Advertise on Bikeforums.net



User Tag List

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 67
  1. #26
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Copenhagen
    My Bikes
    A load of ancient, old and semi-vintage bikes of divers sorts
    Posts
    1,827
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by spare_wheel View Post
    and i also posted the zoomed out images that show the urban periphery. i guess satellite images are gross distortions!

    the unswerving belief in the power of segregated infrastructure to magically increase mode share does not fit the timeline of the dutch cycling resurgence; and nor does it explain rotterdam -- the ugly duckling of the dutch cycling miracle. for the record, i think it helps but that other factors are equally (or even more) important.
    Your sprawl argument has been disproven already. As for Rotterdam, judging from what I've read about that city, it's got a bike infrastructure which is not exactly an "ugly duckling" by any other standard than Dutch. But the less-than-perfect conditions do of course give it a smaller bike modal share than most of the rest of the Netherlands.

  2. #27
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Copenhagen
    My Bikes
    A load of ancient, old and semi-vintage bikes of divers sorts
    Posts
    1,827
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by spare_wheel View Post
    you might want to try cycling in a USAnian cycling city during rush hour before you start tossing ad hominems around.
    You might want to check "ad hominem".

    But clueless he is. Completely unable to understand that, for instance, the high share of cyclists makes for a lot less car traffic congestion. Etc. etc.

  3. #28
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    4,069
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by hagen2456 View Post
    You might want to check "ad hominem".

    But clueless he is. Completely unable to understand that, for instance, the high share of cyclists makes for a lot less car traffic congestion. Etc. etc.
    I see that Hagen's thoughts are still the prisoners of his ideology. I maintain what I think is indisputable. That is, that the use of a bicycle reduces car traffic only if that driver would have driven a car if he had not cycled. If the use of the bicycle is done by a person who would otherwise have walked or used mass transit, or not have made the trip at all, then that bicycle trip does not reduce motor trips at all.

  4. #29
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    pdx
    My Bikes
    2007 carpe diem frame custom build, trek 7.9 frame custom build, custom built chinese carbon fiber road bike, shopping bike
    Posts
    2,396
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by hagen2456 View Post
    for a lot less car traffic congestion. Etc. etc.
    one of the many reasons i generally cycle in lane is because i want to make travel by single occupancy motor vehicle inconvenient. its bad for our society, bad for human health, and bad for the planet as a whole.

    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.
    Last edited by spare_wheel; 05-04-13 at 03:04 PM.

  5. #30
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    pdx
    My Bikes
    2007 carpe diem frame custom build, trek 7.9 frame custom build, custom built chinese carbon fiber road bike, shopping bike
    Posts
    2,396
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by John Forester View Post
    by a person who would otherwise have walked
    it was amusing to see the incredulity to my comment that i would never think of biking 1 km (in the other thread). its almost as if the dutch (and danes) have forgotten that walking is often a better option than biking. in fact, i prefer to walk shorter distances (1-3 km) because i spend so much time in the saddle that i am concerned about my bone health.

  6. #31
    totally louche Bekologist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    A land that time forgot
    My Bikes
    the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes
    Posts
    18,012
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by spare_wheel View Post
    one of the many reasons i generally cycle in lane is because i want to make travel by single occupancy motor vehicle inconvenient. its bad for our society, bad for human health, and bad for the planet as a whole.

    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.
    meh. your comments are contradictory, and are an excellent illustration of why cyclists can't have it both ways.

    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.....

    Quote Originally Posted by spare_wheel View Post
    i absolutely support infrastructure for the kinderen and omas -- just paint an occasional sharrow for me.
    allrightey then. so you DO support robust, preferred class and separated infrastructure for bicyclists! (I do wish you'd settle in on one position or the other, the contradictions are intense!!!)

    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 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.
    Last edited by Bekologist; 05-13-13 at 04:24 AM.
    "Evidence, anecdote and methodology all support planning for roadway bike traffic."

  7. #32
    totally louche Bekologist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    A land that time forgot
    My Bikes
    the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes
    Posts
    18,012
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    THIS exchange, however, is classic!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by spare wheel
    any reasonably fit cyclist on a decent bike should be able to maintain 20 mph on a flat for a significant period of time
    Quote Originally Posted by sixtyfiver
    I would disagree on the reasonably fit cyclist / decent bike / 32 kmh figure that was thrown out... it just doesn't seem to be reflected in the real world.
    Quote Originally Posted by spare wheel
    i agree but i think this has more to do with caution than capability.


    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.
    "Evidence, anecdote and methodology all support planning for roadway bike traffic."

  8. #33
    totally louche Bekologist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    A land that time forgot
    My Bikes
    the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes
    Posts
    18,012
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    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.
    Last edited by Bekologist; 05-13-13 at 07:22 AM.
    "Evidence, anecdote and methodology all support planning for roadway bike traffic."

  9. #34
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Copenhagen
    My Bikes
    A load of ancient, old and semi-vintage bikes of divers sorts
    Posts
    1,827
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Bekologist View Post
    ...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?
    Well, quite a few do, round here. Not everywhere, on all bike paths, but there are lots of places where you can go reasonably fast. Even during rush hours, I've often hit 30+ kmh. Only problem is that sooner or later you run into a red light. But yes, there are other places where one is restricted to speeds only slightly faster than the cars

  10. #35
    totally louche Bekologist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    A land that time forgot
    My Bikes
    the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes
    Posts
    18,012
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by hagen2456 View Post
    Well, quite a few do, round here. Not everywhere, on all bike paths, but there are lots of places where you can go reasonably fast. Even during rush hours, I've often hit 30+ kmh. Only problem is that sooner or later you run into a red light. But yes, there are other places where one is restricted to speeds only slightly faster than the cars
    meh. i'm with sixtyfiver. twenty mile per hour commuters are not representative.

    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.
    "Evidence, anecdote and methodology all support planning for roadway bike traffic."

  11. #36
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    4,793
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by spare_wheel View Post
    20 mph is not a sprint speed. any reasonably fit cyclist on a decent bike should be able to maintain 20 mph on a flat for a significant period of time. one of the things that irritates me about north american fans of "mythic" segregated europe is the fixation with riding sloooooowly. for example, in pdx traffic planners are constantly complaining about cyclist speed. this is in stark contrast to "real" segregated europe where there has been a push to build facilities that accommodate high speed cycling.
    Well, if your definition of "high speed cycling" is a sustained 20mph/32kmh pace, I'd have to disagree with you; further, maybe 20mph isn't a sprint speed for YOU...it sure would be for ME, and I AM "reasonably fit". YOUR mistake is assuming that everyone will choose to ride the lightest, fastest bike they can afford. More than a few of us prefer a degree of versatility; I ride a mountain bike for ALL purposes, because the immediacy of the ride is AS important as the destination, and I like having the option of being 'playful' while I pedal. My steed of choice is over 36 lbs., not exactly amenable to sustaining a 20mph pace...13-16 is more like it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sixty Fiver View Post
    I would disagree on the reasonably fit cyclist / decent bike / 32 kmh figure that was thrown out... it just doesn't seem to be reflected in the real world.
    You would be correct, sir.

    Quote Originally Posted by spare_wheel View Post
    i agree but i think this has more to do with caution than capability.
    First of all, make up your mind; second, nobody gets to ride downhill both ways, so capability IS the core factor. CAUTION keeps people FROM riding, not from just riding fast.

  12. #37
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Copenhagen
    My Bikes
    A load of ancient, old and semi-vintage bikes of divers sorts
    Posts
    1,827
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Bekologist View Post
    meh. i'm with sixtyfiver. twenty mile per hour commuters are not representative.
    Surely not. But my point is that there's room for almost everyone on our central city bike paths. Outside the central city: Ride as fast or slow as you wish.

  13. #38
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Buffalo, NY
    My Bikes
    Schwinn Tourist (2010), Trek 6000 (1999)
    Posts
    1,117
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Bekologist View Post
    THIS exchange, however, is classic!!!

    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.
    I know I don't bike at 20mph... 14-15mph average speed for me, and too much "caution" has little to do with it. Not enough horsepower in the engine has everything to do with it lol

  14. #39
    Been Around Awhile I-Like-To-Bike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Burlington Iowa
    My Bikes
    Vaterland and Ragazzi
    Posts
    19,378
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by UberGeek View Post
    I know I don't bike at 20mph... 14-15mph average speed for me, and too much "caution" has little to do with it. Not enough horsepower in the engine has everything to do with it lol
    There are at least two BF posters always boasting about their high speed frolicking (20+ mph average speed) about town. Men among boys, or perhaps, goofballs; who's to know or care?

  15. #40
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Buffalo, NY
    My Bikes
    Schwinn Tourist (2010), Trek 6000 (1999)
    Posts
    1,117
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by I-Like-To-Bike View Post
    There are at least two BF posters always boasting about their high speed frolicking (20+ mph average speed) about town. Men among boys, or perhaps, goofballs; who's to know or care?
    I'm sure there's a couple. I do not, however, think it's the norm. And, I doubt it's "caution" that causes the majority to ride under that speed.

  16. #41
    Been Around Awhile I-Like-To-Bike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Burlington Iowa
    My Bikes
    Vaterland and Ragazzi
    Posts
    19,378
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by UberGeek View Post
    I'm sure there's a couple. I do not, however, think it's the norm. And, I doubt it's "caution" that causes the majority to ride under that speed.
    We are in agreement.

  17. #42
    Senior Member enigmaT120's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Falls City, OR
    My Bikes
    2012 Salsa Fargo 2, Rocky Mountain Fusion, circa '93
    Posts
    1,394
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by UberGeek View Post
    I'm sure there's a couple. I do not, however, think it's the norm. And, I doubt it's "caution" that causes the majority to ride under that speed.
    Hey, that's going to be my excuse from now on! Except that I hardly ever ride in cities. I need an excuse for my slow pace on rural back roads. Scenery, I have to go slow and enjoy the scenery?
    Ed Miller
    Falls City, OR
    1993 Rocky Mountain Fusion
    2012 Fargo 2

  18. #43
    Been Around Awhile I-Like-To-Bike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Burlington Iowa
    My Bikes
    Vaterland and Ragazzi
    Posts
    19,378
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by enigmaT120 View Post
    I need an excuse for my slow pace on rural back roads.
    No you don't.

  19. #44
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    pdx
    My Bikes
    2007 carpe diem frame custom build, trek 7.9 frame custom build, custom built chinese carbon fiber road bike, shopping bike
    Posts
    2,396
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by DX-MAN View Post
    First of all, make up your mind; second, nobody gets to ride downhill both ways, so capability IS the core factor. CAUTION keeps people FROM riding, not from just riding fast.
    Why would I have to make up my mind?

    My point was that many, if not most, cyclists have the capability to cycle at 20 mph for a period of time. The fact that some choose not to, in no way contradicts my point.
    Last edited by spare_wheel; 07-03-13 at 05:52 PM.
    Road rash is a precious gift. Road rash is your friend. Bask in it, appreciate it, love it. Above all, learn from it. --Robert Hurst

  20. #45
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    San Antonio
    My Bikes
    2004 LeMond Reno, 200? LeMond Buenos Aires, 199? Peugeot, 199? Yokota Yosemite, 199? GT Tequesta, 198? Bianchi Sport, 1984 Nishiki Prestige, 197? Gitane TDF
    Posts
    90
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Originally Posted by John Forester
    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.







    Quote Originally Posted by genec View Post
    And yet oddly when motor vehicles crowd the roads they too have to slow down... Just like when there are so many cyclists that they fill the bikeways. This same slowing effect also occurs when there there is a crowd of pedestrians all moving in the same direction at the same time. (try reading up on queuing theory in traffic engineering... or just look at any major freeway during peak use hours)

    Your vision of cyclists moving at some critical high speed only works when cyclists are few and far between... in areas where cyclists are rare, such as in the USA.
    You've just proven the point that vehicular cyclists make...the US doesn't need Dutch cycling infrastructure. Although not representative of all US communities, with a population of 1.38 million, my city is the 7th largest in the US, yet the residential density is only 2,950 people per mile. Unless I ride within the downtown core, I could ride all day without seeing another cyclist. A 40 mile roundtrip commute is normal...how long would that take on a bike path, especially one slowed by casual riders. The closest parallel I have is a winding multi-use trail...25 miles roundtrip takes 1.5 hours, to go any faster would be reckless and that's mid-week at noon with fewer users. After 5pm and on weekends, I hear it's so thick with walkers, runners, dog walkers, casual cyclists, and families that it's pointless to ride there. Any type of segregated cycling infrastructure (bike paths) will be inundated with users of all types because most US cities are lacking in recreational areas...it wouldn't be efficient for traveling anywhere. As it now, the #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.
    Rat-Race Spinwerks:
    The Retread, Sew, Shave, Sipe, and Stud Specialist

  21. #46
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    San Antonio
    My Bikes
    2004 LeMond Reno, 200? LeMond Buenos Aires, 199? Peugeot, 199? Yokota Yosemite, 199? GT Tequesta, 198? Bianchi Sport, 1984 Nishiki Prestige, 197? Gitane TDF
    Posts
    90
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Bekologist View Post
    meh. your comments are contradictory, and are an excellent illustration of why cyclists can't have it both ways.

    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.....



    allrightey then. so you DO support robust, preferred class and separated infrastructure for bicyclists! (I do wish you'd settle in on one position or the other, the contradictions are intense!!!)

    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 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.
    What's wrong with having it both ways...I support segregated –multi-use– paths, but don't set it up to require all cyclists to use it. Just because some people choose, or don't have the ability, to vehicular cycle, doesn't mean all of want bike paths forced upon us. How is forced bike paths any different from forced vehicular cycling. Rather than forced bike lanes and bike paths...just widen the zillion miles of unused sidewalks to create multi-use paths for those unable/unwilling to ride with traffic.

    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.
    Rat-Race Spinwerks:
    The Retread, Sew, Shave, Sipe, and Stud Specialist

  22. #47
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    San Antonio
    My Bikes
    2004 LeMond Reno, 200? LeMond Buenos Aires, 199? Peugeot, 199? Yokota Yosemite, 199? GT Tequesta, 198? Bianchi Sport, 1984 Nishiki Prestige, 197? Gitane TDF
    Posts
    90
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by spare_wheel View Post
    20 mph is not a sprint speed. any reasonably fit cyclist on a decent bike should be able to maintain 20 mph on a flat for a significant period of time. one of the things that irritates me about north american fans of "mythic" segregated europe is the fixation with riding sloooooowly. for example, in pdx traffic planners are constantly complaining about cyclist speed. this is in stark contrast to "real" segregated europe where there has been a push to build facilities that accommodate high speed cycling.
    Exactly! The bureaucrats have an idyllic fantasy that cycling is pedaling at speeds just above walking pace and limited to short distances.

    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.
    Last edited by Bike Rat; 07-18-13 at 02:27 AM.
    Rat-Race Spinwerks:
    The Retread, Sew, Shave, Sipe, and Stud Specialist

  23. #48
    genec genec's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    san diego
    My Bikes
    custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2
    Posts
    22,521
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Bike Rat View Post
    Originally Posted by John Forester
    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.









    You've just proven the point that vehicular cyclists make...the US doesn't need Dutch cycling infrastructure. Although not representative of all US communities, with a population of 1.38 million, my city is the 7th largest in the US, yet the residential density is only 2,950 people per mile. Unless I ride within the downtown core, I could ride all day without seeing another cyclist. A 40 mile roundtrip commute is normal...how long would that take on a bike path, especially one slowed by casual riders. The closest parallel I have is a winding multi-use trail...25 miles roundtrip takes 1.5 hours, to go any faster would be reckless and that's mid-week at noon with fewer users. After 5pm and on weekends, I hear it's so thick with walkers, runners, dog walkers, casual cyclists, and families that it's pointless to ride there. Any type of segregated cycling infrastructure (bike paths) will be inundated with users of all types because most US cities are lacking in recreational areas...it wouldn't be efficient for traveling anywhere. As it now, the #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.
    Uh I hate to have to point it out to you but there is "inequality" between those folks driving large heavy fast vehicles and those on small light slow two wheeled vehicles. Vehicular cycling works very well when there is little speed differential; where cyclists can maintain 18-20MPH in traffic moving at speeds of 20-maybe 30MPH, but when the speed differential is over 15MPH, communication between road users starts to become difficult and cyclists become "slow moving obstacles" on the road that motorists seek to avoid and pass. This latter action by motorists causes bunching and lateral movements in traffic that tend to snarl the flow of traffic, further compounding dense traffic issues and increasing frustration among road users.

    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.

  24. #49
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    San Antonio
    My Bikes
    2004 LeMond Reno, 200? LeMond Buenos Aires, 199? Peugeot, 199? Yokota Yosemite, 199? GT Tequesta, 198? Bianchi Sport, 1984 Nishiki Prestige, 197? Gitane TDF
    Posts
    90
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by genec View Post
    Uh I hate to have to point it out to you but there is "inequality" between those folks driving large heavy fast vehicles and those on small light slow two wheeled vehicles. Vehicular cycling works very well when there is little speed differential; where cyclists can maintain 18-20MPH in traffic moving at speeds of 20-maybe 30MPH, but when the speed differential is over 15MPH, communication between road users starts to become difficult and cyclists become "slow moving obstacles" on the road that motorists seek to avoid and pass. This latter action by motorists causes bunching and lateral movements in traffic that tend to snarl the flow of traffic, further compounding dense traffic issues and increasing frustration among road users.

    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.
    Thanks for your comments. Actually, in post 47, I was agreeing with the "mythic fixation with riding slowly", rather than any specific speed...I should have differentiated that. You'll notice in post 46, that I do support segregated multi-use paths for slower cyclists and other users; I don't even feel it's safe for them to use the sidewalk...and as incredulous that this admission might be, I'm sometimes that slower rider by choice and other times by inability.

    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.
    Last edited by Bike Rat; 07-18-13 at 03:10 PM.
    Rat-Race Spinwerks:
    The Retread, Sew, Shave, Sipe, and Stud Specialist

  25. #50
    genec genec's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    san diego
    My Bikes
    custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2
    Posts
    22,521
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Bike Rat View Post
    Thanks for your comments. Actually, in post 47, I was agreeing with the "mythic fixation with riding slowly", rather than any specific speed...I should have differentiated that. You'll notice in post 46, that I do support segregated multi-use paths for slower cyclists and other users; I don't even feel it's safe for them to use the sidewalk...and as incredulous that this admission might be, I'm sometimes that slower rider by choice and other times by inability.

    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?

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •