L
=()>()
The Human Car is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-08, 12:53 PM   #70
The Human Car
-=Barry=-
 
The Human Car's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Baltimore, MD +/- ~100 miles
Bikes:
Posts: 4,077
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Indyv8a View Post
All this complaining and tossing of insults, yet who is offering a true incentive to get out and ride for practical purposes? Who is doing an actual study of safer conditions for cycling? Where can we get data actually related to bike usage, skill and safety? Please, can we stop being collectively stupid and snide and get this on track?
FWIW I tried to get a cyclists usage count before our bike lanes went up, it fell through for reasons not explained. I'm currently working on getting more detailed crash data so hopefully we will have some stats on the safety end at least.
__________________
Cycling Advocate
http://BaltimoreSpokes.org
. . . o
. . /L
=()>()
The Human Car is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-08, 01:36 PM   #71
John Forester
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Bikes:
Posts: 4,071
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Human Car View Post
Well you and the local bike historian are going to have to have some words is all I can say. And great point that something has to already exist before it can be invented.

So going with your argument then it is recreational/sport use of the bicycle that just can't be because it is beyond the consistency in function of the original intent. As original intent defines the scope and that scope can never change. For example phones were meant for long distance communications so they can never have clocks, calenders, alarms, cameras, games and play music as that is all outside the consistency in function. Public opinion about the nature or function of nursery rhymes can never change from the original intent. Some things stick to the original intent and other things can take on a life of their own that goes far beyond what was originally intended. It all comes down current use defines what a thing does, history really does not need to enter into it, especially if it is used to counter current use/intent.



I'm sorry but my statement (in blue) and your rebuttal (in black) is the same. As to the points you added:

Bike lanes:
1) Contradicts the rules of the road
The contradiction of the bike lane continuing to the right of a right hand turn lane is no longer accepted practice. You keep making this statement yet you claim a VC can ride bike lanes without a contradiction of the rules of the road this seems contradictory to me, when I call you on this somehow "rules of the road" becomes what's in the mind of drivers which is the same as your point 2 so rather then having two objections you only have one.

2) Stigma on cyclists as being only fit for the side of the road
They also create an impression that bikes are vehicles that are fit for the road and not sidewalks and wrong way cycling. You seem to conveniently forget that sidewalk and wrong way cycling are significantly more of a safety issue for cyclists then the dreaded right hook. So without bike lanes we have the stigma on cyclists as being not being fit for the road at all.


WOL:
1) Contradicts the rules of the road
The contradiction that two vehicles can share the same lane side by side is what put right hooks up on the top ten list of cyclists problems in the first place.

2) Stigma on cyclists as being only fit for the side of the road
Few state have mandatory bike lane use laws but all states have mandatory stay to the right laws, so WOLs contribute as much to the stigma as do bike lanes. WOLs may fix some problems but they also create other problems. Proper and safe use of a WOL by a cyclist is at best undefined by the rules of the road, that has its advantages and disadvantages but it does not make it clear winner.




Hmmm, I'm thinking the same thing. You are the one with the argument that rests on static consistency in function as defined by original intent that equates to "If god wanted men to fly, he would have given him wings." if that is not unthinking prejudices I don't know what is.
You play with words like a lawyer rather than paying attention to facts like a scientist or engineer. And your words disclose that you don't understand English, either. To accuse me of saying that something had to exist before it could be invented. I never wrote such a thing; it is only your inability to understand standard English that caused you to reach such an absurd conclusion. Ideologues such as you are the bane of civilized existence, for you muddy all the waters to which you pay attention.

For all of you who are interested in the history of the invention of the bicycle, I suggest Andrew Ritchie's "King of the Road", ISBN 0-913668-42-7, published in England by Wildwood House, in the USA by Ten-Speed Press, 1975. Need I keep on repeating that most of the necessary information about cycling has been known for decades?
John Forester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-08, 02:16 PM   #72
randya
Senior Member
 
randya's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: in bed with your mom
Bikes: who cares?
Posts: 13,689
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Forester View Post
Ideologues such as you are the bane of civilized existence, for you muddy all the waters to which you pay attention.
Pot meet Kettle
randya is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-23-08, 09:48 AM   #73
Indyv8a
Senior Member
 
Indyv8a's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Reisterstown Maryland
Bikes: Austro-Daimler Olympian Trek 800, Giant OCR C3
Posts: 427
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by randya View Post
Pot meet Kettle
I know I dropped that accusation in another thread.

Let's ask another question then. Are the goals of "separate facilities" and "vehicular cycling" mutually exclusive? Would operating in a safe and predictable manner on roads or paths not be the best way? Can we design separate facilities that actually work with the current facilities?

It would seem to me, and I believe from my limited reading in John's work and others that better facilities and better cyclists, AND better drivers would all be beneficial. Beyond that I think we'd need something like $15 a gallon gas.

(Why do I feel like Don Quixote?)
Indyv8a is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-23-08, 11:12 AM   #74
StrangeWill
Senior Member
 
StrangeWill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Fallbrook, CA.
Bikes:
Posts: 1,112
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I find it interesting, the idea to create large infrastructure for bicycles only, putting them on high importance of that of a car in terms of special means of transportation for only that vehicle, and we still complain.

If anything, I think the bike lane serves as a message, it is quite the viable means of getting practically anywhere, you even get your own lane. Vehicles of different sizes can be restricted to certain lanes on certain roads except under certain conditions (making turns and such), why not bikes? What makes us so special that we can't follow the same rules as other vehicles?

Mainly, as I mentioned before, the most important thing is it sends a strong message, without a bike lane, and without a shoulder, people STILL think we should have to buy a car to be on that road. (before anyone wants to make any stupid points about how people think)

I'm not going to get into the whole "VC" or other elitist bull****, because it seems to be making too much out of something so simple.


If bike lanes are like sidewalks, so are truck only lanes.
StrangeWill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-23-08, 12:43 PM   #75
randya
Senior Member
 
randya's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: in bed with your mom
Bikes: who cares?
Posts: 13,689
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Indyv8a View Post
I know I dropped that accusation in another thread.

Let's ask another question then. Are the goals of "separate facilities" and "vehicular cycling" mutually exclusive? Would operating in a safe and predictable manner on roads or paths not be the best way? Can we design separate facilities that actually work with the current facilities?

It would seem to me, and I believe from my limited reading in John's work and others that better facilities and better cyclists, AND better drivers would all be beneficial. Beyond that I think we'd need something like $15 a gallon gas.

(Why do I feel like Don Quixote?)
Many people believe that one of the solutions is better motorist education, which the VC summarily reject.

Separate facilities are generally only needed on higher speed and volume arterials. Cycling conditions are also substantially different in older 'pre-automobile' urban areas and newer 'post-automobile' suburban areas, so a 'one-size fits all' solution is nearly impossible to arrive at.

There was discussion here a year or so back of 'adaptive cycling' or matching cycling methods and road treatments to the immediate local roadway network. (also summarily rejected by the VC)

The intransigence of the VC in general and John Forester in particular, is a major stumbling block.
randya 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 06:00 PM.