Allister

Even if you ride exclusively on bike paths, understanding the rules of the paths and riding accordingly is very useful. VC riding doesn't only apply to roads.

Bekologist

wot??

i guess if you want to stretch a point....

vc doesn't do anything to build ridership, allister. relying on vc as a community strategy to increase ridership is an abject failure. look at oahu for example


vc IS a great way to perpetuate a very small percent of the mostly young (cbhi and I are two exceptions!), white, athletic guys willing to ride the automobile jungle in america. Additionally, cities in america building in infrastructure report increasing cyclist numbers while cities relying on the vc model of widened but autocentric roads report mostly flat to null ridership increases.

Allister

Change the record, dude.

Bekologist

why?

proven to work in other cities around the world. and that's what this thread is about.

stop listening to the music, oilboy, if you don't want to hear the melody. A cacophony of car horns more to your liking, eh?

Allister

So? That's like saying the rules of the road don't increase car ownership. It's my understanding that VC was never intended as an advocacy method as much as it is a training method. You're arguing that it's failed at something that it was never designed to achieve. A bit foolish IMO.

They may help, but in my observations, facilities alone don't increase ridership either. Cities that have seen increased ridership have achieved it through a combination of policy, infrastructure, marketing and just plain old bums on bikes. A bit of training surely can't hurt either. Claiming that it's all down to the paint is shortsighted.

Allister

Mate, I've been riding the same bike lane for ten years. Observed increase in bike ridership on that lane - 0%

Are you forgetting my posting history with ol' Serge and Forester?

Bekologist

I don't mean to be rude, allister, but really! it's not MY record, this is on the ground reality seen in cities like bogota, munich, amsterdam, san francisco, portland, london, paris, chicago.... cities all over the world, bruther.. you're right, a combination of infrastructure and policy increase ridership.

I'd bet there's a pattern of increased ridership in Oz in cities that have built in infrastructure despite your 'observations' but australia suffers from stunted ridership partly due to autocentric roads planning in your country (Pucher 2006) and i suspect australia could improve ridership with an increased combination of varied carrot and stick policies proven effective in other countries around the globe, allister.

Allister

Pardon me for using anecdotal evidence.

Bekologist

i'll take it with a grain of salt. Since the New York Times and Wall Street Journal did repeated soft reporting about the cycling increases along recently completed infrastructure improvements seen this summer, i'm going to give that anecdotal evidence a bit more weight.

i don't doubt your experience reflects the relatively low ridership in Oz. And it looks like CBHI is going to have to move, appears Honolulu is moving ahead with their bike master plan and installing miles of bike lanes and routes all across honolulu. the honolulu master plan spells out bike lanes on the high speed roads and 'highways', bike routes connecting a 'lei of parks' across the city, etc..

https://www.co.honolulu.hi.us/dts/bikeway/prop.jpg

and a mission statement....

"Honolulu's twenty-year vision is:
Honolulu is a bicycle-friendly city where bicycling is
a viable and popular travel choice for residents and
visitors of all ages.

The vision statement supports a shift in transport empha-
sis from near total dominance by automobiles to formal en-
couragement of bicycle use. It demands that travel by bi-
cycle be convenient and safe, with excellent bicycle facili-
ties, and a comprehensive bicycle network. honolulu bike master plan

the city has their priorities about cycling in order. cbhi, not so sure...

oh, wait! looks like in 2008, the bike master plan is getting extended to cover the entire island of oahu!

www.oahubikeplan.org

genec

I have tried to "reach" him... but he like many other people, think that riding a bike on fast busy streets is just asking for trouble. They also have a very very difficult time with the "sidewalks are dangerous" routine as they point out that even toddlers walk on sidewalks.

Regarding the sidewalk issue... frankly it is not the sidewalks that are dangerous, it is the various intersections... and folks are quite aware of that. The reality is that here sidewalks are rarely used by pedestrians. ("nobody walks in LA... "). BTW those very same intersections are also dangerous to a VC cyclist too... So the vehicular cyclist is NOT avoiding any danger by riding in the street... the only advantages of riding in the street are improved throughput due to less potential obstructions, higher speed due to less potential obstructions, the potential for rear end collisions due to mixing with other traffic, and greater visibility (needed for higher speed movement). So in essence a vehicular cyclist trades speed for visibility, but needs that visibility in order to move at that speed. (trust, but verify).

genec

No, Bek thinks mixing vastly different vehicles on roads designed for autos and expecting drivers to be fully compliant and calling it vehicular cycling, is the coping mechanism.

If the "rules of the road" were so conveniently obeyed, this would not be an issue, but 45,000 people die each year because someone did not obey the "rules of the road, that's how lightly people treat the "rules of the road."

genec

While that is essentially true, the reality is that what we tend to call "VC riding" really encompasses far more than just your basic keep to the right and faster traffic gets a more left position, etc.

The reality is what skilled experienced cyclists know, and it is a lot more than what it takes to make a path work smoothly...

genec

Your latter statement is very true... it takes something for people to get out of their cars... just putting a path out there won't do it. If you build it, they won't come... there has to be some incentive.

On the other hand, not building it (what ever "it" is) means that people will face resistance to change... and thus may not change. But faced with an easy and pleasant situation, motorists may become cyclists... which is good for that person, and good for our environment.

CB HI

Yet Honolulu City shares many of my Priorities that you and ILTB seem to hate so much, like the BikeEd program (a cyclist run program, paid for by bicycle registration and public donations).

https://www.co.honolulu.hi.us/dts/bikeway/chap5.pdf
Chapter 5 Page 36:
"7. Motorist / Bicyclist / Child Education Programs:
• Include questions regarding bicycles on driver’s license tests;
• Continue to fund the BikeEd education program for all fourth graders;
• Promote adult bicycle education classes like “Effective Cycling;”
• Promote sharing of roadway space between motorists and bicyclists through signing roadways with “Share the Road” signs;
• Promote sharing of shared-use-path space; and
• Create and air public service announcements."


And on page 37:
"John Forester, noted bicycle expert, writes, “Cyclists fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles.”"


As to the bike lanes in the plan, most all of those were in the 1984 state bike plan. Many of the roads have recently been repaved and no bike lanes added; with the exception of one very short (200 yard) bike lane. Experienced cyclist ignore the bike lane because some sections of it are only 2 feet (or less) wide. These bad bike lanes helps build opposition to bike lanes here.

No new cyclist seen riding this bike lane, Bek. I guess bike lanes do not increase ridership.

The City's and State's auto-centric "War on Potholes" repaving programs have been the most recent major cycling improvement. Second on that list, is the EPA forcing the State to sweep the right side of the roads as part of a settlement for violations of the Clean Water Act.

genec

And do you see "new cyclists" riding anywhere?

I guess VC programs don't increase ridership either.

BTW John Forester admitted it was never his intent to increase ridership... and he made a point of saying that anyone that tried to increase ridership was 'anti-car.'

CB HI

While gas prices hit $5, yes there were more commuters. Commuter ridership is dropping back to the norm now that gas prices are dropping.

My suburb, that has no bike lanes has many more recreational cyclist since I moved here (about the same time BikeEd started). Many more adults riding for exercise. Lots more kids riding BMX bikes around and doing stunts at the skateboard/bike park. More bikes in the school bike racks these days. By Bek's standards, that is absolute proof that BikeEd works and bike lanes do not work. Apparently, even new recreational cyclist do not like steep climbing, because they mostly stay in the area with only a couple hundred feet of climbing.

Must all cycling advocacy be only about more butts on bikes, or is it OK to concentrate on cyclist safety as JF did? Just because JF's goal was cyclist safety, it does not mean teaching VC to school kids as well as adults will not increase ridership. Do you have the same hard headed problem with teaching kids how to safely ride that Bek and ILTB have?

I hear a lot of people complain in the forums about young JAMs harassing cyclist. All the JAMs that have been a problem here, went through the school system before BikeEd was taught. Now watch Bek flip-flop and call that just a coincidence, rather than good hard anecdotal evidence.

Your characterization of JFs "anti-car" statements is somewhat off. I suspect you know he was only talking about the hard core anti-car crowd. Just check out the car-free forum for examples of who JF was talking about. Somewhat like your "ban cars from the city core" post can be mischaracterized.

joejack951

I only spent 11 days in Hawaii (split between Maui, Oahu, and Kauai) but I would think aside from hills, a MAJOR deterrent for the casual cyclist would be the WIND. I'm sure it would be lovely as a tailwind but having to ride into it for any significant portion of time would be downright oppressive.

joejack951

Which China did you visit? Do you realize that it's only been about 10 years since automobiles have begun to become affordable to the average Chinese person? Have you seen the traffic there? If that happened in 10 years, what do you think it will look like in another 10, or another 50? It's true that in the very poor industrial areas many of the facilities do not have big parking lots and most the traffic is still on bikes but that's hardly because those people don't want to drive a car. It's because they are working for pennies. I'm certain that as soon as people begin to afford cars, things will change there just like they have around Shanghai. A coworker in Shanghai pointed out to me a 6 lane arterial filled with auto traffic and told me that 10 years ago, that was all bicycle traffic. The contrast is striking. People do not want to have to put effort into travelling. No amount of segregated sidepaths, like those seen on every single arterial road in China, will change that.

genec

Actually I have been to Hangzhou 3 times in the past 5 years, I have also been to Shanghai, and Hong Kong... the latter back before it went back to China... So I have seen the changes. I also know well paid engineers there and we communicate regularly.

While the auto has made some impact in China, the fact is that few people own cars compared to the shear size of the general population... They presently do not have the infrastructure to support the traffic if the majority population were to get autos, and the physical changes to allow such massive auto adoption would be huge. (whereas here in the US the same road infrastructure to support cycling is effectively in place... it just needs to be managed better....)

What I saw in Hangzhou was probably most indicative; a huge new high tech park with no parking.

In the US to accommodate a shift to more bicycles, we simply need to have political and public support. For China to embrace the auto, on a level on par with the most cyclist friendly European countries, whole buildings are going to have to move.

Oh it can be done, but simple economics won't support such massive changes. Getting that many more cars on the road will create a huge demand in oil that will just keep the price of fuel too high for the common man in China.

Allister

Where did I say I objected to building bike facilities? I think they can be quite useful. How short is you people's memories. What I, and CBHI from my reading, object to is facilities with poor design and ad-hoc implementation.

I am neither anti-bikelane nor anti-VC. What I am is anti-idealogue - the kind of people that'll gainsay something merely because it doesn't fit within their ideology rather than judge it on it's merits. I put both Forester and Bek in that category. So suck on that.

Allister

Is that all you think the rules encompass? I don't know about California, but here the rules cover all modes, including footpaths, shared paths, bus lanes etc.

There are certain subtleties to understand, but the rules are a good basis. The only times I've encountered problems on shared paths is when people don't follow the rules. The main cause of that IMO, is that they don't seem to think that there even are any rules. Education would help a lot.

And that was one of my biggest beefs with VC as preached by Serge and Forester - their absolute refusal to even acknowledge bike facilities existence in their training regime and teach people how to use them safely, and then they have the nerve to whine about how poorly people use them.

genec

Hey, I am pro good facilities too. And yeah I see your argument there. But the bottom line is that even if you build the best facilities you can, people are generally lazy and will not just stop driving to bike. So in that regard I do somewhat see the flipside arguments in that infra will not suddenly create cyclists.

genec

Oh Heck No.

That is why I, like you, I used "etc." The rules cover a lot, but the rules of the road as conveyed in VC teachings do not really cover all the subtleties of riding a bike in traffic. Those subtleties can't be taught in quick 40 hour class session either...


OK we agree on that too... Plus Forester had this notion that all motorists will simply obey the rules... which was rather a closed eye look at reality. Heck, even motorists fail at times to drive in a strict vehicular manner... again as exemplified by the 45,000 annual motorist related deaths in America. (in some cases, the driver was trying to operate as an pilot, apparently hoping to reach takeoff speed. )

But the bottom line is that sticking to strict VC cycling is not going to encourage new cyclists... I have yet to see any claim anywhere that shows VC cycling alone encouraged more cyclists to ride... even with "disincentives to driving" such as high gas prices. Now throw in some good bike paths and good bike lanes and good bike boulevards, and suddenly some folks start to think "sure, why not... "

I-Like-To-Bike

Hey, leave me out of your sales pitch for JF's "goals". I do have a problem equating "teaching kids how to safely ride" with promoting an overwrought ideology and/or narrow minded approach to "safe" cycling based on crudely cherry picked data and an even cruder approximation of risk analysis.

Allister

LOL.

It's times like these I wish Forester would come back to us. Heck, I even almost miss Serge. The VC forum hasn't been nearly as hilarious since they left.