Go Back  Bike Forums > Bike Forums > Advocacy & Safety > Vehicular Cycling (VC)
Reload this Page >

franklin-and-forester-quotes-in-a-dutch-context

Notices
Vehicular Cycling (VC) No other subject has polarized the A&S members like VC has. Here's a place to share, debate, and educate.

franklin-and-forester-quotes-in-a-dutch-context

Old 05-04-13, 10:59 AM
  #26  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Copenhagen
Posts: 1,832

Bikes: A load of ancient, old and semi-vintage bikes of divers sorts

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by spare_wheel
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.
hagen2456 is offline  
Old 05-04-13, 11:01 AM
  #27  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Copenhagen
Posts: 1,832

Bikes: A load of ancient, old and semi-vintage bikes of divers sorts

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by spare_wheel
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.
hagen2456 is offline  
Old 05-04-13, 11:18 AM
  #28  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 4,071
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by hagen2456
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.
John Forester is offline  
Old 05-04-13, 02:56 PM
  #29  
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: NA
Posts: 4,267

Bikes: NA

Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 7 Times in 7 Posts
Originally Posted by hagen2456
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.
spare_wheel is offline  
Old 05-04-13, 03:02 PM
  #30  
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: NA
Posts: 4,267

Bikes: NA

Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 7 Times in 7 Posts
Originally Posted by John Forester
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.
spare_wheel is offline  
Old 05-13-13, 03:14 AM
  #31  
totally louche
 
Bekologist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: A land that time forgot
Posts: 18,023

Bikes: the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 9 Times in 8 Posts
Originally Posted by spare_wheel
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.....

Originally Posted by spare_wheel
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.
Bekologist is offline  
Old 05-13-13, 04:17 AM
  #32  
totally louche
 
Bekologist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: A land that time forgot
Posts: 18,023

Bikes: the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 9 Times in 8 Posts
THIS exchange, however, is classic!!!

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
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.
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.
Bekologist is offline  
Old 05-13-13, 06:58 AM
  #33  
totally louche
 
Bekologist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: A land that time forgot
Posts: 18,023

Bikes: the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 9 Times in 8 Posts
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.
Bekologist is offline  
Old 05-17-13, 01:17 PM
  #34  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Copenhagen
Posts: 1,832

Bikes: A load of ancient, old and semi-vintage bikes of divers sorts

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Bekologist
...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
hagen2456 is offline  
Old 05-17-13, 07:42 PM
  #35  
totally louche
 
Bekologist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: A land that time forgot
Posts: 18,023

Bikes: the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 9 Times in 8 Posts
Originally Posted by hagen2456
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.
Bekologist is offline  
Old 05-18-13, 11:24 AM
  #36  
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 4,788
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times in 2 Posts
Originally Posted by spare_wheel
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.

Originally Posted by Sixty Fiver
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.

Originally Posted by spare_wheel
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.
DX-MAN is offline  
Old 05-19-13, 07:01 PM
  #37  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Copenhagen
Posts: 1,832

Bikes: A load of ancient, old and semi-vintage bikes of divers sorts

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Bekologist
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.
hagen2456 is offline  
Old 07-01-13, 10:46 AM
  #38  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Buffalo, NY
Posts: 1,144

Bikes: Schwinn Tourist (2010), Trek 6000 (1999)

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
Originally Posted by Bekologist
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
UberGeek is offline  
Old 07-01-13, 10:18 PM
  #39  
Been Around Awhile
Thread Starter
 
I-Like-To-Bike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Burlington Iowa
Posts: 29,951

Bikes: Vaterland and Ragazzi

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked 1,517 Times in 1,031 Posts
Originally Posted by UberGeek
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?
I-Like-To-Bike is offline  
Old 07-02-13, 05:54 AM
  #40  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Buffalo, NY
Posts: 1,144

Bikes: Schwinn Tourist (2010), Trek 6000 (1999)

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
Originally Posted by I-Like-To-Bike
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.
UberGeek is offline  
Old 07-02-13, 07:56 AM
  #41  
Been Around Awhile
Thread Starter
 
I-Like-To-Bike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Burlington Iowa
Posts: 29,951

Bikes: Vaterland and Ragazzi

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked 1,517 Times in 1,031 Posts
Originally Posted by UberGeek
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.
I-Like-To-Bike is offline  
Old 07-03-13, 12:38 PM
  #42  
Senior Member
 
enigmaT120's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Falls City, OR
Posts: 1,965

Bikes: 2012 Salsa Fargo 2, Rocky Mountain Fusion, circa '93

Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 37 Post(s)
Liked 6 Times in 4 Posts
Originally Posted by UberGeek
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?
enigmaT120 is offline  
Old 07-03-13, 12:41 PM
  #43  
Been Around Awhile
Thread Starter
 
I-Like-To-Bike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Burlington Iowa
Posts: 29,951

Bikes: Vaterland and Ragazzi

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked 1,517 Times in 1,031 Posts
Originally Posted by enigmaT120
I need an excuse for my slow pace on rural back roads.
No you don't.
I-Like-To-Bike is offline  
Old 07-03-13, 05:46 PM
  #44  
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: NA
Posts: 4,267

Bikes: NA

Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 7 Times in 7 Posts
Originally Posted by DX-MAN
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.
spare_wheel is offline  
Old 07-18-13, 01:03 AM
  #45  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: San Antonio
Posts: 100

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

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
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.







Originally Posted by genec
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.
Bike Rat is offline  
Old 07-18-13, 01:46 AM
  #46  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: San Antonio
Posts: 100

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

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Bekologist
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.
Bike Rat is offline  
Old 07-18-13, 02:18 AM
  #47  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: San Antonio
Posts: 100

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

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by spare_wheel
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.
Bike Rat is offline  
Old 07-18-13, 12:30 PM
  #48  
genec
 
genec's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: West Coast
Posts: 27,079

Bikes: custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2

Mentioned: 86 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13658 Post(s)
Liked 4,532 Times in 3,158 Posts
Originally Posted by Bike Rat
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.
genec is offline  
Old 07-18-13, 02:58 PM
  #49  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: San Antonio
Posts: 100

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

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by genec
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.
Bike Rat is offline  
Old 07-18-13, 03:43 PM
  #50  
genec
 
genec's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: West Coast
Posts: 27,079

Bikes: custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2

Mentioned: 86 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13658 Post(s)
Liked 4,532 Times in 3,158 Posts
Originally Posted by Bike Rat
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?
Attached Images
File Type: jpg
2_lane_70MPH.jpg (88.9 KB, 32 views)
genec is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.