ChipSeal

ChipSeal said: “I am therefore astonished that so many of our “bicycle advocates” reject and dismiss best practices for a facilities based paradigm that exposes cyclists to far greater peril. It makes me wonder if they are really interested in their constituents safety at all.”

That’s the problem with bike advocacy, it’s been overrun by people with other agendas—reducing motoring, obesity, air pollution, fuel use, save the world, sell bicycles, etc. Those people aim for the lowest common denominator of ignorance to get “butts on bikes.” They don’t really care that their facilities hamstring cyclists, virtually eliminating their ability to protect themselves. A cyclist on a “separated” parallel facility (like a sidewalk) has only one method of avoiding crashes — keep head on a swivel and ride slow enough to stop instantly.

This is something most sidewalk riders don’t understand, and that’s why they make up almost half of Orlando’s bike-v-car crashes

genec

Um, you do know that there are other facilities that are NOT sidewalk like... right? Here in San Diego we have a few real nice bike facilities... that permit very high speed cycling; they have on and off ramps and some separated areas for peds. Perhaps this is what some "other agenda" folks have in mind... not stripes of paint nor narrow park/ped paths.

I know that bike highways is what I have in mind... something that preserves a cyclists' inertia while encouraging fast cross town cycle trips. Automobile drivers have controlled access thoroughfares, why shouldn't cyclists?

The Human Car

I'll agree there is a problem of defaulting to the lowest common denominator but I'm not sure if it is because of all the different agendas or just the general lack of treating bikes as transportation even when used recreationally.

To explain a bit: Trails that can function well as both transportation corridors and a recreational facility are better utilized then trails that function mainly for recreation even though recreational use is the primary use of both types of trails. I could go on about the importance of connecting residence with destinations (transportation view point) like an ice cream store on a hot summer day over remote wooded trails with no wayfaring signs to destinations and no way to comfortable bike from home to the trail even if you live a half mile from the trail.

The point is all modes of travel have varying degrees of service; roads: residential, collector, arterial, highway, expressway; Mass Transit: local bus, commuter bus, subway, commuter rail and so on. So there should be a similar varying degrees of service for cyclists as well. The lowest common denominator should be accommodated but not everywhere. Just because a new car driver is not comfortable driving on the interstate does not mean we should never build another one, because we all know it does not take long for a new driver to get the confidence to drive on an interstate. Similarly cyclists start off liking the lower end stuff but because we do not have a good interconnecting network so they can't comfortably advance to other types of facilities so too many people end up stuck in beginning mode.

CB HI

Like all of 0.005% of the so called advocates.

CB HI

And I thought ChipSeal said "many" rather than "all".

Bekologist

What on earth are you complaining about? Some cycling advocacy is populist based versus your 'cars first' streetscape obsessions?

you are obviously confused about the effects and ramifications of bike infrastructure.

Ed Holland

So tell us what "bike advocacy" should be doing?

1. Appealing to cyclists to promote a particular riding behaviour?

2. Appealling to the world at large for material and behavioural considerations towards cyclists?

rando

nah. I'll stay on the sidewalk, thanks.

JRA

Bicyclists should have the same agendas as John Forester has:

1. Promotion of the car culture of the 1950s as the American Dream of the 21st century.
2. Opposition to mass transit.
3. Opposition to any kind of bicycling infrastructure that isn't a bike rack (while pretending not to oppose virtually all bicyling infrastructure).
4. Uncritical support of highway infrastructure.
5. Opposition to the idea that bicycling could be a transportation alternative (ridicule of those who dare to use a bicycle as a primary means of transportation is a must).
6. Promotion of the Wide Outside Lane as a primary solution the world's problems.

If anyone thinks those aren't the agendas of JF and his VC-ists followers, they obviously haven't been paying attention to what JF and his followers have written.

Oh, I almost forgot:

7. Promotion of the idea that any bicyclist that doesn't kiss JF's rear end must be suffering from some kind of mental disease like, for example, that VC-ist favorite "cyclist inferiority phobia" -- a disease invented by that great psychologist in his own mind, John Forester, because JF couldn't understand how any bicyclist not suffering from a disease could possibly disagree with his nutjob social theories.
(if "phobia" seems like too strong a word, try substituting "taboo," as one JF follower has done -- LOL).

Seriously, it's not as if VS-ists don't have their own agendas.

I-Like-To-Bike

In case anyone thinks that JRA is laying it on a little strong, mosey on over to the Chainguard list to read the latest from the Great Leader of the Vehicular Cyclists™.
https://sports.groups.yahoo.com/group.../message/27510

The Human Car

JRA obviously does not know what he is talking about as the JF agenda does not promote wide outside lanes, only roadway designs that best suit motorized travel. But one could argue that wide outside lanes are safer for drunk and/or distracted motorists and since that is better for motorists it is better for cyclists to tolerate more drunk and distracted drivers on the road.

[/ meant as humorous (satiric) attempt at imitating a JF follower hard a55. @JRA don't take this personally, I actually support what you wrote.]

JRA

That's an excellent imitation, except that you didn't mention that I must have a reading comprehension problem. Nor did you emphasize the point (cough, cough) that JF is not opposed ALL bicycle facilities.

The roadway design best suited for motorized travel is one with an outside lane wide enough to allow motorists to pass bicyclists "without delay" (to use the phrase JF used in the paper he presented to the American Dream Coalition).

[/ A pillar of VC-ist dogma is that WOLs are better than bike lanes (although not ALL VC-ists are fond of WOLs)]

To summarize, VC-ists have other agendas, too -- agendas that have noting to do with the safety of bicyclists.

The Human Car

Actually I did not want to lay it on too thick in case the joke landed wrong. But I have to say I am not sure if JF and company have any agenda other then criticizing other cyclists outside of the inner circle and praising any and all car centric road designs.

genec

Now now let us not forget the issue of critisizing any and all that might suggest that perhaps we could be less automobile centric in our community thinking and planning... Oh heaven forbid.


For instance:
One will be immediately struck down by JF lightening if one were merely to suggest that a walking mall might be a great idea for a downtown...

The Human Car

While this is fun getting back to the the op, I will strongly assert that the problem is not with the "bicycle advocates" nor JF and the blind followers. It is with a third group of planners and road engineers that all too often feel that any fool with a degree can design a bike facility.

A case locally they are doing some road improvements and are showing off how they are accommodating cyclists on typical midsections of the roadway, great! But what about the intersections? No designs are available, no comments can be made because the designs are not out to comment on, will we get curb lanes to the right of right hand turn lanes? Could be, but fighting this has been an infuriating battle because responses keep coming back in essence saying: Since we are accommodating cyclists on the typical mid sections of the road so we don't understand your assertion that we are not accommodating cyclists.

We understand the importance of not putting bike accommodations to the right of right hand turn lanes, the JFs understand this as well, it is those other guys who don't get it.

genec

The ironic thing about "no bike accomodations to the right of a right turn lane" is that a WOL effectively does just that... on any high speed road... where cyclists by default ride outside of the vastly higher speed traffic... those cyclists are to the right of any turning fast traffic.

The fact is that the only really true accomodations for cyclists are low speed narrow roads where all users move at about the same speed.

The Human Car

Or there is highway ramps where you have some distance when to move from the shoulder to the gore area. Works fairly well with faster traffic as long as there is gaps in traffic.

There is also some promise for bike lanes that come off of parking (hopefully not in the door zone) and end in a right hand turn lane (were there was parking.) we have one case where a sharrow is to the left of the right hand turn lane making a quasi pocket lane. Again that seems to work fairly well but the newb generally does not like either of these at first but give them some explanation of how and why it is supposed to work and they come around in my experience.

I will agree for all practical purposes a WOL is about as good as poorly designed bike lane for the non-VC trained cyclists.

dougmc

... agendas that differ from yours. How dare they!

`Bike advocacy' is different things to different people. It seems pretty clear that you already know what it should be, but of course not everybody is going to agree.

JRA

I agree that neither of these groups is the problem although they are certainly problems. The constant infighting among bicyclists is not helpful and is generally quite annoying.

VC-ists have other agendas (some of which I share) but it does often seem that bad-mouthing other cyclists is just about all they do. I wonder if they are aware of how they come across. Repeatedly criticizing those who might otherwise support you is a "shoot yourself in the foot" tactic.

We have an imperfect system that may result in cycling facilities designed by engineers who know just about nothing about bicycling. Poorly implemented and sometimes conflicting government policies, combined with a multitude of agencies and levels of government (federal, state, county, local), can lead to perverse incentives and absurd results.

If someone is looking for something to criticize, they should have no difficulty. It's more difficult but probably more helpful to find common ground so that bicyclsts can speak with a less-divided voice and not nit-pick everything.

I actually think that is possible. Call me an optimist.

The Human Car

If I could summarize governments' interaction with people is that people always complain no mater what government does. So governments general position is to act as an informed authority and act only on informed comments. So to be effective an advocate you needs to understand why something is being purposed and offer superior solutions. Locally the VC's have no effective voice not only because they are in the minority but because they do not offer any viable solutions to problems, only complaints. This in turn hurts people like me who are more in the middle between both sides as it gives the "I'll take anything for bike facilities" advocates more power to get junk and half thought out bike accommodations. Something I am up against is the preference for 12' travel lanes by DOT with the road excess being called a bike facility wither AASHTO says it qualifies or not, vs 10' travel lanes which the new upcoming AASHTO guidance says has the same car capacity (for roads 40mph and under) and improves safety for motorists, thus giving cyclists more side area to be in conformance with AASHTO. (e.g. DOT likes the idea of taking a 15' WOL and make a 12' travel lane and a 3' "bike lane", there are better solutions for this then that.)

The problem here is, it is the road engineers that have purposed the half a55 solution and it is the divided cyclists who have to try and fix it. So while I would agree if cyclists could speak with a unified voice they could correct problems like this, the source of the problem is the institutes of higher learning where bike/ped issues for street designs are not taught or not taught well.

John Forester

JRA, your writing contains so many errors that one might well conclude that the errors reflect your own superstitious biases rather than fact. Here are examples.

"1. Promotion of the car culture of the 1950s as the American Dream of the 21st century."
I do not promote car culture of the 1950s. I accept it as forming the environment in which cyclists must operate, and therefore work out how best should cyclists operate in it. However, I did not introduce this subject into cycling discussions. I merely responded to the anti-motoring bicycle advocates who advanced peculiar criticisms of suburbs and suburban living that do not agree with the views of the very large proportion of our population who chose suburban living.

"2. Opposition to mass transit."
I have strong opposition to the more expensive forms of mass transit, because I believe that the money would be far better spent on improving mass transit for those who really need it. However, that has nothing to do with these discussions. I oppose the superstition believed by so many anti-motorists that mass transit will, in the typical American city, significantly reduce motoring and improve cycling. I consider that entirely unlikely under the present circumstances. I did not introduce this subject to these discussions, but I had to reply to those who presented the unlikely as fact.

"3. Opposition to any kind of bicycling infrastructure that isn't a bike rack (while pretending not to oppose virtually all bicyling infrastructure)."
I oppose all bikeways that contradict the rules of the road, because cycling contrary to the rules of the road is dangerous. I oppose the claim that off-highway trails are likely to make a bicycle transportation system, because there are insufficient locations that would provide this function. I oppose the claim that off-highway trails are automatically safer than roadway cycling. I see this as a reasoned stand; if you think otherwise, then we differ.

"4. Uncritical support of highway infrastructure."
Don't be silly. I support well designed and well maintained highways, and a well planned highway system. That's also a reasoned stand.

"5. Opposition to the idea that bicycling could be a transportation alternative (ridicule of those who dare to use a bicycle as a primary means of transportation is a must)."
You lie. I have never ridiculed anyone who cycles as a primary means of transportation. I have never stated that bicycling cannot be a transportation alternative. Confound it, I have cycled for transportation a great many years of my life; how could I deny that those years existed? The trouble with you is that you are so tied up with your own emotional desires that you cannot understand what I have written so many times. That is, that, in modern American cities, it is highly improbable that any form of bicycle promotion, be it bikeways or anything otherwise probable, will produce so much switching from motoring to bicycling as to reduce motoring to a transportationally significant extent. You believe that? Then demonstrate an example to support your unsupported claim.

"6. Promotion of the Wide Outside Lane as a primary solution the world's problems."
This is so silly that no other response is needed.

"7. Promotion of the idea that any bicyclist that doesn't kiss JF's rear end must be suffering from some kind of mental disease like, for example, that VC-ist favorite "cyclist inferiority phobia" -- a disease invented by that great psychologist in his own mind, John Forester, because JF couldn't understand how any bicyclist not suffering from a disease could possibly disagree with his nutjob social theories.
(if "phobia" seems like too strong a word, try substituting "taboo," as one JF follower has done -- LOL)."

Of course, you don't like to recognize that your hypothesis about bicycle traffic is based on superstition rather than on facts. You refuse to admit that, because all your advocacy is based on that superstition; without that superstition your advocacy would be obviously false. However, facts are facts. There is no factual basis for the bikeway hypothesis other than exaggerated fear of same-direction traffic, the same motivation which enabled the motorists (See, I really do criticize them!) to produce the bikeway system to suit their own convenience. Facts are facts; they're all in the historical record and have been known for more than thirty years.

John Forester

More lies. While I did not invent the concept of the wide outside lane, as soon as it was stated, some forty years ago, I adopted it and have written advocating wide outside lanes in both of my major bicycle transportation books.

John Forester

That is erroneous. WOLs are not bicycle accommodations; they are accommodations to motorists to get the bike-lane demanding motorists off our backs. That is desirable because WOLs produce no obligation to disobey the rules of the road; both motorists and cyclists can choose their lateral position without the disadvantages, in traffic operation, in legitimacy, and in social status, of the bike-lane stripe. That is a matter of safety, in that nobody has ever shown that bike lanes make cycling significantly safer than cycling in accordance with the rules of the road, while there is plenty of evidence that cycling contrary to the rules of the road is more dangerous.

John Forester

The human car is trying to reach a reasonable answer through the fog of the controversy, but the fog prevents him from doing so. THC is operating under the assumption that there is some better system of cycling than according to the rules of the road on well-designed normal roads. He recognizes that many bikeway solutions are not better, but he assumes that a better design exists and will be discovered in the near future, through discussions and such. Considering that designs are a human construct, no undiscovered design can exist; the moment such a design is created, it starts to exist. The problem is that no design has been shown to provide safer and more efficient bicycle transportation than operating according to the rules of the road on good roads. It is only when an experimental change has been produced and shown to be better that it is wise to consider system-wide change.

Bekologist

so, john, you're telling us you sold out to motor vehicle traffic decades ago.

how do you explain the hundreds of communities in the USA and around the world that

1) reversed declining bicycling rates with bicycling specific infrastructure and other social inducements to favor bicycling;

2) accommodate higher percentages of lawful street bicycling thru the use of bike specific infrastructure;

and

3)Show higher ridership and lower accident rates than communities that have failed to facilitate bicycling.


John, you are a bicyclist that sold out to the motor vehicle decades ago, and your agenda has stunted bicycling ridershare in this country.