Cycling and bicycle discussion forums. 
   Click here to join our community Log in to access your Control Panel  


Go Back   > > >

Vehicular Cycling (VC) No other subject has polarized the A&S members like VC has. Here's a place to share, debate, and educate.

User Tag List

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 10-12-09, 10:17 AM   #51
Bekologist
totally louche
 
Bekologist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: A land that time forgot
Bikes: the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes
Posts: 18,025
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


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.
Bekologist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-09, 10:31 AM   #52
John Forester
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Bikes:
Posts: 4,071
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bekologist View Post


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.
John Forester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-09, 10:32 AM   #53
Bekologist
totally louche
 
Bekologist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: A land that time forgot
Bikes: the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes
Posts: 18,025
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
what point?

That you can't tell the difference between a bicycle and a road?
Bekologist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-09, 11:53 AM   #54
randya
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
randya's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: in bed with your mom
Bikes: who cares?
Posts: 13,689
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
randya is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-09, 11:54 AM   #55
randya
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
randya's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: in bed with your mom
Bikes: who cares?
Posts: 13,689
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.

randya is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-09, 11:57 AM   #56
randya
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
randya's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: in bed with your mom
Bikes: who cares?
Posts: 13,689
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
randya is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-09, 12:02 PM   #57
Bekologist
totally louche
 
Bekologist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: A land that time forgot
Bikes: the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes
Posts: 18,025
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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.
Bekologist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-09, 12:07 PM   #58
sggoodri
Senior Member
 
sggoodri's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Cary, NC
Bikes: 1983 Trek, 2001 Lemond, 2000 Gary Fisher
Posts: 3,073
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(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.
sggoodri is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-09, 12:13 PM   #59
Bekologist
totally louche
 
Bekologist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: A land that time forgot
Bikes: the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes
Posts: 18,025
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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.
Bekologist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-09, 12:13 PM   #60
randya
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
randya's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: in bed with your mom
Bikes: who cares?
Posts: 13,689
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Forester View Post
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
randya is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-09, 12:15 PM   #61
chipcom 
Infamous Member
 
chipcom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Ohio
Bikes: Surly Big Dummy, Fuji World, 80ish Bianchi
Posts: 24,366
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(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.
chipcom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-09, 12:20 PM   #62
randya
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
randya's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: in bed with your mom
Bikes: who cares?
Posts: 13,689
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
randya is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-09, 12:22 PM   #63
randya
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
randya's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: in bed with your mom
Bikes: who cares?
Posts: 13,689
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
randya is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-09, 01:07 PM   #64
danarnold
Kaffee Nazi
 
danarnold's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Richland, WA
Bikes: 2009 Kestrel RT800, 2007 Roubaix, 1976 Lambert-Viscount
Posts: 1,374
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(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.'
danarnold is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-09, 01:33 PM   #65
chipcom 
Infamous Member
 
chipcom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Ohio
Bikes: Surly Big Dummy, Fuji World, 80ish Bianchi
Posts: 24,366
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(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.
chipcom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-09, 01:39 PM   #66
genec
genec
 
genec's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: West Coast
Bikes: custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2
Posts: 24,790
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 478 Post(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)
genec is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-09, 02:15 PM   #67
John Forester
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Bikes:
Posts: 4,071
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
John Forester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-09, 03:05 PM   #68
sggoodri
Senior Member
 
sggoodri's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Cary, NC
Bikes: 1983 Trek, 2001 Lemond, 2000 Gary Fisher
Posts: 3,073
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(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.
sggoodri is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-09, 04:48 PM   #69
pacificaslim
Surf Bum
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Pacifica, CA
Bikes: Lapierre Pulsium 500 FdJ, Ritchey breakaway cyclocross, vintage trek mtb.
Posts: 2,174
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(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).
pacificaslim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-09, 05:05 PM   #70
danarnold
Kaffee Nazi
 
danarnold's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Richland, WA
Bikes: 2009 Kestrel RT800, 2007 Roubaix, 1976 Lambert-Viscount
Posts: 1,374
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(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."
danarnold is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-09, 06:13 PM   #71
Bekologist
totally louche
 
Bekologist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: A land that time forgot
Bikes: the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes
Posts: 18,025
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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 ! !! !
Bekologist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-09, 06:19 PM   #72
Bekologist
totally louche
 
Bekologist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: A land that time forgot
Bikes: the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes
Posts: 18,025
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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.
Bekologist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-09, 06:22 PM   #73
danarnold
Kaffee Nazi
 
danarnold's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Richland, WA
Bikes: 2009 Kestrel RT800, 2007 Roubaix, 1976 Lambert-Viscount
Posts: 1,374
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(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.
danarnold is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-09, 06:24 PM   #74
Bekologist
totally louche
 
Bekologist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: A land that time forgot
Bikes: the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes
Posts: 18,025
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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.
Bekologist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-09, 06:35 PM   #75
danarnold
Kaffee Nazi
 
danarnold's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Richland, WA
Bikes: 2009 Kestrel RT800, 2007 Roubaix, 1976 Lambert-Viscount
Posts: 1,374
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(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.
danarnold is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:21 AM.