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, 06:58 PM   #76
pacificaslim
Surf Bum
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Pacifica, CA
Bikes: Lapierre Pulsium 500 FdJ, Ritchey breakaway cyclocross, vintage trek mtb.
Posts: 2,176
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
People may use safety as an excuse, but the real reasons are that they are too lazy, they have too far to go, the weather sucks, they don't want to show up sweaty, etc.

If you really want to counter the safety excuse, then tell the helmet people to shut up. Nothing makes cycling seem dangerous more than promoting or requiring helmets.

After all, all you really need to do to counter people's excuse that they are too scared to ride without separate lanes is to show them the real statistics on how safe cycling really is! You don't have to go spend millions of dollars on facilities that people mistakenly believe they need to be safe: just show them that they are perfectly safe without that stuff and at statistically no more risk of injury or death than when they are walking.
pacificaslim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-09, 08:22 PM   #77
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 danarnold View Post
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.
i can't believe you're even trying to formulate an argument that the whole of the federal guidelines for planning for bikes in the transportation mix is flawed, that FHWA planning strategies to support and increase ridership while enhancing safety don't add up.

it's hilarious you think AASHTO best practices are somehow countraindicated by your narrow minded interpretations of a few data points contained within a broad set of strategy measures recommended as planning 'best practices' for american roadway infrastructure.

unless YOU'VE got data proving AASHTO guidelines for the development of bicycle facilities aren't vetted and accepted american 'best practices' i suggest you suck up your groundless complaints and get back to the actual discussion, if you can come up with anything relevant.

Last edited by Bekologist; 10-12-09 at 08:49 PM.
Bekologist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-09, 09:20 PM   #78
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
i can't believe you're even trying to formulate an argument that the whole of the federal guidelines for planning for bikes in the transportation mix is flawed, that FHWA planning strategies to support and increase ridership while enhancing safety don't add up.

it's hilarious you think AASHTO best practices are somehow countraindicated by your narrow minded interpretations of a few data points contained within a broad set of strategy measures recommended as planning 'best practices' for american roadway infrastructure.

unless YOU'VE got data proving AASHTO guidelines for the development of bicycle facilities aren't vetted and accepted american 'best practices' i suggest you suck up your groundless complaints and get back to the actual discussion, if you can come up with anything relevant.
I give up on you. You keep claiming I'm advocating something I'm not, then demanding I prove it. You didn't even get the satire I wasted on you.

Happy Motoring.
danarnold is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-09, 09:21 PM   #79
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
i can't believe you're even trying to formulate an argument that the whole of the federal guidelines for planning for bikes in the transportation mix is flawed, that FHWA planning strategies to support and increase ridership while enhancing safety don't add up.

it's hilarious you think AASHTO best practices are somehow countraindicated by your narrow minded interpretations of a few data points contained within a broad set of strategy measures recommended as planning 'best practices' for american roadway infrastructure.

unless YOU'VE got data proving AASHTO guidelines for the development of bicycle facilities aren't vetted and accepted american 'best practices' i suggest you suck up your groundless complaints and get back to the actual discussion, if you can come up with anything relevant.
The AASHTO Guide started out as a means of shoving cyclists aside for the convenience of motorists, getting political acceptance through the excuse that doing so made cycling safe. This is history, Bek. I was the principal cyclist all through this, I reported it at the time to the cyclists of California, and no one has presented personal or documentary evidence to the contrary. The Guide has not changed much since then. The Human Car is one of those, like yourself, who chooses to believe that the bikeways specified in the Guide do good for bicyclists, which is why he chooses to believe that the bikeways now act differently than they did then. They act in exactly the same way; the only difference is that Human Car, and others like yourself, believe that it is good for cyclists to be cast as incompetent and second-class road users. That, I suppose, is a legitimate difference of opinion. Some cyclists desire the feeling of being inferior victims who need the illusion of being protected, while others recognize that the advantages lie with the cyclist who operates according to the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles.

As for the latest NCHRP 500 Vol 18, guide for reducing car-bike collisions, you and Randya have expressed support for it, Randya because it was written by the highway establishment (which is, of course, the very worst recommendation), and you, who claim to have read it, for reasons which you have not chosen to disclose. I have reviewed it, unfavorably, and published my conclusions, which neither of you have answered.
John Forester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-09, 09:29 PM   #80
genec
genec
 
genec's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: West Coast
Bikes: custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2
Posts: 24,967
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 852 Post(s)
John, have you ever promoted cycling? Have you ever worked to increase the number of people that bicycle for transportation. Have you ever set a goal to increase the number of people that bicycle for transportation?

The latest NCHRP 500 Vol 18, guide for reducing car-bike collisions, has set as a goal the desire to more than double the number of people that bike and walk as a means of transportation. Those people will be driving less.

In the very recent past you have pronounced such goals as "anti-motoring."

So what is it John, how do you promote an increase in cycling?
genec is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-09, 09:52 PM   #81
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
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.
well you'd have to know something about the streets in question, which Bek actually does. They are called the Park Blocks for a reason, turns out they are currently more like the parking lot blocks in practice. They would be a great north-south route through downtown Portland for non-motorized transportation, and making them car-free would completely eliminate the need to build new 'cycle track' infrastructure one scant block away on heavily trafficked Broadway.
http://www.portlandonline.com/parks/...PropertyID=674
randya is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-09, 09:58 PM   #82
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
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.
what 'proper cycling' is, is all in the mind of the beholder.

anyway, it turns out that it's not so easy to convince motorists to give up the comfort and convenience of their cars and trucks for bicycles, you have to get them to give up their cars and trucks for public transit first, as public transit riders are the ripest for conversion to cycling.

randya is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-09, 10:05 PM   #83
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
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pacificaslim View Post
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).
this discussion becomes pointless when the only participants are existing cyclists who are already comfortable riding in traffic, and those same cyclists think that this is the only demographic that should be catered to.

I do agree that some traffic calming totally sucks. Case in point, curb extensions. I hate these things. All they do is preserve curb side parking, eliminate road space that could otherwise be used for bike-specific infrastructure like bike lanes, and force cyclists out into the travel lanes. Ostensibly they shorten the crossing distance for pedestrians, but at a cost of something like $50K per pair, it would seem like a painted pedestrian refuge would be a much better bargain.
randya is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-09, 10:38 PM   #84
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
As for the latest NCHRP 500 Vol 18, guide for reducing car-bike collisions, you and Randya have expressed support for it, Randya because it was written by the highway establishment (which is, of course, the very worst recommendation), and you, who claim to have read it, for reasons which you have not chosen to disclose. I have reviewed it, unfavorably, and published my conclusions, which neither of you have answered.
you must be thinking of someone else. please show me where I have ever expressed support for this document or claimed that my support was because it was written by the highway establishment. no such post(s) exist, because I never wrote a single one.
randya is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-09, 10:42 PM   #85
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 genec View Post
John, have you ever promoted cycling? Have you ever worked to increase the number of people that bicycle for transportation. Have you ever set a goal to increase the number of people that bicycle for transportation?

The latest NCHRP 500 Vol 18, guide for reducing car-bike collisions, has set as a goal the desire to more than double the number of people that bike and walk as a means of transportation. Those people will be driving less.

In the very recent past you have pronounced such goals as "anti-motoring."

So what is it John, how do you promote an increase in cycling?
Of course I have promoted cycling. I have worked to increase the number of cyclists cycling safely and confidently, for both enjoyment and transportation. For years I myself cycled for both enjoyment and transportation, and I published the knowledge that I developed and the program for training lawful, competent, safe, and confident cyclists. While I consistently fought against the motoring establishment's push to declass cyclists into less than drivers of vehicles, I never described my goals as "anti-motoring", because they were entirely pro-cyclists. What I object to, as I have made quite clear time after time, is the use of anti-motoring emotions to do just what the motorists want for cyclists, declassing them into incompetent road users who can be discriminated against.

Sure, NCHRP 500 Vol 18 sets the goal of doubling the number of transportation trips by walking and bicycling, but saying that one has a goal says nothing at all about which proportion of the increase is to be by walking and which by bicycling, and says nothing at all about the probability that the actions described will actually accomplish a significant increase in bicycle transportation. You seem to believe implicitly in the effectiveness of the means proposed, attracting people who are ignorant of cycling and don't want to learn it. Pardon me if I express skepticism at that approach, which was originally designed to make motoring more convenient.
John Forester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-09, 10:45 PM   #86
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
you must be thinking of someone else. please show me where I have ever expressed support for this document or claimed that my support was because it was written by the highway establishment. no such post(s) exist, because I never wrote a single one.
No, you are correct, it was Genec. Sorry for the misattribution.
John Forester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-09, 10:45 PM   #87
genec
genec
 
genec's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: West Coast
Bikes: custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2
Posts: 24,967
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 852 Post(s)
Pardon me if I express skepticism at your approach which has not lead to an increase in cycling anywhere you have promoted it. Even your native England has chosen to look beyond vehicular cycling for solutions. Nowhere your methods are promoted, has ever shown a bicycle mode share above 2% for transportation.
genec is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-09, 10:50 PM   #88
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
what 'proper cycling' is, is all in the mind of the beholder.

anyway, it turns out that it's not so easy to convince motorists to give up the comfort and convenience of their cars and trucks for bicycles, you have to get them to give up their cars and trucks for public transit first, as public transit riders are the ripest for conversion to cycling.

So, proper cycling is all a matter of opinion. I consider proper cycling to be obeying the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles. Do you consider that proper cycling is disobeying those rules of the road? Then you have a different opinion of the meaning of proper than is usual. Do you consider proper cycling to be what the militant motorists desire, incompetent cycling on bikeways? Their opinion is undoubtedly popular, but popular and proper have, in most dictionaries, rather different meanings.
John Forester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-09, 10:55 PM   #89
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)
^^ we all know what your definition of proper cycling is, as you keep repeating it ad nauseum

randya is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-09, 11:19 PM   #90
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
^^ we all know what your definition of proper cycling is, as you keep repeating it ad nauseum

While you people insist that you place a different meaning on "proper" cycling, I have failed to see any of you define it. If you insist on a different meaning, then you are obliged to define that meaning.
John Forester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-09, 11:40 PM   #91
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)
and you guys think i'm as bad as john forester? johns' diatribe prevents rational discussion.

his tired canards about 'rules of the road for operators of vehicles' drums out out all reasonable discussion as to best practices of public space design.
Bekologist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-09, 11:42 PM   #92
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 John Forester View Post
The AASHTO Guide started out as a means of shoving cyclists aside for the convenience of motorists, getting political acceptance through the excuse that doing so made cycling safe. This is history, Bek. I was the principal cyclist all through this, I reported it at the time to the cyclists of California, and no one has presented personal or documentary evidence to the contrary. The Guide has not changed much since then. The Human Car is one of those, like yourself, who chooses to believe that the bikeways specified in the Guide do good for bicyclists, which is why he chooses to believe that the bikeways now act differently than they did then. They act in exactly the same way; the only difference is that Human Car, and others like yourself, believe that it is good for cyclists to be cast as incompetent and second-class road users. That, I suppose, is a legitimate difference of opinion. Some cyclists desire the feeling of being inferior victims who need the illusion of being protected, while others recognize that the advantages lie with the cyclist who operates according to the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles.
what worthless crap.
Bekologist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-13-09, 12:04 AM   #93
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)
it is sort of like listening to a broken record, isn't it?

John is the modern day Isaac Potter (see pages 15-17 of Robert Hurst's The Cyclists Manifesto).
randya is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-13-09, 07:16 AM   #94
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)
ACH, john probably thinks the liberty law was the start of bicycling's decline or something. needed to be classified as a carriage and restricted to childish speeds..

I've tried to discuss the liberty law with john and how it is the start of official recognition of bikes as vehicles in this country that has not gone away. Expectations of lawful road bicycling behaviors are over a century old in this country,

but to john a centurys historical record documenting rights and expectations of lawful bicycling behavior are irrelevant as they don't fit his screed and false retorts of his hysterical record.

Current federal recognition of bikes as one of the groups of roadway transportation users, and federal highway mandates bicyclists be included as intended road users in roads planning is a far sweeping and official recognition of bikes as vehicles on public roads in this country.

Cogency that bikes are officially recognized in federal road planning and funding requirements as public road users also eclipses johns fallacious, worthless psychotic regurgitations.

Last edited by Bekologist; 10-13-09 at 07:25 AM.
Bekologist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-13-09, 07:36 AM   #95
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 genec View Post
John, have you ever promoted cycling? Have you ever worked to increase the number of people that bicycle for transportation. Have you ever set a goal to increase the number of people that bicycle for transportation?

The latest NCHRP 500 Vol 18, guide for reducing car-bike collisions, has set as a goal the desire to more than double the number of people that bike and walk as a means of transportation. Those people will be driving less.

In the very recent past you have pronounced such goals as "anti-motoring."

So what is it John, how do you promote an increase in cycling?
This is an addition to my previous post on this subject. In that post I failed to mention the effort that I put into designing and producing equipment for making good bicycles more useful for transportation. Items for carrying goods: saddle bags in three sizes, pannier bags, saddlebag fitments so that the modern good saddle, without saddle-bag eyes, could carry saddle bags, fully fitted and brazed up baggage racks (though this required the customer's bicycle at my shop for several days, not a frequent request). Equipment for using the bicycle under more difficult conditions: rain capes and spats for rainy weather; more convenient system for using the then lighting technology of generators for cycling at night. Plus several other smaller gadgets to make cycling more convenient.

There were about three similar American firms making competitive products. I think that my products were the best of the time. But none of these firms survived, because the market for transportationally oriented products was too small for continued operation in America or for transfer of production abroad. In short, too few American cyclists chose to use their bicycles for transportation. Does that make sense to you?
John Forester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-13-09, 07:51 AM   #96
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
ACH, john probably thinks the liberty law was the start of bicycling's decline or something. needed to be classified as a carriage and restricted to childish speeds..

I've tried to discuss the liberty law with john and how it is the start of official recognition of bikes as vehicles in this country that has not gone away. Expectations of lawful road bicycling behaviors are over a century old in this country,

but to john a centurys historical record documenting rights and expectations of lawful bicycling behavior are irrelevant as they don't fit his screed and false retorts of his hysterical record.

Current federal recognition of bikes as one of the groups of roadway transportation users, and federal highway mandates bicyclists be included as intended road users in roads planning is a far sweeping and official recognition of bikes as vehicles on public roads in this country.

Cogency that bikes are officially recognized in federal road planning and funding requirements as public road users also eclipses johns fallacious, worthless psychotic regurgitations.
The "bicycle liberty law" of 1888 or thereabouts certainly declared that cyclists were fully legitimate roadway users according to the rudimentary traffic law of the time. That system continued until 1944, through the development of modern traffic law. But then it was canceled by the enactment of the two discriminatory anti-cyclist traffic laws that denigrated cyclists to second-class roadway users: the far to the right law and the mandatory side-path law. To these were added the mandatory bike-lane law once bike lanes had been invented. This is the history that Bek denies.

From that period on, Americans thought of bicycles as children's toys, not as vehicles. That's why the laws were written as they were and society operated as it did with respect to cycling. That's why I had to create the formal description of vehicular cycling to counter the prevailing concept of cyclist-inferior cycling as suitable for ignorant children. If, indeed, American society had done what Bek claims it to have done, have always accepted cycling as an activity of fully competent drivers, there would have been no need to create "vehicular cycling", because it would always have been present.

Bek continues to proclaim that the government now considers cyclists to be legitimate roadway users. Well yes, it continues to consider cyclists to be the incompetent roadway users that American society has for two or more generations specified and has now for one generation designed the roads for. Cyclists are better off when they have the full rights of drivers of vehicles.
John Forester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-13-09, 07:53 AM   #97
genec
genec
 
genec's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: West Coast
Bikes: custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2
Posts: 24,967
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 852 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Forester View Post

There were about three similar American firms making competitive products. I think that my products were the best of the time. But none of these firms survived, because the market for transportationally oriented products was too small for continued operation in America or for transfer of production abroad. In short, too few American cyclists chose to use their bicycles for transportation. Does that make sense to you?
Of course the market was small... your methodology of "encouraging" people to go out and act like "drivers of vehicles" does not encourage cycling... it merely provides a coping mechanism for cyclists in an auto centric society. Those not already predisposed to cycling are not foolhardy enough to want to mix it up with motorcars.

Until the environment for cycling is as comfortable as the environment for motorists driving, the general population thinks cyclists are some sort of physical nut... especially in light of the overwhelming push to drive made by not only the design of streets, but ads in media, designs of the city and organizations like the American Dream Coalition.
genec is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-13-09, 08:39 AM   #98
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 genec View Post
Of course the market was small... your methodology of "encouraging" people to go out and act like "drivers of vehicles" does not encourage cycling... it merely provides a coping mechanism for cyclists in an auto centric society. Those not already predisposed to cycling are not foolhardy enough to want to mix it up with motorcars.

Until the environment for cycling is as comfortable as the environment for motorists driving, the general population thinks cyclists are some sort of physical nut...
Why are some of us predisposed to cycling? What experiences make us different from others, whom we wish to encourage to cycle? What role did cultural factors and transportation need play in the development of our cycling interest? What role did the built environment play? What conspicuously bicycle-specific infrastructure was there? Which of these factors would most encourage new cyclists today and why?

I was a very non-athletic kid. I was skinny, unpopular, shy, and uncoordinated, with a big overbite. I hated gym class. But I rode my bike because it was fun. I rode it as far as my parents let me. They only asked that I obey the rules of the road. Eventually they let me ride across town (a suburb) regularly to the orthodontist, then to shopping, then to the bike shop in the next town, and to visit friends. I had two bikes - a Varsity 10-speed for long trips and a BMX bike for stunts and trails in the neighborhood. I also like modifying and fixing bikes. I rebuilt mine several times over using second hand parts since I had too little money for anything new. My parents never rode bikes with me or by themselves.

The back roads where I grew up were narrow, with no stripes of any kind, but light traffic. Most of the main roads had wide paved shoulders. Those busy state roads that didn't have any shoulders seemed unpleasant so I tried to avoid them. The only bike facilities I had ever heard of were bike racks, and there were very few of those.

I think the main reason I took up cycling for transportation was that nobody told me I couldn't. Were my parents foolhardy to let me? Why shouldn't folks today ride the same way - operate vehicularly on those routes they feel comfortable on, and avoid the others, while gradually increasing their confidence and supporting future physical improvements to make other roads more comfortable for vehicular cycling?
sggoodri is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-13-09, 08:54 AM   #99
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
ACH, john probably thinks the liberty law was the start of bicycling's decline or something. needed to be classified as a carriage and restricted to childish speeds..

I've tried to discuss the liberty law with john and how it is the start of official recognition of bikes as vehicles in this country that has not gone away. Expectations of lawful road bicycling behaviors are over a century old in this country,

but to john a centurys historical record documenting rights and expectations of lawful bicycling behavior are irrelevant as they don't fit his screed and false retorts of his hysterical record.

Current federal recognition of bikes as one of the groups of roadway transportation users, and federal highway mandates bicyclists be included as intended road users in roads planning is a far sweeping and official recognition of bikes as vehicles on public roads in this country.

Cogency that bikes are officially recognized in federal road planning and funding requirements as public road users also eclipses johns fallacious, worthless psychotic regurgitations.

One bit more to irritate Bek. Modern American bicycle design is controlled by the regulation of the Consumer Product Safety Commission of the United States. The CPSC has enacted its regulation under the authority of a law allowing the regulation of "toys or other articles intended for use by children"; under this law, the CPSC has declared that all bicycles sold in the US, except for track racing bicycles and a few custom products, are "intended for use by children". What do you think of that, Bek?
John Forester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-13-09, 09:04 AM   #100
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)
why?

Quote:
Originally Posted by sgoodri
Why shouldn't folks today ride the same way - operate vehicularly on those routes they feel comfortable on, and avoid the others, while gradually increasing their confidence and supporting future physical improvements to make other roads more comfortable for vehicular cycling?
people should ride the same way, steve, AND communities should look to, indeed, are required to plan for bikes in the transportation mix on road as lawful road users.

why ignore FHWA roadway design guidelines, and progressive ideas of 'best practices' of roadway design that can lower barriers to greater participation to bicycling?

steve, i reference the Federal Highway Administration. You've heard of it, haven't you?

Quote:
Originally Posted by FHWA
To paraphrase the AASHTO Guide, every street and highway on which bicycles are permitted to operate is a "bicycle street" and should be designed and maintained to accommodate shared use by bicycles and motor vehicles.
it further qualifies the approach towards how and why planning roadway enhancements and the 'best practices' of roadway design are specifically implemented to encourage existing use, increase use of roads by bicyclists while enhancing safety.....

Quote:
Originally Posted by FHWA
Given the stated policy goal, a supply-driven approach of providing designated bicycle facilities to encourage increased use by group B/C riders (i.e., "if you build them they will come") is warranted.
that's the federal highway administrations' position on why roads should be designed with american 'best practices' of roadway design including bike specificity on many road coorridors.

where roads should be designed with bikelanes and bike specficity for riders not just steve?

Quote:
Originally Posted by FHWA
When average daily traffic flows exceed 10,000 or average motor vehicle speeds exceed 30 mi/h (48.3 km/h), 5-ft (1.5-m) bike lanes will attract and serve B&C riders better than wide outside lanes or other design treatments.
why, steve? that's why.


in regards to cycletracks, if implemented in some core american cities to further increase lawful road ridership and increase on road rider share while enhancing safety, a facility that simply incorporates sharrows adjacent to the cycletrack would effectively neuter any hysterical concerns about cycletracks' evil prospect to erode cyclists' right to use public roads in america.






you wonder why shouldn't folks avoid roads they feel uncomfortable on?

Why are communities designing public roads to be uncomfortable for bicyclists?

Last edited by Bekologist; 10-13-09 at 09:28 AM.
Bekologist 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 05:19 AM.