http://www.bikeforums.net/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by genec http://www.bikeforums.net/images/but...post-right.png
Oh poor "Hagen," speaking from a "European view..." Never mind that the ride share for cyclists in several of those aforementioned European cities is many times greater than that of almost any city in America; America where the car rules, where roads are designed with high speed motor traffic in mind, and where "following the rules of the road" has done nothing to encourage people to bicycle where it is practicable. (never mind that so many American motorists bend those very rules of the road any chance they have).

America, where the "father" of effective cycling believes that the automobile is one of the best inventions of the last century. And where even his beloved England is toying with bike lanes to encourage the use of the bicycle on already over crowded streets.

Sigh. Good luck Hagen... you are debating with a brick wall.
http://www.bikeforums.net/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by John Forester http://www.bikeforums.net/images/but...post-right.png
Genec has presented an ideological spiel that is completely irrelevant to the issue being discussed. That issue is whether the difference between the vehicles used by cyclists and motorists justifies the anti-cyclist discrimination built into American traffic law and bikeways.





This business of the "rules of the road" is fraught with complications. Genec complains that motorists control American highway affairs, while asserting that I side with the motorists. This latter is false. I have always opposed the ways that motorists discriminate against cyclists, both in traffic law and by bikeways. On the other hand, DX supports Genec's position, while having, in this discussion, approved of the way that motorists discriminate against cyclists in traffic law.

It has always been my statement that cyclists should obey the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles, which category excludes the traffic laws that apply only to cyclists. These traffic laws that discriminate against cyclists, making them subservient to motorists, were created by motorists to make motoring more convenient.

It is argued in these discussions that my advocacy of cycling according to the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles is a reasonable explanation for America's low bicycle transportation mode share. There are many reasons, but if one considers the portion of the effect that can be attributed to traffic law, then there is a far stronger than my puny efforts. That is the way that American traffic law, as created by American society and American motorists, has discriminated against cyclists for seventy years, classifying them as incompetent children and thus treating them, justifying the treatment with the propaganda that cycling is far too dangerous. Is it any wonder that American adults choose to motor instead of cycle when they have been raised in a society that considers cyclists to be unable to cycle safely and who should be shoved to the side of the roadway for their own safety?

Those who choose to advocate American bicycle transportation should be opposing the ways in law and facilities that motorists discriminate against cyclists. That appears to be entirely reasonable, but in actual fact the great majority of American bicycle advocates support these ways by which motorists discriminate against cyclists.

Could it be that so few advocates or anyone else that might bike actually enjoys sharing the roads with high speed motor vehicles?

Every objection I have ever heard or read about facilities always has to do with their poor design... If advocates, including yourself, demanded higher quality bicycle facilities, then perhaps we would not have "American adults choosing to motor instead of cycle."

American adults sure didn't have any issues choosing to bicycle before there were motor vehicles... in fact, cycling was quite popular.

http://www.bikeforums.net/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by John Forester http://www.bikeforums.net/images/but...post-right.png
Those who choose to advocate American bicycle transportation should be opposing the ways in law and facilities that motorists discriminate against cyclists. That appears to be entirely reasonable, but in actual fact the great majority of American bicycle advocates support these ways by which motorists discriminate against cyclists.


Genec, you have not discussed the issue specifically stated. That is, what should be done about the way that American motorists discriminate against cyclists by use of discriminatory traffic laws and bikeways. Do you approve of this discrimination, or do you support it?

Why do you ask Genec such an absurd question? It's completely irrelevant. "Discrimination"? well maybe, maybe not, but why do YOU work with such frenzy to make people ride in fast, heavy traffic, when the right thing to do would be to fight for bicycle infrastructure?

You want people to ride a bike? Easy: Make it safe for them to do so. Don't obstruct those who actually look to the good examples of, say, the Netherlands. If you think it can't be done, it sure won't be done. If you think it can be done, it may be done. There are no doubt numerous obstacles, but at least do REAL bike advocates the favour of not obstructing them.

hagen, don't look for John Forester to follow or advocate that line; he's been railing against it for decades.

In my checking into his credentials, I found out that his stance is that infrastructure is a surrender to the almighty auto, that anyone who chooses to ride a bike ANYWHERE but in the midst of traffic, FOR transportation, is a victim with a superstition of inferiority. He's got blinders on about the issue. Plus, he has some rather unique definitions for everyday words that 'enable' his argumentative nature, to the point where, even if you AGREE with him on some point, but express it differently, he'll argue with you, tell you you're wrong and irrelevant.

I fully expect he'll respond to this post, challenging me to 'provide evidence' or 'proof', of what I 'allege'. But, since he's on my IGNORE list, I'll only know if I choose to look behind the block. I don't care to anymore, I've wasted enough time with him.

johns theory is bunk.

An assertion that driver harassment of bicyclists goes away when bicycles are treated equitably with motor vehicles is an unsubstantiated load of hooey.

Bicyclists get harassed, run off the road, even shot at, in places that do not treat bicycle traffic any different than motor vehicle traffic. Here's an example - Russ Roca, cyclotourist, attacked by motorist in New Zealand, a place with equitable traffic laws for bikes ...... http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread...m-of-road-rage

changing california law isn't going to remove some motorists misplaced sense of entitlement when encountering bicyclists. bicyclists are still harassed in states that treat bicycle traffic equitably with motor vehicle traffic.

california law specifically allows riders to take the lane when necessary for their safety. john is suggesting that removing those legal protections would improve treatment of cyclists, a ludicrous proposition.

Countermeasures that have merit and very likely would make Carmel safer for kids to ride to school would be stronger laws specifically protecting bicyclists from harassment, more dedicated safe routes to school programming and better bicycle infrastructure, not a lack of these countermeasures.

The problem with most cycling infrastructure is that it is built to the very minimum of standards, though this helps reduce motorist harassment, it can make cyclists to ride in manner that is still unsafe while giving a false sense of security, plus being uncomfortable enough in not attracting a large number of the population into using.

A small number of local cycling advocates are starting to realize that the minimum standards are not the way to go in attracting the larger number of the population, but our larger and more stronger advocacy groups wants to keep close to the minimum standards so as to be more uniform with other cycling infrastructure throughout our state, and they are somewhat critical of more "innovative" designs that have been implemented.

I'm sorry, dynodonn, but infrastructure had nothing to do with the kids on bikes getting harassed in Carmel. perhaps the LACK of infrastructure contributed.

grousing about minimum standards in bikeway implementation is nothing more than sour grapes, dude.

In case you haven't heard, safe routes to school programming and countermeasures generally make cycling and walking to schools safer AND more popular.


shame on the motorist in the OP, harassing kids on bikes.

Minimum standards may work when no other less traveled through routes are available, but our latest infrastructure, which is built to the minimalist of standards, is a path less traveled and with many cyclists opting out into still riding narrower, non infrastructure, less traveled side streets.

Here is Bek again telling lies about my views. I have never claimed that repealing the traffic laws that discriminate against cyclists would immediately change the minds of the general public. I have explicitly stated that repealing those laws would end governmental harassment of cyclists, because the police would no longer have a law that they could use as the basis for harassment. I have stated that the public attitude has had more than seventy years of using those laws as the excuse for treating cyclists badly, and that it would take a long time for those attitudes to change.

Bek's example of harassment by motorists in American states which do not legally discriminate against cyclists takes no account of either migration by Americans nor migration of the very common idea that the traffic laws do treat cyclists as second-class roadway users. In short, his argument is erroneous.

Endangerment of bicyclists occurs at times regardless of how states regulate bikes. Remember the North Carolina bicyclist shot for taking the lane with his family, in a state with laws that treat bikes identical to motor vehicles.

Repealing california cyclists right to safely take the lane would remove cyclists explicit rights to take the lane in many instances for their safety.

Repealing cyclists rights in california would not enhance cyclists treatment by motorists, it would likely have the opposite effect.

What would make Carmel safer for kids to ride to school would be stronger laws specifically protecting bicyclists from harassment and more dedicated safe routes to school programming.

Probably wouldn't hurt to drag a few motorists from their vehicles and read them the laws pertaining to cyclists, either. Even as the laws are currently written, cyclists have every right to expect to use the roads and be treated properly by other road users.

But since we have to put up signs telling motorists laws they should already know, no doubt there are motorists that don't even know the basic laws, much less the laws that pertain to such odd things as bicycles in the roadway.

This is more of Bek's convoluted and self-contradictory argument that the modern form of the law requiring cyclists to ride as far to the right as practicable (FTR) creates rights for cyclists. This law was first created by motorists to make motoring more convenient by shoving cyclists aside. That law did several things. It destroyed the right of cyclists to operate according to the normal rules of the road for drivers of vehicles. It made cyclists second-class roadway users subservient to motorists. That justified harassment by police whenever cyclists operated by the normal rules of the road. And and these things justified the public belief that cyclists were trespassers on the roadway created for motorists.

Obeying the original FTR law was dangerous because it contradicted the safe movement rules of the road. Therefore, in 1976, the FTR law was modified with exceptions that allowed cyclists to make some movements as required by the rules of the road. That is, the new FTR law returned to cyclists some of the rights that cyclists had had before the first FTR law, but still kept cyclists in the status of second-class roadway users subservient to motorists. This return to cyclists of some rights they had previously held as drivers of vehicles is what Bek now calls the creation of new rights for cyclists. Quite clearly, repeal of the FTR law would return to cyclists all the rights of drivers of vehicles that the original FTR law was thought to destroy. It would thereby destroy the legal justification for police harassment of cyclists for obeying the normal rules of the road for drivers of vehicles, and, by removing that legal justification, would, over time, assist in reducing the extent of harassment by unofficial motorists.

Bek gives his opinion as that repeal of the FTR laws would increase harassment of cyclists by motorists. Of course, that is the argument that would appeal to any person, like Bek, who suffers from the prejudiced belief that cyclists should be kept in a second-class status subservient to motorists.

CABO also agrees with Bek and considers that the FTR laws give advantages to cyclists... They also agree with me with regard to the lack of knowledge of such laws by the general public...

With regard to the last statement CABO states... http://www.cabobike.org/articles/bic...alifornia-law/

The same article goes on to state:

This was also the opinion of CABO in an earlier review of the laws...

http://www.cabobike.org/articles/bicycles-and-the-law/

Also what you call "discriminatory laws," CABO and others find as being favorable to cyclists... apparently your view is NOT widely held by cyclists. (Go figure)

I work to allow cyclists to operate according to the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles, against the American discriminatory traffic laws and bikeways that try to prohibit them from doing so. The American discrimination against cyclists has several evil effects. Rather than allowing cyclists to operate in a safer manner, it allows the police to harass cyclists who are operating within the normal laws. Rather than giving cyclists the option of deciding whether or not to use a bikeway, it requires them to do so even when not using the bikeway would be the safer option. This discrimination against cyclists legally justifies bad treatment by government and socially justifies bad treatment by motorists.

In America, cyclists operating according to the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles get a better deal than do cyclists who obey the discriminatory laws. This is a fact of American life that you, Hagen, find difficult to understand.

There are no signs that the American program for bicycle transportation is going beyond this discrimination, no matter what some bicycle advocates hope for. And I see no signs that the admired European examples are without this discrimination. Given this American discrimination, I see no likely path to some cycling heaven. Of course, we vehicular cyclists are completely unable to stop the progress of American bikeways based on this discrimination. We have been beaten for thirty-five years, and we still get defective bikeways that are based on discrimination.

Therefore, the most that vehicular cyclists might be able to obtain is relief from the requirement to operate according to the discriminatory laws and return to the old, old, system of operating with the full rights of drivers of vehicles. With the road system that we have, such relief would provide the option of doing whichever is best from the cyclist's point of view, obeying the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles or doing whatever the other system might appear to require. In short, operating as a competent adult or as a person assumed to be incapable of obeying those rules.

the 'old system' :rolleyes: of slower traffic keep right still wouldn't stop the angry motorists intent on harassing bicyclists from doing so, like the cyclist getting shot at by the motorist in North Carolina, Russ Roca getting punched out in New Zealand, or the kids getting hassled in Carmel riding to school.

I fail to understand how a rational person could conclude that CABO finds the discriminatory laws as being favorable to cyclists. The parts quoted by Genec describe how to operate with the present laws, but they do not find them favorable to cyclists. On the contrary, here is a definitely unfavorable quote from the Recommendations section of the article. If you will read it, you will find that it is quite similar to the arguments that I have been presenting.

V. Recommendations

Traffic law exists to promote safe and orderly traffic flow. The law, like traffic flow itself, should be simple, clear, and predictable. Because bicyclists are an easily forgotten minority in an age when most people equate transportation with automobiles,[91] because bicyclists are more vulnerable to injury than motorists, and because bicycling offers significant benefits to society at large, it is especially important for the law to treat bicyclists fairly. It does not do so today.
As this article shows, traffic law, if properly understood, generally leads to reasonable conclusions regarding bicycles. The trouble lies with the difficulty in understanding and carrying out the law. There is no rational basis for the current distinction between bicycles and vehicles.[92] This distinction is not only confusing in itself, but leads directly to superfluous special regulations for bicycles, such as the slow bicycle rule and the bike-lane rule. These superfluous regulations, in turn, are readily subject to misunderstanding and misinterpretation by police, courts, and motorists, who cannot be expected to carry out the detailed analysis contained in this article. Special regulations also tend to relegate the bicycle to second-class status, encouraging motorists to view bicyclists as unwelcome intruders on the road.

:rolleyes: equality with motor vehicles does not remove harassment from the roadways.

AShville firefighter shoots bicyclist riding with child, in state that regulates bikes just like motor vehicles

Cute John, now post the entire list of recommendations... Note that the entire response calls for an either/or situation; either enhance the current laws, or drop them all together. Also note that CABO recognizes that bikes are a distinct conveyance, apart from the motor vehicle.

Man, you're obsessed with this "discrimination" thing. You seem to see everything concerning cycling in the light of discrimination. It becomes absurdly obvious when you start seeing the Dutch model as discriminating against cycling. You further keep mixing the capability of cyclists into the matter, and that is so ridiculously irrelevant as to make a grown man cry. You damn well know that the overwhelming number of cyclists are killed by car drivers who just don't observe the rules of the road. You also probably know that (according to others in this thresd) most states allow you to use the car lanes if it's the safest place to ride (that is, if the bike lane is blocked or in other ways dangerous or risky).

Not that I don't get your point - you've explained it quite a few times - it's just that your way of thinking is totally skewed.

"Obeying the rules of the road"
"Drivers of vehicles"
"Discrimination"

Oh wow, wow, WOW!

It is a mindset locked into a logic circle... He is absolutely right, if everyone obeyed the rules of the road and the laws, there would be no collisions.

The problem is that reality rears it's ugly head and the fact is people don't know the laws and the laws they do know they tend to bend... then all the straight forward logic falls by the wayside... and the result is what we have. In this imperfect world, something other than laws has to come to the forefront... and he fails to acknowledge this. His supporters tend to also think this way... while turning a blind eye to reality. It is the thinking of the computer programmer, that knows the machine will follow code infallibly.. unfortunately as soon as you throw live humans into the mix, everything goes haywire.

I used to test CAD software for this one large ECAD company... their programmers demonstrated the same sort of thinking... they would give us scripts to enact as tasks... and yes, the software would work wonderfully as long as one held to the script... but as soon as one wanted to deviate from the script (as changes do occur in real life) and the user tried to use the software in a manner other than that which was scripted, the software would fall apart. John just keeps playing the script... and taking the position of the programmer... without any sight of reality.

John is also right in that as humans, neither the cyclist nor the motorist has any real priority (or rights) to use the road above the other... buy try to tell that to a motorist who has just harnessed 200 HP, that the 1/3 horsepower human is his equal.

It is my understanding that Dutch law prohibits cyclists from using quite a few normal roads (not considering roads designed for continuous high-speed travel without cross traffic, whatever the Dutch might call such roads). If that is so, that is discrimination; it may not be so; it is up to Hagen, as the local expert on such matters, to inform us, instead of just complaining.

Yes, it is correct that I view the American system for bicycle transportation as being thoroughly discriminatory. For some seventy years, American cyclists have had their rights as drivers of vehicles strongly limited, by laws created by motorists for the convenience of motorists. If Hagen chooses to discuss this matter, he is entitled to do so, but his simple statement that I am obsessed by this matter is not discussion on any proper level. To maintain his obvious belief that this discrimination is irrelevant he needs to provide both facts and reason. So far, he has not done so.

Hagen claims that I "keep mixing the capability of cyclists into the matter, and that is so ridiculously irrelevant as to make a grown man cry." It is not irrelevant; it is the heart of the matter. The American justification for prohibiting cyclists from obeying the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles is that cyclists are, somehow, incapable of doing so. There was never any evidence for the claim, and it was proved false thirty-five years ago. If Hagen chooses to agree with the official American argument, he is free to advance evidence and reason to support his argument, but, so far, he has failed to do so.

Hagen states his misunderstanding of the discrimination issue when he argues that "You also probably know that (according to others in this thresd) most states allow you to use the car lanes if it's the safest place to ride..." The point is that the discriminatory law requires the cyclist to be able to prove that "it's the safest place to ride", while no motorist ever has to do that. The discriminatory law takes away the right to use normal traffic lanes, making cyclists second-class roadway users, and then requires the cyclist to prove, whenever challenged, that an exception allows him to do so. If the discriminatory law were repealed, then cyclists would have the same right as other drivers of vehicles to operate according to the rules of the road without their right being questioned. If Hagen chooses to argue in support of this discriminatory law, then he is obliged to provide evidence and reason, which, so far, he has not done.

Genec's logical circle is neither as strict nor as irrelevant as he argues. Genec's basic argument is that we should not have the rules of the road because at some times and places one or more rules are disobeyed. What would you rather have, the degree of order that now exists or total anarchy? While he complains a lot, Genec has failed to provide evidence and reason to support his argument for total anarchy.

Genec also argues that a motorist with 200 HP at his command does not consider the cyclist, with only 1/3 HP, to be his equal. However, when considering the rules of the road that control traffic, horsepower is never mentioned; it is irrelevant. So the motorist's opinion has no value.

John has made a rather interesting jump to logical fallacy... I did not call to abolish the rules of the road. I called for a way for cyclists to have alternatives to using the same road as motorists where there is a high speed differential.

John's warped mind translates this to "we should not have the rules of the road." Sorry John, that is the worst case of spin I have ever seen.

Also the motorist opinion has loads of value, the motorist is part of the real world. It is your ideas that are of limited value.

This is the statement by genec to which we both refer:
Originally Posted by genec http://www.bikeforums.net/images/but...post-right.png
It is a mindset locked into a logic circle... He is absolutely right, if everyone obeyed the rules of the road and the laws, there would be no collisions.

The problem is that reality rears it's ugly head and the fact is people don't know the laws and the laws they do know they tend to bend... then all the straight forward logic falls by the wayside... and the result is what we have. In this imperfect world, something other than laws has to come to the forefront... and he fails to acknowledge this. His supporters tend to also think this way... while turning a blind eye to reality. It is the thinking of the computer programmer, that knows the machine will follow code infallibly.. unfortunately as soon as you throw live humans into the mix, everything goes haywire.

I used to test CAD software for this one large ECAD company... their programmers demonstrated the same sort of thinking... they would give us scripts to enact as tasks... and yes, the software would work wonderfully as long as one held to the script... but as soon as one wanted to deviate from the script (as changes do occur in real life) and the user tried to use the software in a manner other than that which was scripted, the software would fall apart. John just keeps playing the script... and taking the position of the programmer... without any sight of reality.

John is also right in that as humans, neither the cyclist nor the motorist has any real priority (or rights) to use the road above the other... buy try to tell that to a motorist who has just harnessed 200 HP, that the 1/3 horsepower human is his equal.
================
As you can read, all of Genec's first statement is about the rules of the road. There is nothing about facilities. Therefore, his complaint that I have changed the subject, "the worst case of spin I have ever seen", is erroneous.