Is vc the dogma, anti-bicycling? YES, NO and I don't know/not sure are your options.
I don't know/not sure
Is vc the dogma, anti-bicycling? YES, NO and I don't know/not sure are your options.
Last edited by SUX Vision R40; 09-23-10 at 09:17 AM. Reason: Changed original question. Same question applies to poll question as well.
who's 'against' vc?
vehicular cycling and bikeways planning are not mutually exclusive. and planning for bikes in the transportation mix is not anti-motoring.
the FHWA has oodles of design guidance recommending bicyclists be considered as part of the roadway mix on all roads bicyclists are not prohibited from.
I suggest VC the dogma is anti-BICYCLING. anti vc is pro bicycling. society still needs motor vehicles.
The argument is based on the false constructs of a charlatan. (not you)
By cycling or bicycling I mean all around cycling in general. I think someone termed it as REALITY CYCLING. It could also be called ADAPTIVE CYCLING.
here's an extension of the logical fallacy of the charlatans that claim planning for bikes in the transportation mix is anti-motoring:
parking meters are anti-motoring. parking enforcement is anti-motoring.
I don't have an issue with parkign meters in general. My issue is parking meters in a downtown public library parking lot. Otherwise parking meters are fine with me as is parking enforcement.
I have an interesting story about parking meters and parking enforcement in Des Moines, Iowa. Would you like to hear it?
I do not understand the survey question, so will refrain from responding to it.
I will say that I believe cyclists function most safely and most efficiently when they act and are treated like drivers of vehicles. I also believe that there is way too much reliance on the automobile for personal transportation in many parts of the world, particularly in North America. I believe that bicyclists should have the right to build cycling facilities as long as they are willing to pay for them and as long as they do not threaten my right to use the public roadways in accordance with the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles. I believe strategies to make the roads more user-friendly, such as reduced speeds, detection of bicycles by demand-actuated traffic signals, tougher standards for driver qualification, stepped up enforcement for both motorists and cyclists, and wider outside lanes to reduce motorist/cyclist friction are much more effective than cycling-specific infrastructure. Sorry if I don't fit your stereotype.
bicyclists should have the right to build facilities?
wild opinion about public transportation infrastructure.
I believe high rolled does not understand that Class II and Class III bikeways ARE designed in accordance with the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles and do not conflict with vehicular cycling principles.
Notions like those expressed in the post just above are anti-bicycling. bicyclists have to build and fund public transportation infrastructure? not even close to reasonable.
in the USA, the FHWA has ample design guidance that bicycle traffic shall be considered along all roads bicyclists are not prohibited from. Planning for bikes using road corridors is not an 'add-on' or optional. yes, that is precisely not just the expectation but the federal MANDATE.
your stalwart refusal to understand mandates from the federal highway administration needs a serious reality check. the VC seem to be anti-bike planning that facilitates more riders and safer riding conditions along the roads and highways of america.
Bikeways are not placed solely for bicyclists, they are part and parcel of complete streets and congruous with road and highway design standards to increase safety for all road users.
Additionally, contemporary Class II and Class III roadway bike enhancements do not conflict with vehicular cycling principles. vehicular cyclists can operate in a vehicular manner along roads with class II and Class III bikeways.
if high roller wants to complain about trails funding, thats a different issue. Is high roller shilling for AAA?
Last edited by Bekologist; 09-24-10 at 10:33 AM.
Dogmatic VC is, indeed, anti-bicycling. that might not be it's intent, but that is its effect. Nowadays I even suspect that IS the intent.
"Think of bicycles as rideable art that can just about save the world". ~Grant Petersen
Cyclists fare best when they recognize that there are times when acting vehicularly is not the best practice, and are flexible enough to do what is necessary as the situation warrants.--Me
i suspect the same, judging from some of the antics and positions of some of the particulars.
I had to add one word to make your one statement approach accuracy.
Examples of the problem:
Approximate 25% of all US roads are rated as poor or deficient and in need of maintainance.
Approximate 50% of the bridges in the US are rated as deficient or unsafe and in need of repair or replacement.
well, then, its far past time to restrict motor vehicles damaging the roads then! bikes have nothing to do with degradation of transportation infrastructure.
the US Supreme court back in the 1920 recognized the damage caused by motor vehicles was grave and allowed states to adapt licensing and fees for motor vehicle use.
where do the apologists for motoring come from in a forum about bicycling? jumpin jiminy.
Last edited by chipcom; 09-24-10 at 11:00 AM.
"Let us hope our weapons are never needed --but do not forget what the common people knew when they demanded the Bill of Rights: An armed citizenry is the first defense, the best defense, and the final defense against tyranny. If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns. Only the police, the secret police, the military, the hired servants of our rulers. Only the government -- and a few outlaws. I intend to be among the outlaws" - Edward Abbey
Sure, by all means restrict motor vehicles from the roads paid for by motor vehicle taxes...
Of course, you might find the supply of food at the grocery stores a little sparse. After all, it is cargo vehicles, like trucks, that do a disproportionate share of the damage to the road surface.
And in a few years with no motor vehicles, and hence no taxes to pay for upkeep those empty roads will be in pretty poor shape. Why, you ask, because even unused road surfaces degrade pretty rapidly.
But that's all right you keep believing in your utopic view of the world.
Damage to transportation infrastructure is a public burden? I'm not against public infrastructure that supports the moving of goods, people and services. but whos paying for the damage? other countries can build longer lasting road surfaces, take a look at the autobahn design standards compared to american highways.
A lot of american roads are under-engineered and destined to fall apart prematurely, all in the name of sprawl and motor vehicle conveyance.
Over 80 years ago The US Supreme Court okayed states licensing and taxing motor vehicles because of the damage they cause to public roads and highways in this country.
What is myrridin trying to tell the forum?
Because motor vehicles are such a burden on public tax coffers, states shouldn't follow design mandates of the federal highway administration?
what a gashuffer. those allied with the vc seem to be very pro motoring. i wonder if the political perpetuation of vc is a secretive AAA bicyclist restriction program? (tongue in cheek)
Last edited by Bekologist; 09-24-10 at 12:18 PM.
And once again you hold europe up as a shining example. I get it european engineers good, American engineers bad... europeans good, Americans bad
Any and all designs are subject to cost constraints. No european nation covers the sheer quantity of territory that the US does. Population densities are much higher. Hence the economics would allow them to spend more per mile of road...
Oh, and just to bring Godwins law into it, you do know that those Autobahns you reference so proudly were intended by the Nazi's to move TANKS...
good grief. an unabashed motor vehicle apologist posting in a bicycling advocacy forum!
commentary fixed.Originally Posted by myrridin
the supreme court early on recognized the dangerous and deluterious effects of motor vehicles on public roads and highways in cases in 1915 and 1927.
in 1915 "The movement of motor vehicles over the highways is attended by constant and serious dangers to the public, and is also abnormally destructive to the [high]ways themselves. ... [A] state may rightfully prescribe uniform regulations necessary for public safety and order in respect to the operation upon its highways of all motor vehicles - those moving in interstate commerce as well as others. ... This is but an exercise of the police power uniformly recognized as belonging to the states and essential to the preservation of the health, safety, and comfort of their citizens."
...abnormally destructive to the highways themselves. a majority opinion of the us supreme court.
1927, "Motor vehicles are dangerous machines, and even when skillfully and carefully operated, their use is attended by serious dangers to persons and property. In the public interest the state may make and enforce regulations reasonably calculated to promote care on the part of all, residents and non-residents alike, who use its highways. ... The state's power to regulate the use of its highways extends to their use by non-residents as well as by residents."
I'm pointedly not going to reference the court cases i just cited. I'm not the one without background on the rudiments of the discussion.
Last edited by Bekologist; 09-24-10 at 01:39 PM.
Thank you very much for proving my point. The dangers represented by the vehicles were the primary justification for licensing the vehicles and the drivers. The primary funding for the roads were use taxes, which I do not believe have ever received a legal challenge that has risen to the supreme court.
Call me what you want, if it makes you feel better.
Originally Posted by unterhausen
Great rebus, allenG!
Myrridin, I'm not proving your point, those supreme court cases led to licensing revenue from car tabs to pay for road upkeep. by the end of the second decade of the 20th century, every state had revenue collection in place thru vehicle licensing.