and your comment is an excellent illustration of why many in the usa want nothing to do with the sub-standard cycling ghettos that are built in homage of far more laudable infrastructure in holland (and denmark). its also sad how many advocates of separated infrastructure echo the same "cycle over there and out of my way" anti-cyclist attitude espoused by raging cagers.
IF you demand people simply 'take the lane' people ride to the side, ride like a forester road sneak or at the edge of narrow lanes a la the forester cyclists' lane rule.
But you also endorse infrastructure for cyclists not quite like you.....
your desire to eliminate the private automobile is admirable, but until that time, let the cities try tp more effectively mix bike and car traffic. because demanding people 'take the lane' doesn't work as a social tool to facilitate bicycling.
what facilitates biking is, you guessed it, bike infrastructure. Even the horrendous :rolleyes: bikeway network you and 8 percent of portlander use every day, a city where more women bike than usual in america because the city is more equitable to bike traffic.
THIS exchange, however, is classic!!!
Originally Posted by spare wheel
Originally Posted by sixtyfiver
Originally Posted by spare wheel
so people DON'T bike around town doing 20 miles per hour? You're right, they don't. So, why'd you say they do?
A waffle house in Candyland.
as to the topic of the thread, franklin and forester quotes in a Dutch context and "VC obstructionism".....
Forester's quotes don't even need to be overlain on a dutch context to be recognized as some of the bicycling worlds' biggests frauds.
Wether taken in a dutch context or not, john forester's saccharine canards about bike equity and vehicularism are directly contradicted by the appalling, inferiority laden cycling techniques in his book (sic) 'effective' cycling.
Maybe, just maybe, people can maintain those speed in the nd because of the quality separated path network? spare wheel seems to think his mischaracterization of traffic speeds attained by US bicyclists was inaccurate due to traffic trepidation, not ability.
now, that'd throw the forester damnation of path networks as inefficient for speedy cyclists right under the bus.
http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread...quote_icon.png Originally Posted by John Forester http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread...post-right.png
Each picture does nothing to demonstrate its caption. However, several pictures demonstrate other principles, such as that in many points in the Dutch system the traffic speed has to be slow. Furthermore, there is no evidence that either I (Forester), or Franklin, is opposed to mass cycling. We are opposed to systems that limit cyclists to longer trip times than would be accomplished by a competent cyclist, which is the typical case of the Dutch system.
#1 complaint on the multi-use trails is that cyclists go too fast.
As for bike lanes, aside from their inconsistency, poor design, confusion, and unsafeness...they foster inequality between cyclists and motorists. They reduce much needed traffic lanes, space that is largely unused by cyclists. They embolden motorists to yell at me to get off the road.
What are you trying to prove in saying that more women bike in Portland "because the city is more equitable to bike traffic"? By percentage of population, Portland probably has more cyclists regardless of gender when compared to most US cities...so having more women cyclists mostly results just from having a large cycling population in general. Couple that with Portland being a highly educated city and cyclists tend to be highly educated, women attain greater numbers of degrees than men and educated women are more self-assured...so maybe it's just the larger number of highly educated, self assured women in a cycling dense community, rather than some greater sense of safety that only women are presumably attuned to.
In talking with a Frenchman recently, he said he walks about 8 miles a day...that's 6 miles more than what a casual biker would do, yet this is who our cities want to build infrastructure for while pushing others off the road. Many of these people scoff at the idea of even walking anywhere, but, cycling's fun and hip...until it's not anymore.
Children are taught not to play in the street, but apparently if you're on a bicycle and in a bike lane it's suddenly safe. The street is not a playground, it's not a place for inexperienced, unconfident riders...that's what multi-use 'park' trails and other bucolic areas are for.
Now add a cycling population similar to that of Denmark or Amsterdam, into a 45MPH traffic mix and you will have chaos... yet no vehicular cyclist wants to examine that reality... they focus only on the fact that vehicular cycling "works" for the few and bold... as vehicular cycling is nothing more than a coping mechanism when there is a modal traffic mix of less than 2% for the cyclist... in other words, it only works when cyclists are rare and are the outlier in traffic. And often those outliers have to become "road sneaks" in any attempt to merge and use the road.
Now in post 47 you point out that a decent cyclist should be able to hold 20MPH... and I don't disagree, but you are also talking about a decent cyclist in very good shape... not children of 10-14 years of age, not grandmothers/grandfathers of 55 and above, and frankly few females of even college age. While it would very nice to have a population of Lance wannabees; even in cycling locations in Europe, a population of superior fit people is not the case... the general population is lucky to be able to maintain a cycling speed of 12MPH.
Go visit the 50+ forum here and ask how many there can maintain 20MPH on a flat? (and for how long?) And bear in mind that you are talking to a very exclusive population there... dedicated cyclists that chose to use this forum. Go to any city park on a Sunday and ask how many of the average folks rolling along there if they can maintain 20MPH...
No, if there is any desire to see the average person get out of their car and use a bicycle for short distance transportation, there will have to be suitable facilities that separate cyclists from high speed motorists and that allow those on bikes to feel comfortable and safe. This is not about "equal rights," it is about how the transportation network in the US today is designed.
I fully agree that the facilities we generally see in the US are wholly inadequate... generally nothing more than wandering park paths or narrow bike lanes that really are a traffic nightmare to negotiate as we frankly don't teach anyone how to use them.
Until this country faces a real crisis with gas prices and transportation, it is highly unlikely that anything will change. Even the price of gas may not change things, as the consumer is flexible, and will pay more or seek an "automobile like experience" in an electric vehicle. (even one resembling a golf cart)
So in the mean time, those that consider themselves "cyclists" will have to cope with what exists. And expecting to be "treated as a driver of a vehicle" in the US... good luck with that... it happens, but only begrudgingly... or at the right speeds and in small numbers.
I realize there's a preexisting inequality between different sized vehicles. As a former motorcyclist and having only owned small cars...I've lived that inequality everyday. As my state has the most drivers of trucks than any other, even as a motorist I'm a "road sneak". So you see, as both a motorist and cyclist, I already "cope with what exists", and what I don't need is infrastructure that encourages other road users to disregard me even more. As I said before, granny, children, and anyone else who isn't comfortable riding in the street should ride/play elsewhere...and I don't mean bike lanes. Regardless, as 95% of my community supports bike lanes/paths, not necessarily in place of vehicular cycling, in the future I will cope with that too. And, while I'm against bike lanes, if that's what gets more cyclists on the road, I'm okay with that aspect only, because the more cyclists, the greater motorist awareness.
Over the last 6 years there has been significant progress made in regard to motorcycle advocacy. Much of this has trickled down to cyclist safety..."share the road" began as a motorcyclist campaign; in my state, the 3 feet when passing motorcycle law was finally approved once cyclists were tacked onto it. So you see, the recent advances in cycling safety are largely due to motorcycle advocacy, not cycling infrastructure.
Surely your familiar wih the advocacy for motorist assumption of guilt in vehicle/cycling accidents, that campaign also originated with motorcyclists. If I recall correctly, there is a locality that enacted a law that if a motorist is involved in an accident with a motorcyclist, rather than just assumed, the motorist is guilty. Now apply that law to all vulnerable road users and suddenly cycling infrastructure is unneeded, it will be Ciclovía every day...talk about traffic calming. Of course motorists feel that would be unfair, if they hit a cyclist who dashed in front of them why is it their fault...it's not "equal rights" since cyclists are emboldened. The real issue is that motorists are already emboldened and don't want to lose their advantage...they want us off their roads.
Disclaimer: Them, they, and their are generalizations that don't apply to all.
Just noticed you are from Texas... the only place I have seen the Share the Road signs posted on the interstate freeways and addressing sharing the road between motorists and motorcycles. (there may be other states that do this, but I AM familiar with Texas due to family there).
The reason I responded to you in particular was this line: "The bureaucrats have an idyllic fantasy that cycling is pedaling at speeds just above walking pace and limited to short distances;" which was in response to the line in the post you responded to: "any reasonably fit cyclist on a decent bike should be able to maintain 20 mph." And then lastly this comment: "they foster inequality between cyclists and motorists."
So it was all a response to a thread of argument that I saw to which I decided to lay out my thoughts.
A true vulnerable user law would be a nice thing... and frankly I had no idea that motorcyclists were campaigning for such a thing.
I have to agree with you wholeheartedly regarding bike lanes... they are nothing more than a poor bandaid to a system that needs some real revamping. That said, I'd rather see a bike lane than nothing more than a "share the road" sign. I'd much rather see a road network that takes all vehicles and persons into mind. But having toured through Texas, I can tell you that there are vast stretches of road there that will never see any more improvement... and knowing the Texas attitude of "Don't Mess with Texas" (which means more than don't litter) I know that most Texans frankly don't give a cr@p about anybody not driving a pickumup truck.
See if this road seems familiar as a common sight:
Click to enlarge, obviously. That is a typical Texas farm road... yup there is a painted shoulder line, and to the right of that line is one mean rough surface... and these roads line the state. How'd ya like to be taking the lane just beyond that crest as someone comes upon you at 65 or 70MPH?