Advertise on Bikeforums.net



User Tag List

Results 1 to 25 of 25
  1. #1
    just a commuter
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Saratoga CA
    My Bikes
    1999 Specialized Allez Elite Triple, 197? Melton Tandem, 1972 Oxford 24" unicycle, 1973 Oxford 20" giraffe unicycle, lots of others in the family fleet
    Posts
    156
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    bikeway controversy in mainstream press

    The bikeway controversy gets a fairly accurate mention in a mainstream media outlet:

    http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2009...the_plain.html

    You go Fred!
    1999 Specialized Allez Elite Triple
    197? Melton Tandem
    1972 Oxford 24" unicycle
    1973 Oxford 20" giraffe unicycle
    lots of others in the family fleet

  2. #2
    Former Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    dropmachine.com
    Posts
    4,061
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    .... And the very first "reader comment" is a motorist promising to buzz him.

  3. #3
    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
    18,026
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Fred Oswald seems a misinformed bicykling Elitist.

    Fred said about bicycling facilities - all classes of bikeway as he apparently doesn't discriminate - "Fools rush in," he added. "People are going to get hurt and killed."

    thats not what happens. Fred Oswald needs to lose the hysterics.
    Last edited by Bekologist; 05-26-09 at 09:41 PM.
    "Evidence, anecdote and methodology all support planning for roadway bike traffic."

  4. #4
    genec genec's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    san diego
    My Bikes
    custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2
    Posts
    22,914
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Fred Oswald and others need to come to grips with the fact that vehicular cycling has not increased the numbers of cyclists anywhere... and in fact, where vehicular cycling was once the only form of cycling practiced, cycling ridership has declined less than 1%... the United States and Great Briton are prime examples.

    Where cycling facilities have been installed, and motor vehicle use has been discouraged, cycling for transportation has soared to be as much as 25% of all trips.

  5. #5
    Argh!someness Village Idiot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Shepherdsturd, WV
    My Bikes
    GF Cobia
    Posts
    127
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I do agree with one of his points/observations. Where I live, the bike likes that are close to the road are sometimes covered in glass and trash. The other day I would have had to ride out into oncoming traffic to avoid missing shattered glass that was spread every where. Our lanes only run on one side of the road.

    That and they're always covered in gravel. It's fine on a mountain bike, but I'm guessing it wouldn't be a fun ride or good for the tires on a road bike.
    I suck at pedaling but man can I coast.

  6. #6
    Senior Member maddyfish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Ky. and FL.
    My Bikes
    KHS steel SS
    Posts
    3,945
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Bekologist View Post
    Fred Oswald seems a misinformed bicykling Elitist.

    Fred said about bicycling facilities - all classes of bikeway as he apparently doesn't discriminate - "Fools rush in," he added. "People are going to get hurt and killed."

    thats not what happens. Fred Oswald needs to lose the hysterics.
    I always like this arguement. Increased ridership. Maybe I am selfish, but I don't have any problems on the road now, so I have nothing to gain from bike lanes, and bikeways. And plenty to lose. I don't care if more people ride. MAkes no difference to me. I want to be able to ride where I want to go. And I dont want to see roads that I have full use of now, be cut down to a little path at the side of the road in the gutter. And I don't want to be expected/required to ride in that little gutter path.

    DO we put a 25 mph only lane on the freeway for the old ladies that are too cowardly to drive their cars on the freeway?

    Then why do we put a bike lane on a road for bikers too cowardly to ride on the road?
    Not too much to say here

  7. #7
    Been Around Awhile I-Like-To-Bike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Burlington Iowa
    My Bikes
    Vaterland and Ragazzi
    Posts
    20,453
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by maddyfish View Post
    DO we put a 25 mph only lane on the freeway for the old ladies that are too cowardly to drive their cars on the freeway?

    Then why do we put a bike lane on a road for bikers too cowardly to ride on the road?
    The term "bikeway contoversy" always seems to bring out the Studly Vehicular Cyclists™ boasting about the status of their cojones vice the "cowards" who do not share their opinion.

  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
    18,026
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I don't know why communities should even consider catering to elitists like maddyfish and fred.

    Communities should plan transportation infrastructure for more bicycling participation, safer bicycling and better bicycling connectivity for everyone, not just cojones-heady buffoons.

    communities can do much for for bicyclists than VCs "Cars first" advocacy.
    "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
    22,914
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by maddyfish View Post
    I always like this arguement. Increased ridership. Maybe I am selfish, but I don't have any problems on the road now, so I have nothing to gain from bike lanes, and bikeways. And plenty to lose. I don't care if more people ride. MAkes no difference to me. I want to be able to ride where I want to go. And I dont want to see roads that I have full use of now, be cut down to a little path at the side of the road in the gutter. And I don't want to be expected/required to ride in that little gutter path.

    DO we put a 25 mph only lane on the freeway for the old ladies that are too cowardly to drive their cars on the freeway?


    Then why do we put a bike lane on a road for bikers too cowardly to ride on the road?
    No, we offer the alternative of slower off freeway surface streets in most cases so the little old ladies can drive there... except for areas in the west, where the freeway is the only solution.

    But in that same west, there are often no alternatives to high speed arterial roads for cyclists... so you expect every cyclist to take a lane on 55 MPH arterial roads?

  10. #10
    Senior Member dynodonn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    6,870
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Bicycling infrastructure that's well designed and well implemented I'll go for, but most bicycling infrastructure I've seen so far in my travels I would consider "fair" or a very bad compromise at best.( door zone, not far enough from the curb causing protrusions by larger vehicles, gutter lanes with debris, side bike paths that have uncontrolled intersections with motor vehicles, lanes that end abruptly or misaligned,etc). The first comment made on this article, about the motorist "cutting it close" is what I've experienced many times when I'm not in my designated bicycling infrastructure when it's present, where as I feel that making motorist more aware of a bicyclist's road rights and that bike infrastructure is an "option" (in Cali) and not "mandatory" is just as important.

  11. #11
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    4,793
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    The core issue that nobody will address is this: increased population plus deteriorating education equals a host of fools running around like headless chickens.

    When I bike-commuted in the 70's, there was no problem. I shared the road, and never even had a close call. Today, I can't get through a week without checking my body for paint from a car.

    We, as a society, have made driving TOO easy, too convenient; getting a license is almost as simple as buying a box of Crackerjacks, losing it takes an act of Congress countersigned by God.

    Toughen up on the testing, and the enforcement on driving w/o a license, and we MAY see a glimmer of hope for the return of bike-friendly streets.

    Oh -- and testing for cyclists who want to use the road? Why not? I'd pass, and I'll make SURE my kids do when I feel they're big enough to take it on.

  12. #12
    Senior Member rando's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Tempe, AZ
    Posts
    2,967
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by I-Like-To-Bike View Post
    The term "bikeway contoversy" always seems to bring out the Studly Vehicular Cyclists™ boasting about the status of their cojones vice the "cowards" who do not share their opinion.
    no kidding.jeez, maddyfish, get over your "heroic" self.


    comfort levels vary; local laws and conditions vary; there is no perfect "correct" solution for every rider. I have several options of ways to get to work on my bike; the one I most often take would make any vehicular heroic cyclist's head explode: I take the sidewalk. and I like it!
    "Think of bicycles as rideable art that can just about save the world". ~Grant Petersen

    Cyclists fare best when they recognize that there are times when acting vehicularly is not the best practice, and are flexible enough to do what is necessary as the situation warrants.--Me

  13. #13
    genec genec's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    san diego
    My Bikes
    custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2
    Posts
    22,914
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by DX-MAN View Post
    The core issue that nobody will address is this: increased population plus deteriorating education equals a host of fools running around like headless chickens.

    When I bike-commuted in the 70's, there was no problem. I shared the road, and never even had a close call. Today, I can't get through a week without checking my body for paint from a car.

    We, as a society, have made driving TOO easy, too convenient; getting a license is almost as simple as buying a box of Crackerjacks, losing it takes an act of Congress countersigned by God.

    Toughen up on the testing, and the enforcement on driving w/o a license, and we MAY see a glimmer of hope for the return of bike-friendly streets.

    Oh -- and testing for cyclists who want to use the road? Why not? I'd pass, and I'll make SURE my kids do when I feel they're big enough to take it on.
    +1000 Fully agreed.

    Distraction by various devices that didn't exist in the 70s is also an additional problem of the new modern age...

  14. #14
    Senior Member randya's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    in bed with your mom
    My Bikes
    who cares?
    Posts
    13,696
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

  15. #15
    You gonna eat that? Doohickie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Fort Worth, Texas Church of Hopeful Uncertainty
    My Bikes
    1966 Raleigh DL-1 Tourist, 1973 Schwinn Varsity, 1983 Raleigh Marathon, 1994 Nishiki Sport XRS
    Posts
    14,013
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Village Idiot View Post
    The other day I would have had to ride out into oncoming traffic to avoid missing shattered glass that was spread every where. Our lanes only run on one side of the road.
    Why in the heck are you riding opposing vehicular traffic? Do you have a death wish? Ride WITH traffic on the other side, and forget the bike lanes.
    I stop for people / whose right of way I honor / but not for no one.



    Originally Posted by bragi "However, it's never a good idea to overgeneralize."

  16. #16
    Senior Member DX Rider's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    535
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by DX-MAN View Post
    The core issue that nobody will address is this: increased population plus deteriorating education equals a host of fools running around like headless chickens..
    I don't disagree commuting has gotten more hazardous over the years, but I agree more with a socialogists assessment of this phenonom and road rage. It is a form of techno-creep.

    In previous decades people were more tolerable of other people, because they're was constant human interaction even while commuting. Now, in the age of high technology, there is less interpersonal interaction, between laptops, iPods, cellphones, even the lowest priced cars having power windows and A/C, noise canceling headphones, drive up windows everywhere, ATM's and Twitter everyone is plugged in and tuned out. Which has led to a lower capacity for personal tolerance of others. I mention the car specifically because it was one of the examples that I read in his hypothesis.

    1970 when it was hot, the windows were rolled down, and people could hear everything around them. Now the windows are rolled up, the A/C is cranking, and people are hermetically sealed in their soundproofed car, talking on their cellphone lost in their own little world.

    Direct interpersonal relationships are a skill that in modern times has been largely deverted to indirect means. In the past, you had to stop by Joe Blows house, because there were no cellphones, now he's just a text message away. All skills erode without regular practice.
    Last edited by DX Rider; 07-29-09 at 12:40 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by stronglight View Post
    There is just no cure for stupid.
    1982 Motobecane Jubile Sport
    1997 Cannondale F-400
    2004 Giant Cypress DX

  17. #17
    Kaffee Nazi danarnold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Richland, WA
    My Bikes
    2009 Kestrel RT800, 2007 Roubaix, 1976 Lambert-Viscount
    Posts
    1,374
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Bekologist View Post
    I don't know why communities should even consider catering to elitists like maddyfish and fred.

    Communities should plan transportation infrastructure for more bicycling participation, safer bicycling and better bicycling connectivity for everyone, not just cojones-heady buffoons.

    communities can do much for for bicyclists than VCs "Cars first" advocacy.
    I don't understand your assertion that 'vehicular cyclists' advocate "cars first." I would be surprised to learn that a VC thinks cars should have priority on the roads. I thought they believed just the opposite, that cyclists have an equal right to the public streets and that both cyclists and cars need to follow the rules of the road.* As a motorcyclist, bicyclist and cage driver, I wish the law stated other traffic, including pedestrians, should yield to bicycles on all shared roadways, but I'm not holding my breath.

    I don't know whether I'd be considered VC, but I appreciate well designed, clean roads that allow me to ride safely according to the rules of the road and that includes striped bike lanes that take care not to communicate that cyclists are not allowed to ride in other lanes of traffic when necessary, e.g. to set up for a left hand turn. I've taken a cursory look at the 1999 AASHTO guidelines and don't see anything to make a strenuous objection to, but would be interested in the opinions of someone who's read it more carefully.

    * For the State of Washington:
    RCW 46.61.770 Riding upon roadways and bicycle paths.
    (1) Every person operating a bicycle upon a roadway at a rate of speed less than the normal flow of traffic at the particular time and place shall ride as near to the right side of the right through lane as is safe except as may be appropriate while preparing to make or while making turning movements, or while overtaking and passing another bicycle or vehicle proceeding in the same direction. A person operating a bicycle upon a roadway or highway other than a limited-access highway, which roadway or highway carries traffic in one direction only and has two or more marked traffic lanes, may ride as near to the left side of the left through lane as is safe. A person operating a bicycle upon a roadway may use the shoulder of the roadway or any specially designated bicycle lane if such exists.

    _ Dan

  18. #18
    Kaffee Nazi danarnold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Richland, WA
    My Bikes
    2009 Kestrel RT800, 2007 Roubaix, 1976 Lambert-Viscount
    Posts
    1,374
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by DX Rider View Post
    I don't disagree commuting has gotten more hazardous over the years, but I agree more with a socialogists assessment of this phenonom and road rage. It is a form of techno-creep.

    In previous decades people were more tolerable of other people, because they're was constant human interaction even while commuting. Now, in the age of high technology, there is less interpersonal interaction, between laptops, iPods, cellphones... lost in their own little world.

    Direct interpersonal relationships are a skill that in modern times has been largely deverted to indirect means. In the past, you had to stop by Joe Blows house, because there were no cellphones, now he's just a text message away. All skills erode without regular practice.
    I agree and this phenomenon contributes to the general loss of civility. I am actually mildly surprised at the amount of deference I'm paid on the road by the motoring public; haven't had an encounter with a rude driver in years and things are actually much better now than when I first did my regular commute by bike in the 70's in L.A. But there are other variables, such as location.

    Where I've lived the last 30 years, a community of about 100,000 set in rural Eastern Washington State, it seems to me there is more awareness of and courtesy to cyclists than there was 30 years ago. I assume that is because HERE, there are more cyclists now. When I first moved here I felt like I was the only one.

    The only people I 'meet' when riding who seem oblivious to others, are when I dare to ride on the shared 'bike path.' They consist mainly of pedestrians walking 3 or more abreast and wobbly cyclists doing the same, riding as if their helmet was their sufficient and sole concession to safety.

    _ Dan

  19. #19
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    4,070
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by genec View Post
    Fred Oswald and others need to come to grips with the fact that vehicular cycling has not increased the numbers of cyclists anywhere... and in fact, where vehicular cycling was once the only form of cycling practiced, cycling ridership has declined less than 1%... the United States and Great Briton are prime examples.

    Where cycling facilities have been installed, and motor vehicle use has been discouraged, cycling for transportation has soared to be as much as 25% of all trips.
    This is partly correct, partly fallacious, hence rather mendacious. Vehicular cycling was the dominant mode from the invention of the bicycle, and hence was the condition in which the enormous development of cycling occurred. Your claim pertains only to after the introduction of mass motoring, when cycling of all kinds declined.

    Your claim regarding vehicular cycling in the USA is false, because the predominant, official, socially desired mode of cycling in the USA has been cyclist-inferiority cycling, now enforced by bikeways. The decline of cycling in the USA has nothing to do with vehicular cycling; the causes are much more associated with general social, demographic, and economic conditions.

    Great Britain's experience fits your example, but the UK was very different from the rest of Europe over all these decades, being, as far as transportation is concerned, more like the USA than the central European nations. In 1952, two years after British petrol rationing ended, bicycle traffic constituted 25% of the vehicle miles on British roads, and it has declined since.

    Your claim that "Where cycling facilities have been installed, and motor vehicle use has been discouraged, cycling for transportation has soared to be as much as 25% of all trips" is false, both in fact and in reasoning. It would be more accurate to state that in those nations in which there had been the greatest bicycle modal share, the decline has been less, with some areas having a modal share as high as 25%. These areas were developed as walking cities in which walking is convenient, although bicycling is faster, and motoring is inconvenient, and the authorities have maintained those characteristics as much as possible. Only one of the means has been the provision of bicycling facilities, and there is no means of evaluating the effect of the various means and conditions.

  20. #20
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    4,793
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by John Forester View Post
    This is partly correct, partly fallacious, hence rather mendacious. Vehicular cycling was the dominant mode from the invention of the bicycle, and hence was the condition in which the enormous development of cycling occurred. Your claim pertains only to after the introduction of mass motoring, when cycling of all kinds declined.

    Your claim regarding vehicular cycling in the USA is false, because the predominant, official, socially desired mode of cycling in the USA has been cyclist-inferiority cycling, now enforced by bikeways. The decline of cycling in the USA has nothing to do with vehicular cycling; the causes are much more associated with general social, demographic, and economic conditions.

    Great Britain's experience fits your example, but the UK was very different from the rest of Europe over all these decades, being, as far as transportation is concerned, more like the USA than the central European nations. In 1952, two years after British petrol rationing ended, bicycle traffic constituted 25% of the vehicle miles on British roads, and it has declined since.

    Your claim that "Where cycling facilities have been installed, and motor vehicle use has been discouraged, cycling for transportation has soared to be as much as 25% of all trips" is false, both in fact and in reasoning. It would be more accurate to state that in those nations in which there had been the greatest bicycle modal share, the decline has been less, with some areas having a modal share as high as 25%. These areas were developed as walking cities in which walking is convenient, although bicycling is faster, and motoring is inconvenient, and the authorities have maintained those characteristics as much as possible. Only one of the means has been the provision of bicycling facilities, and there is no means of evaluating the effect of the various means and conditions.
    Man, do you speak the way you write? I'd HATE to be stuck in an elevator with you if you did....

  21. #21
    genec genec's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    san diego
    My Bikes
    custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2
    Posts
    22,914
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by John Forester View Post
    This is partly correct, partly fallacious, hence rather mendacious. Vehicular cycling was the dominant mode from the invention of the bicycle, and hence was the condition in which the enormous development of cycling occurred. Your claim pertains only to after the introduction of mass motoring, when cycling of all kinds declined.

    Your claim regarding vehicular cycling in the USA is false, because the predominant, official, socially desired mode of cycling in the USA has been cyclist-inferiority cycling, now enforced by bikeways. The decline of cycling in the USA has nothing to do with vehicular cycling; the causes are much more associated with general social, demographic, and economic conditions.

    Great Britain's experience fits your example, but the UK was very different from the rest of Europe over all these decades, being, as far as transportation is concerned, more like the USA than the central European nations. In 1952, two years after British petrol rationing ended, bicycle traffic constituted 25% of the vehicle miles on British roads, and it has declined since.

    Your claim that "Where cycling facilities have been installed, and motor vehicle use has been discouraged, cycling for transportation has soared to be as much as 25% of all trips" is false, both in fact and in reasoning. It would be more accurate to state that in those nations in which there had been the greatest bicycle modal share, the decline has been less, with some areas having a modal share as high as 25%. These areas were developed as walking cities in which walking is convenient, although bicycling is faster, and motoring is inconvenient, and the authorities have maintained those characteristics as much as possible. Only one of the means has been the provision of bicycling facilities, and there is no means of evaluating the effect of the various means and conditions.
    How does this reasoning fit Davis CA where motoring is not discouraged, but cycling is encouraged and well supported.

  22. #22
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    4,070
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Genec's question, which appears at the bottom of this, refers to the part that I copied into this reply block.
    Originally Posted by John Forester View Post
    This is partly correct, partly fallacious, hence rather mendacious. Vehicular cycling was the dominant mode from the invention of the bicycle, and hence was the condition in which the enormous development of cycling occurred. Your claim pertains only to after the introduction of mass motoring, when cycling of all kinds declined.

    Your claim regarding vehicular cycling in the USA is false, because the predominant, official, socially desired mode of cycling in the USA has been cyclist-inferiority cycling, now enforced by bikeways. The decline of cycling in the USA has nothing to do with vehicular cycling; the causes are much more associated with general social, demographic, and economic conditions.

    Great Britain's experience fits your example, but the UK was very different from the rest of Europe over all these decades, being, as far as transportation is concerned, more like the USA than the central European nations. In 1952, two years after British petrol rationing ended, bicycle traffic constituted 25% of the vehicle miles on British roads, and it has declined since.

    Your claim that "Where cycling facilities have been installed, and motor vehicle use has been discouraged, cycling for transportation has soared to be as much as 25% of all trips" is false, both in fact and in reasoning. It would be more accurate to state that in those nations in which there had been the greatest bicycle modal share, the decline has been less, with some areas having a modal share as high as 25%. These areas were developed as walking cities in which walking is convenient, although bicycling is faster, and motoring is inconvenient, and the authorities have maintained those characteristics as much as possible. Only one of the means has been the provision of bicycling facilities, and there is no means of evaluating the effect of the various means and conditions.


    Quote Originally Posted by genec View Post
    How does this reasoning fit Davis CA where motoring is not discouraged, but cycling is encouraged and well supported.
    The cycling history of Davis occurs only after the introduction of mass motoring. Therefore, I start with this one of my statements. "Your claim regarding vehicular cycling in the USA is false, because the predominant, official, socially desired mode of cycling in the USA has been cyclist-inferiority cycling, now enforced by bikeways." The Davis bikeway system was started by people (Somers, the Lotts, and others) whose idea of cycling was only cyclist-inferiority cycling and who had no understanding of vehicular cycling. Reading their reports, both advocacy and research, demonstrates this very clearly They designed their system, until the other California bikeway standards came into being, without any thought but cyclist-inferiority cycling while ignoring the standard traffic-engineering knowledge on which vehicular cycling is based. Naturally, the California standards gradually took over, but, as I have demonstrated many times, these also are based on cyclist-inferiority cycling.

    I suppose that the intent of your question concerns not what I have just written, but the fact that Davis has a high bicycle modal share. Of course it does, because it has a large university with a widespread campus and living accommodations, in which the campus is closed to all but faculty and authorized motor vehicles, excluding students' motor vehicles. The students must either walk, cycle, or take the university bus. Cycling, as the Europeans state, is faster than walking, so it becomes preferable, or at least until the bus service became available a few years ago, when cycling dropped in popularity.

  23. #23
    genec genec's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    san diego
    My Bikes
    custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2
    Posts
    22,914
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by John Forester View Post
    Genec's question, which appears at the bottom of this, refers to the part that I copied into this reply block.
    Originally Posted by John Forester View Post
    This is partly correct, partly fallacious, hence rather mendacious. Vehicular cycling was the dominant mode from the invention of the bicycle, and hence was the condition in which the enormous development of cycling occurred. Your claim pertains only to after the introduction of mass motoring, when cycling of all kinds declined.

    Your claim regarding vehicular cycling in the USA is false, because the predominant, official, socially desired mode of cycling in the USA has been cyclist-inferiority cycling, now enforced by bikeways. The decline of cycling in the USA has nothing to do with vehicular cycling; the causes are much more associated with general social, demographic, and economic conditions.

    Great Britain's experience fits your example, but the UK was very different from the rest of Europe over all these decades, being, as far as transportation is concerned, more like the USA than the central European nations. In 1952, two years after British petrol rationing ended, bicycle traffic constituted 25% of the vehicle miles on British roads, and it has declined since.

    Your claim that "Where cycling facilities have been installed, and motor vehicle use has been discouraged, cycling for transportation has soared to be as much as 25% of all trips" is false, both in fact and in reasoning. It would be more accurate to state that in those nations in which there had been the greatest bicycle modal share, the decline has been less, with some areas having a modal share as high as 25%. These areas were developed as walking cities in which walking is convenient, although bicycling is faster, and motoring is inconvenient, and the authorities have maintained those characteristics as much as possible. Only one of the means has been the provision of bicycling facilities, and there is no means of evaluating the effect of the various means and conditions.




    The cycling history of Davis occurs only after the introduction of mass motoring. Therefore, I start with this one of my statements. "Your claim regarding vehicular cycling in the USA is false, because the predominant, official, socially desired mode of cycling in the USA has been cyclist-inferiority cycling, now enforced by bikeways." The Davis bikeway system was started by people (Somers, the Lotts, and others) whose idea of cycling was only cyclist-inferiority cycling and who had no understanding of vehicular cycling. Reading their reports, both advocacy and research, demonstrates this very clearly They designed their system, until the other California bikeway standards came into being, without any thought but cyclist-inferiority cycling while ignoring the standard traffic-engineering knowledge on which vehicular cycling is based. Naturally, the California standards gradually took over, but, as I have demonstrated many times, these also are based on cyclist-inferiority cycling.

    I suppose that the intent of your question concerns not what I have just written, but the fact that Davis has a high bicycle modal share. Of course it does, because it has a large university with a widespread campus and living accommodations, in which the campus is closed to all but faculty and authorized motor vehicles, excluding students' motor vehicles. The students must either walk, cycle, or take the university bus. Cycling, as the Europeans state, is faster than walking, so it becomes preferable, or at least until the bus service became available a few years ago, when cycling dropped in popularity.
    So your explanation for the cycling success in Davis is due to students being "forced" to bike?

    I can only wonder what students are using the Davis Transit Depot? (to the point of overflowing the bike racks there)

    One can only also wonder about the filled parking lots around the Davis campus... Are those all only "faculty and authorized motor vehicles?"
    Attached Images Attached Images

  24. #24
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    4,070
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by genec View Post
    So your explanation for the cycling success in Davis is due to students being "forced" to bike?

    I can only wonder what students are using the Davis Transit Depot? (to the point of overflowing the bike racks there)

    One can only also wonder about the filled parking lots around the Davis campus... Are those all only "faculty and authorized motor vehicles?"
    The parking eligibility and rates are listed in this rather long table:

    http://taps.ucdavis.edu/parking/permits/rates.cfm

    As you see, parking eligibility is limited to faculty, staff, and a very small list of others, such as vendors and disabled.

  25. #25
    genec genec's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    san diego
    My Bikes
    custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2
    Posts
    22,914
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by John Forester View Post
    The parking eligibility and rates are listed in this rather long table:

    http://taps.ucdavis.edu/parking/permits/rates.cfm

    As you see, parking eligibility is limited to faculty, staff, and a very small list of others, such as vendors and disabled.
    for $468 per year any student not living on campus can park in any "C" lot.

    For "UCD Faculty, Staff, or Student not living in residence halls or other campus housing "


    SDSU charges $135 per semester for the same privilege.
    http://www.dps.sdsu.edu/permits.htm

    UCSD charges $696 per year.
    http://www.ucsd.edu/current-students...l-parking.html
    At UCSD you are restricted to "S" lots.


    The UC Davis rates are not unusual when compared to other UC campuses... In fact the UC Davis parking fee is considerably cheaper than the UCSD parking fee.

    If parking fees are the issue, one might think there would be far more students riding bikes in and around UCSD...

    SDSU is considered a "commuter campus" and at at one time had even banned bicycles from campus.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •