Advertise on Bikeforums.net



User Tag List

Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 75 of 180
  1. #51
    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)


    portland's a failed city and the adherence to staid rules for operation of vehicles somehow trumps progressive road design that facilitates lawful road bicycling on public highways. hilarious stuff, john.


    john ,you do understand the difference between a 'bike' and a 'road' i hope.

    if you're trying to play the act that your ideology has made you psychotically unable to discern the difference between the act of riding a bike versus the physical environment you're succeeding admirably, but come on man enough with the playing dumb.


    take lemon grove ave down in your neck of the woods... a vehikular cyclist not needing to make a turn would simply ride their bike vehicularily in the bikelane along the light rail cooridor as a vehicular cyclist and in accordance with the rules of the road for operation of vehicles.
    Last edited by Bekologist; 10-12-09 at 10:31 AM.
    "Evidence, anecdote and methodology all support planning for roadway bike traffic."

  2. #52
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    4,070
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Bekologist View Post


    portland's a failed city and the adherence to staid rules for operation of vehicles somehow trumps progressive road design that facilitates lawful road bicycling on public highways. hilarious stuff, john.


    john ,you do understand the difference between a 'bike' and a 'road' i hope.


    take lemon grove ave down in your neck of the woods... a vehikular cyclist not needing to make a turn would simple ride their bike vehicularily in the bikelane along the light rail cooridor as a vehicular cyclist.
    Nobody has ever denied that sometimes the bike lane is in the proper place for the traffic conditions then existing; the point is that sometimes is not all times. You don't accept that argument, at least sometimes, more nearly all times.

  3. #53
    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)
    what point?

    That you can't tell the difference between a bicycle and a road?
    "Evidence, anecdote and methodology all support planning for roadway bike traffic."

  4. #54
    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)
    Quote Originally Posted by Bekologist View Post
    boy, Randya.

    when discussing 'best practice' design for bicycling some mention of facilites is inevitable. why call me at fault for discussing a topic at hand?

    Best practices and safer bicycling facilities are actually central to the conversation aren't they?

    you are aware VC is most emphatically NOT 'best practice' design for bicyclists by any metric. look at ridership in other countries, look at cycling rates by the elderly in countries that plan more considerately for bikes as transportation. compare to the USA and Britain.


    griping that facilities are inseparable from discussion of 'best practices' and are part and parcel of 'best practice' design?

    a huge inability to see reality for what it is.

    are you just upset with cycletracks or something?
    all I'm saying is that you've been engaged with JF here for so long, your posting style is starting to resemble his, and i think the discussion would be more productive if you toned down the rhetoric a bit.

    I know, I know, when in Rome, blah blah blah.



    and yes, I don't really think cycle tracks are 'best practice' for the USofA, except in limited circumstances, including stretches of road with large distances between intersections and limited driveways and other crossings. Many of the cycle tracks in Amsterdam run along canals and there aren't many intersections. Putting cycle tracks somewhere like downtown Portland, with it's regular grid, low speed traffic (lights timed for 12-15 mph) and many turning maneuvers, doesn't make one bit of sense to me.
    Last edited by randya; 10-12-09 at 12:15 PM.

  5. #55
    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)
    Quote Originally Posted by chipcom View Post
    I guess that depends upon if you mean VC the wacky dogma or vc the practical concept of operating according to the rules of the road...like even you do, Bek.
    maybe we should start talking about 'adaptive cycling' again, I liked that terminology.


  6. #56
    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)
    Quote Originally Posted by Bekologist View Post
    got to stand against mandatory bikelane and sidepath use laws. FRAP is applicable to all vehicles regardless of specificity of traffic code.

    the devil IS in the details.

    In a citiy with 5 percent enhanced bikeway'd roads (still allowing operation in accordance with the rules of the road), the remaining 95 percent of the roads remain unenhanced. communities have expectations of lawful, vehicular cycling on all the roads and notably, the vast majority of unenhanced streets.

    just a relevant aside...


    but to address concerns about a few hundred yards of cycletrack spelling the demise of roadway cycling in Portland, I say, REALLY?

    municipalities can easily place sharrows adjacent to a cycletrack or bike path. Perhaps this should be part of MUTCD but i can see problems implementing this. Yet federal design guidelines are pretty clear that roads should be designed to acommodate bicyclists.

    in the case of urban cycletracks sharrows in road adjacent make the most sense IMO.
    just as an aside, Oregon does have a mandatory use law, ORS 814.420, look it up.

  7. #57
    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)
    Quote Originally Posted by randya
    our posting style is starting to resemble his
    doubtful. his screed is monomaniacal and voluminous without regard to constructive dialogue. Do you want to discuss 'best practice' for bicyclists in the context of the design environment or don't you? you started the thread.

    oregon does have mandatory bikelane laws, one of only seven states. its contingent on approval by local authorities though isn't it?

    regardless, oregon should drop mandatory use language in state statute; easier still to lobby to replace mandatory language 'shall' with 'may' as has been done is Washington, Michigan and several other states.

    'cycletracks' in downtown portland might not make sense to you and i, but they might just work. the park blocks could become largely car free cycletracks in my opinion but there's not a lot of bike traffic thru there, transportation wise...

    what do you think of supplementing cycletracks or bikepaths with roadway sharrows? seen here in seattle, i will go get some pics today for you.
    Last edited by Bekologist; 10-12-09 at 12:08 PM.
    "Evidence, anecdote and methodology all support planning for roadway bike traffic."

  8. #58
    Senior Member sggoodri's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Cary, NC
    My Bikes
    1983 Trek, 2001 Lemond, 2000 Gary Fisher
    Posts
    3,068
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Land use decisions have an enormous effect on bicycle transportation mode share. So does the provision (or not) of automobile parking and mass transit. But to what degree should "best practices for cyclists" attempt to reduce automobile ownership and automobile convenience? While some cyclists may prefer certain conditions, let's call them "high density" urban, that deter automobile use, and appreciate the increased cycling mode share and shorter trip distances that may result, others may prefer to ride in different surroundings, e.g. "low density" rural/suburban. When is a plan to shift mode share not the same as best serving those who already bike? If many citizens oppose land use changes but support cycling, should best practices for cycling associate itself with controversial land use changes?

    Now, I'm a supporter of land use changes in many suburban cases (e.g. placing dense residential and commercial/retail closer together, where direct connectivity exists between them), but I've not tried to promote them explicitly as being best practices for bicycling. Rather, I associate them with transit-oriented and pedestrian-oriented development for the explicit purpose of changing mode share away from private automobiles. Such topics generate lots of debate in the suburbs, and I see no reason to drag bicyclists into the fray - especially if most of the local bicyclists are primarily recreational.

  9. #59
    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)
    interesting you associate land use planning densification and the design of the environment as a way for transit and pedestrian travel to change mode share away from automobiles but you do not consider bicycling as another tool to do so.

    'no reason to drag bicyclists into the fray?' do you mean, the transportation equation? because as far as urban planning is concerned, bicycling is VERY VIABLE even for the 'suburban' environment. pacificaslim equates improved transit as supporting bicycling.

    how about those bikes, steve?

    there's definite interconnectivity between bike traffic, peds and transit perhaps even more so than between automobiles and bikes as far as planning for bikes is concerned but that's speculative on my part.

    how best to plan for bike traffic in a community? like a car trip, or like a mass transit/pedestrian/human scaled/bicycling trip away from home?
    Last edited by Bekologist; 10-12-09 at 12:21 PM.
    "Evidence, anecdote and methodology all support planning for roadway bike traffic."

  10. #60
    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)
    Quote Originally Posted by John Forester View Post
    It is one thing to write a plan that "rejects sprawl". It is another matter entirely to view the actual events that occur after writing such a hope into a plan. The plan to be adopted in 2010 is an update of the plan adopted in 1996, and, I presume, there is a sequence of plans before that. It is wise to consider the effects of these earlier plans, to see which parts of them have come to pass, and what unplanned events have occurred.

    It has been stated many times in these discussions that the basic urban pattern has an enormous effect on the utility, and therefore the use, of both bicycle transportation and motor transportation. The proposed 2010 plan indeed refers to this effect and indicates a desire to remodel Portland to be more medieval, less useful for motoring and more useful for bicycling and walking. Bek obviously supports this plan.

    The past effects of past plans with similar goals need to be considered when predicting the effect of the 2010 plan. Those who consider urban patterns have two different views about the success of the past Portland plans. Those who consider the purely local, and largely environmental, effects seem to consider Portland a success. Those who consider the larger effects seem to consider Portland a city that has planned its way into decay. Indeed, one calls Portland a failed city. In my opinion, there is some evidence for the former view, and a lot stronger evidence for the latter view.

    Therefore, even Bek's argument that bikeways produce transportationally significant increases in bicycle transportation is not supported by the Portland draft 2010 bicycle plan. Such increases will occur only with significant assistance from anti-motoring programs.

    Therefore, if we are to consider the best practices for cyclists, we need to consider them in relation to the real world, not in relation to some idealized world that exists in only two types of places, in medieval cities and in the minds of anti-motoring planners. This means cycling in accordance with the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles and designing the road to best accommodate that method.
    Reducing motoring is a valid goal, John. Characterizing this position as anti-motoring is disengenuous at best. Ever heard of congestion, sprawl and global warming due to greenhouse gasses? The state plan calls for a balanced transportation system accessible to all modes, and not an elimination of motoring.

    Oregon has a stated goal of reducing single occupancy motor vehicle trips (expressed as a reduction in vehicle miles traveled or VMT reductions). I'm not completely sure of the details, but it's in the state land use planning goals and the state DEQ and metro areas throughout the state are actively engaged in working to achieve this goal.

    Quote Originally Posted by Oregon Governor's Office
    Expanding Transportation Options: The Governor is committed to setting an overarching vehicle miles traveled (VMT) reduction goal for the state. Reducing discretionary trips in single occupancy vehicles will be a high priority, particularly in urban areas where more transportation choices exist. This will include an expanded Transportation Options program to help provide relief from high fuel prices and enhance community livability through expanded pedestrian and bicycle programs, increased numbers of carpools and vanpools, a statewide rideshare program, education and marketing, and incentive programs designed to reduce cars on our roadways.
    http://governor.oregon.gov/Gov/pdf/c...08_final_3.pdf
    http://www.lcd.state.or.us/LCD/docs/goals/goal12.pdf
    http://www.lcd.state.or.us/search_re...eductions#1069
    http://www.lcd.state.or.us/LCD/goals.shtml

  11. #61
    your nightmare gal chipcom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    The Cracker Factory
    Posts
    24,353
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by randya View Post
    all I'm saying is that you've been engaged with JF here for so long, your posting style is starting to resemble his
    Quote Originally Posted by Bekologist View Post
    doubtful
    I dunno, I'm starting to think of you as different sides of the same coin...or the Bobbsey twins.

  12. #62
    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)
    Quote Originally Posted by Bekologist View Post
    oregon does have mandatory bikelane laws, one of only seven states. its contingent on approval by local authorities though isn't it?.
    technically, but it doesn't stop the cops from issuing tickets for riding outside the bike lane and woe to the cyclist that gets in a crash outside the bike lane on a street with a bike lane. The cops feel the law is on their side as there is case law (the Potter case) in which the judge said if it was designed by engineers it was just as good as public hearing, or something to that effect.
    http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/A115242.htm

    Quote Originally Posted by Bekologist View Post
    regardless, oregon should drop mandatory use language in state statute; easier still to lobby to replace mandatory language 'shall' with 'may' as has been done is Washington, Michigan and several other states.

    'cycletracks' in downtown portland might not make sense to you and i, but they might just work. the park blocks could become largely car free cycletracks in my opinion but there's not a lot of bike traffic thru there, transportation wise...

    what do you think of supplementing cycletracks or bikepaths with roadway sharrows? seen here in seattle, i will go get some pics today for you.
    IMO, they should just ban motorists from the park blocks altogether, that would be the best solution, probably too radical for even Portland right now however.

  13. #63
    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)
    Quote Originally Posted by sggoodri View Post
    Land use decisions have an enormous effect on bicycle transportation mode share. So does the provision (or not) of automobile parking and mass transit. But to what degree should "best practices for cyclists" attempt to reduce automobile ownership and automobile convenience? While some cyclists may prefer certain conditions, let's call them "high density" urban, that deter automobile use, and appreciate the increased cycling mode share and shorter trip distances that may result, others may prefer to ride in different surroundings, e.g. "low density" rural/suburban. When is a plan to shift mode share not the same as best serving those who already bike? If many citizens oppose land use changes but support cycling, should best practices for cycling associate itself with controversial land use changes?

    Now, I'm a supporter of land use changes in many suburban cases (e.g. placing dense residential and commercial/retail closer together, where direct connectivity exists between them), but I've not tried to promote them explicitly as being best practices for bicycling. Rather, I associate them with transit-oriented and pedestrian-oriented development for the explicit purpose of changing mode share away from private automobiles. Such topics generate lots of debate in the suburbs, and I see no reason to drag bicyclists into the fray - especially if most of the local bicyclists are primarily recreational.
    one very simple solution is to replace curb side motor vehicle parking spaces with curb side bicycle parking spaces, this is working very effectively in Portland right now.

  14. #64
    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 pacificaslim View Post
    Why not look at cycling rates in countries that don't plan at all for bikes (in the ways you want to) and still have ridership rates much, much higher than the USA and Britain? My other home, Japan, for example. If you looked at that, you may see that ridership rates are symptoms of how a city is organized overall and what its population is like, independent of any bike infrastructure.

    In Portland and San Francisco it's a combination of decent public transportation (and car-share programs), mixed-use neighborhoods, and a large percentage of "hipsters" living in those cities who are riding bikes because it's "cool" (and would therefore do so whether it makes sense as the best form of transportation or not). It is not bike lane infrastructure that is driving high ridership in places like that, or any college town for that matter. San Francisco has been prohibited from doing any bike infrastructure for many years and still ridership has increased: because of the trend.

    Spend the money and effort on public transportation and people will ride bikes. Otherwise, it simply doesn't make sense for most people, in most cities, to choose a bike over a car. The choice to give them is train over car and then they'll use the bike and walking to fill in the gaps between home and subway/train station.
    Careful Pac., you're going to confuse Bek with the facts.

    Bek's Dictionary:
    'fact: something someone who agrees with Bek hopes will happen in the future.'
    DISCLAIMER: Nothing here should be taken as legal advice, even if it seems silly enough to have been written by a legislator, and especially not if it appears (by remote chance) to display any evidence of erudition.

  15. #65
    your nightmare gal chipcom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    The Cracker Factory
    Posts
    24,353
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by randya View Post
    IMO, they should just ban motorists from the park blocks altogether, that would be the best solution, probably too radical for even Portland right now however.
    As attractive as it sounds within the confines of other cyclists, I don't think banning is a good idea. Remember, at this point in time, motorists are the majority...you start banning them from using their cars they can do a whole lot of banning of bikes right back. As evil as many regard motor vehicles and those nasty people that own them (not that I would EVAR own [just] one), they are and will continue to be part of the mix into the foreseeable future...and possibly still the dominant mode of transportation to boot. Our best tact is to be good neighbors on the outside, while we stab them in the back behind closed doors.

  16. #66
    genec genec's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    san diego
    My Bikes
    custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2
    Posts
    22,723
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by randya View Post
    Reducing motoring is a valid goal, John. Characterizing this position as anti-motoring is disengenuous at best. Ever heard of congestion, sprawl and global warming due to greenhouse gasses? The state plan calls for a balanced transportation system accessible to all modes, and not an elimination of motoring.

    Oregon has a stated goal of reducing single occupancy motor vehicle trips (expressed as a reduction in vehicle miles traveled or VMT reductions). I'm not completely sure of the details, but it's in the state land use planning goals and the state DEQ and metro areas throughout the state are actively engaged in working to achieve this goal.


    http://governor.oregon.gov/Gov/pdf/c...08_final_3.pdf
    http://www.lcd.state.or.us/LCD/docs/goals/goal12.pdf
    http://www.lcd.state.or.us/search_re...eductions#1069
    http://www.lcd.state.or.us/LCD/goals.shtml

    Careful now... John just might brand you as "anti-motoring." That thinking is just not consistent with his American Dream Coalition buddies that believe that cars work best at 50MPH and above, and that cars are one of the greatest inventions out there. (personally, I find indoor plumbing to be a far greater invention)

  17. #67
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    4,070
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by randya View Post
    Reducing motoring is a valid goal, John. Characterizing this position as anti-motoring is disengenuous at best. Ever heard of congestion, sprawl and global warming due to greenhouse gasses? The state plan calls for a balanced transportation system accessible to all modes, and not an elimination of motoring.

    Oregon has a stated goal of reducing single occupancy motor vehicle trips (expressed as a reduction in vehicle miles traveled or VMT reductions). I'm not completely sure of the details, but it's in the state land use planning goals and the state DEQ and metro areas throughout the state are actively engaged in working to achieve this goal.


    http://governor.oregon.gov/Gov/pdf/c...08_final_3.pdf
    http://www.lcd.state.or.us/LCD/docs/goals/goal12.pdf
    http://www.lcd.state.or.us/search_re...eductions#1069
    http://www.lcd.state.or.us/LCD/goals.shtml
    I have known for a long time that there have been various plans to reduce motoring. My complaint is with those anti-motorists who advocate officially reducing cycling to the lowest level of competence and, hence, of legal and social status and effectiveness. The argument is that catering to the superstitions and desires of those who don't know proper cycling and don't want to learn will attract so many motorists to bicycling that there will be a transportationally significant reduction in motoring. There is no evidence anywhere in the world of such a transformation. While bicycle advocates tout Amsterdam and Copenhagen as examples, nobody, so far as I know, has published statistics about the proportion of those who transferred daily motoring into daily bicycling. I suspect that, were that proportion favorable to bicycle advocacy, such would have been discovered and published. Furthermore, as has been often written here, and in the new proposed Portland Bike Plan, significant bicycle transportation occurs when the urban pattern makes bicycle transportation useful.

    I see no good reason for degrading cycling into the lowest denominator of incompetence and unsatisfactoriness in pursuit of a goal that would much more likely be attained by more effective means. That is, rebuilding of the city into the urban pattern in which walking and bicycling are useful, and motoring inconvenient, in which case there is no need for degrading cycling at all. Whether or not I think such rebuilding is probable or improbable is beside the point; there is no value in making cycling worse when that will not produce the rebuilding that is required to achieve the goal of significantly reducing motoring.

  18. #68
    Senior Member sggoodri's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Cary, NC
    My Bikes
    1983 Trek, 2001 Lemond, 2000 Gary Fisher
    Posts
    3,068
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Bekologist View Post
    interesting you associate land use planning densification and the design of the environment as a way for transit and pedestrian travel to change mode share away from automobiles but you do not consider bicycling as another tool to do so.

    'no reason to drag bicyclists into the fray?' do you mean, the transportation equation? because as far as urban planning is concerned, bicycling is VERY VIABLE even for the 'suburban' environment.
    Of course bicycling can shift mode share away from automobiles. That's not my point.

    My point is, do those bicyclists who are already cycling care if motoring is reduced? Are their interests best served by efforts to reduce motoring? I believe the correct answer is, it depends. If the change in the environment makes cycling more enjoyable and efficient for them, then yes. If the change just frustrates motorists without improving conditions for cycling, then no. In this latter case, the bicyclists probably don't want their travel mode to be associated with efforts to cause problems for motorists.

    Consider traffic calming. Some traffic calming designs have minimal adverse effects on cyclists, and by reducing maximum speeds to reduce maximum speed differentials and by reducing high speed cut through traffic, the cycling environment may be improved. But other traffic calming designs create new choke points where cyclists must take the lane or get passed at unsafe distance when negotiating the choke points. These can increase social friction and be very annoying and frustrating for cyclists. In some cases, new-urbanist residential and commercial architects and planners have designed narrower collector streets with too little room for motorists to pass cyclists without changing lanes, and in exchange designed the sidewalks as sidepath cycle tracks with numerous driveway and intersection crossings. Their motivation is to reduce motor vehicle speeds and promote walking. But do experienced cyclists want to ride on sidewalk paths through dense street networks? The somewhat wider 2-lane collector designs accommodate cycling better, on the roadway.

    So while improving conditions for cycling can reduce motoring somewhat, some efforts aimed at reducing motoring can also have negative side effects for cyclists. Motoring reduction is not automatically a best practice for cyclists.

  19. #69
    Surf Bum
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Pacifica, CA
    My Bikes
    Vintage Trek, Vintage Diamond Back Mountain Bike, Bianchi Axis CrossBike
    Posts
    2,011
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by John Forester View Post
    I see no good reason for degrading cycling into the lowest denominator of incompetence and unsatisfactoriness in pursuit of a goal that would much more likely be attained by more effective means. That is, rebuilding of the city into the urban pattern in which walking and bicycling are useful, and motoring inconvenient, in which case there is no need for degrading cycling at all. Whether or not I think such rebuilding is probable or improbable is beside the point; there is no value in making cycling worse when that will not produce the rebuilding that is required to achieve the goal of significantly reducing motoring.
    I'm not sure how anyone out there could reasonably argue with that opinion.

    Bek seems to believe that he can increase biking and decreasing driving simply by making more segregated facilities for biking. But the "safety" issue is really, really, really low down on the list of reasons that people don't ride bikes. Improving all the other things first will get your cycling/walking participation up to, say, 50% of all trips and then maybe the safety improvements will help bring out the last, say, 5% of people who hadn't taken up cycling because they were afraid of riding with cars. (leaving 45% trips still for cars in the usa since so many people are morbidly obese and will never walk or ride and of course work/delivery vehicles will not likely be eliminated - though they will likely become electric).

  20. #70
    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 pacificaslim View Post
    I'm not sure how anyone out there could reasonably argue with [John Forester's] opinion.*

    Bek seems to believe that he can increase biking and decreasing driving simply by making more segregated facilities for biking....
    And Bek claims this with ZERO data to back up his opinions. The best he comes up with are studies that talk about what they hope will happen some day.

    In the meantime, to quote one of Bek's favorite sources, good ol' vol. 18:

    From vol. 18, I-2:

    "[from] 1990 [to] 2001... the percentage of bicycle trips... increased a mere one-tenth of a percent...."

    Which means virtually no change despite the increase in 'bike infrastructure." The goal of dramatic decrease in motoring with a dramatic increase in cycling, will take place when gasoline prices triple or quadruple or more, combined with public transport that facilitates cycling.

    These goals will not be met by the politiking of a few nuts screaming '"Down with cars! Up with bikes! More bike lanes!"

    ________________________________________
    *Originally Posted by John Forester
    "I see no good reason for degrading cycling into the lowest denominator of incompetence and unsatisfactoriness in pursuit of a goal that would much more likely be attained by more effective means. That is, rebuilding of the city into the urban pattern in which walking and bicycling are useful, and motoring inconvenient, in which case there is no need for degrading cycling at all. Whether or not I think such rebuilding is probable or improbable is beside the point; there is no value in making cycling worse when that will not produce the rebuilding that is required to achieve the goal of significantly reducing motoring."
    DISCLAIMER: Nothing here should be taken as legal advice, even if it seems silly enough to have been written by a legislator, and especially not if it appears (by remote chance) to display any evidence of erudition.

  21. #71
    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)
    the rallying cries of the blathering bliviots! impressive. have you read the 2008 strategy guide for reducing collisions involving bicycles, danarnold? are you familiar with the strategies of current AASHTO best practice roadway design?

    what are your criticisms? I endorse what the Federal highway administration considers best practice road design?


    zero data H I L A R I O U S ! !! !
    "Evidence, anecdote and methodology all support planning for roadway bike traffic."

  22. #72
    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)
    Quote Originally Posted by pacificslim
    the "safety" issue is really, really, really low down on the list of reasons that people don't ride bikes.
    Really? surely you jest or are making that up!

    Quote Originally Posted by the four types of bicyclist, Roger Geller
    Survey after survey and poll after poll has found again and again that the number one reason people do not ride bicycles is because they are afraid to be in the roadway on a bicycle. They are generally not afraid of other cyclists, or pedestrians, or of injuring themselves in a bicycle-only crash. When they say they are “afraid” it is a fear of
    people driving automobiles. This has been documented and reported in transportation literature from studies, surveys and conversations across the US, Canada, and Europe.
    are you so sure, pacifcaslim? seems safety concerns are the number one reason there's not greater uptake in cycling.

    like I said on page one of this thread, best practice design for bicyclists cannot lose sight of the design bicyclist, how roads are enhanced for bicycling, which ones and for whom.
    "Evidence, anecdote and methodology all support planning for roadway bike traffic."

  23. #73
    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)
    Bek, you refuse to explain the data of the very reports you recommend reading. The studies neither prove cycling infrastructure significantly increases cycling nor decreases motoring.

    You yap about what's going to happen in the future and what people want, but you have nothing to prove it will happen. You cite to guidelines and I have said AASHTO makes sense to me, but these recommendations have nothing to do with demonstrating adopting them will achieve the results you want.

    YOU are the zero data guy. Prove me wrong. You are the one who cited to vol. 18. I've sent a long quote of it here and you've ignored it, because it says the opposite of what you want to hear.

    Wishin' and hopin' won't make it so. Tripling gas prices might.
    DISCLAIMER: Nothing here should be taken as legal advice, even if it seems silly enough to have been written by a legislator, and especially not if it appears (by remote chance) to display any evidence of erudition.

  24. #74
    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)
    dude, i fail to see why i have to explain or vet what the federal highway administration has exhaustively researched and sets guidelines for.

    get a clue, buddy. you want to discuss best practices? they include current FHWA and AASHTO guidelines.

    Any improvements or criticisms of them, YOU need to show some evidence for. otherwise, best practices are federal highway administration, AASHTO and MUTCD guidelines, and may or may not include sharrows for some roadways, hybrid road design or more expansive cycle track designs as seen and in use in other countries and mentioned in the OP.

    Discuss the OP. what are best practices? You will have to accept the facts that the standard and accepted roadway designs as endorsed by the federal highway administration represent current american best practices.

    can they be improved with cycle tracks in select locations in the USA?

    absolutely. my suggestion is to continue to emphasize the right of bicyclists to use the adjacent roadway with sharrows.
    Last edited by Bekologist; 10-12-09 at 06:31 PM.
    "Evidence, anecdote and methodology all support planning for roadway bike traffic."

  25. #75
    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
    blah... blah... blah...
    Show me the data, dude. twenty years and the percentage of cycling ridership has remained stagnant according to the sources YOU cite.

    Show me the data.
    DISCLAIMER: Nothing here should be taken as legal advice, even if it seems silly enough to have been written by a legislator, and especially not if it appears (by remote chance) to display any evidence of erudition.

Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

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