Advertise on Bikeforums.net



User Tag List

Page 14 of 29 FirstFirst ... 4121314151624 ... LastLast
Results 326 to 350 of 702
  1. #326
    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
    18,016
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by John Forester View Post
    I have never instructed cyclists to not use hand signals.

    then why did you write in your book for cyclists making lane changes and left turns in traffic to notice they've specifically disregarded the legal requirement to make the left arm signal?

    you wrote that in your book, John. teaching cyclists riding in traffic to specifically break the law and not use hand signals.

    which i suspect is one of the many reasons why the dutch transport misistry has been hedging their bets on the uptake of the forester method as sound cycling. coz it isn't.

    jpegbike2.jpg

    from the blogger that the original post is about.
    "Evidence, anecdote and methodology all support planning for roadway bike traffic."

  2. #327
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    4,069
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by wsbob View Post
    "...with a first statement that cyclists are prohibited from using much of the roadway followed by a list of exceptions under which that prohibition does not apply. ..." John Forester


    In other words, where what could be any one of or number of situations or conditions from what would be a very long list of bike lane and bike path situations or conditions covered under the list of exceptions directly part of the law, people biking in Oregon Are Not Prohibited from riding main lanes of roadways where bike lanes, MUP's, cycle tracks are adjacent to the roadway. For any readers that would like to study Oregon's bike specific laws for themselves, here again, is the link to a site providing the text for ORS 814.420, and by the way, on the sidebar to the left of the page, also links to other Oregon bike related laws: http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/814.420
    Traffic laws are meant to be used by the people every day in situations that often involve life or death decisions. As Wsbob makes clear, the bicycle traffic laws, be they for Oregon or other states, are so confused that only specialists in them can understand them, assuming that they can be understood (which is problematic). Creating traffic laws that are so confusing that only specialists can obey them is obviously the wrong path. This is particularly so when all that is required is nothing at all for states in which bicycles are defined as vehicles (as in Oregon), and for states in which bicycles are not defined as vehicles, granting cyclists the rights and duties of drivers of vehicles. That's all that's required.

  3. #328
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    4,069
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Bekologist View Post
    then why did you write in your book for cyclists making lane changes and left turns in traffic to notice they've specifically disregarded the legal requirement to make the left arm signal?

    you wrote that in your book, John. teaching cyclists riding in traffic to specifically break the law and not use hand signals.

    which i suspect is one of the many reasons why the dutch transport misistry has been hedging their bets on the uptake of the forester method as sound cycling. coz it isn't.
    I have never suggested that the Dutch Transport Ministry adopt vehicular cycling. Their methods suit them.

  4. #329
    Mmm hm! agent pombero's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Portland, Oregon
    Posts
    1,164
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    @ John F: Sorry, I didn't see your response at first. Good to see that you're still riding your bicycle. Now I'll read your EC book to determine if you're following your own methodology.

  5. #330
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    4,069
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Bekologist View Post
    then why did you write in your book for cyclists making lane changes and left turns in traffic to notice they've specifically disregarded the legal requirement to make the left arm signal?

    you wrote that in your book, John. teaching cyclists riding in traffic to specifically break the law and not use hand signals.
    I have instructed cyclists to operate according to the law that applies in many states, and used to apply in all states, even though it may not apply in some states today. And I have given my reasons for these instructions.

  6. #331
    genec genec's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    san diego
    My Bikes
    custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2
    Posts
    22,527
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by John Forester View Post
    I have repeatedly stated that speed is not a requirement for obeying the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles. My present lower speed does mean that I require a longer gap in traffic to make lane changes, but it does not mean that I don't do such changes.
    Speed is a requirement for enjoyment... according to your book, as well as for communication with motorists, again according to your book. ("communication becomes difficult when the speed difference is 15MPH or greater...")

    The bottom line here John is that those that own your book can go back and read you chapter and verse of things that you wrote about that have proven over time to either be false or that you now deny.

    Sort of makes one wonder about the whole book and the veracity of the concepts presented.

  7. #332
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    4,069
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by genec View Post
    Speed is a requirement for enjoyment... according to your book, as well as for communication with motorists, again according to your book. ("communication becomes difficult when the speed difference is 15MPH or greater...")

    The bottom line here John is that those that own your book can go back and read you chapter and verse of things that you wrote about that have proven over time to either be false or that you now deny.

    Sort of makes one wonder about the whole book and the veracity of the concepts presented.
    It ought to be remarkable, but it is not, that ideology destroys politeness and civility. The enjoyment of speed in cycling is largely relative to the speed that the cyclist can achieve; it is a sense of doing as best as one can. So I am now slower than I used to be, but I try just as hard to achieve that speed. Even my downhill speeds are slower, because I don't have the initial power to climb the long steep climbs that I used to enjoy. I think, though Genec had not the politeness to provide sources, he must be referring to my discussions of speed in traffic cycling, in which I state that when the traffic conditions are such that the cyclist is slowed below his desired achievable speed he doesn't like it.

    Genec also refers to the ability to communicate the desire to change lanes in traffic. I have already stated that my present lower speeds require that I wait for a longer gap in traffic than I used to.

    Of course, speed is a consideration when making trips; faster speed means less time used, which can be a significant consideration, particularly for daily trips. But Genec's comment does not appear to concern this consideration.

  8. #333
    Senior Member delcrossv's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Scalarville
    Posts
    883
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by department of transport blog
    Again, some people (mainly on Twitter) are misunderstanding what I’m doing here: Vehicular Cycling is a good coping strategy for fit, confident people to ride on hostile, motor-dominated roads. Opposition to Dutch-style infrastructure is what I’m attacking, and that’s quite a separate thing.
    I think Franklin is a lot less vitriolic that our own John. That said, dutch style infrastructure sure looks nice. Aside from some "my way or the hightway" attitudes, I don't see an issue with having BOTH. Infrastructure when you can get it, VC where it's not available.
    Lightning P-38 / M5 M-Racer/Ryan Vanguard

  9. #334
    genec genec's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    san diego
    My Bikes
    custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2
    Posts
    22,527
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by John Forester View Post
    It ought to be remarkable, but it is not, that ideology destroys politeness and civility. The enjoyment of speed in cycling is largely relative to the speed that the cyclist can achieve; it is a sense of doing as best as one can. So I am now slower than I used to be, but I try just as hard to achieve that speed. Even my downhill speeds are slower, because I don't have the initial power to climb the long steep climbs that I used to enjoy. I think, though Genec had not the politeness to provide sources, he must be referring to my discussions of speed in traffic cycling, in which I state that when the traffic conditions are such that the cyclist is slowed below his desired achievable speed he doesn't like it.

    Genec also refers to the ability to communicate the desire to change lanes in traffic. I have already stated that my present lower speeds require that I wait for a longer gap in traffic than I used to.

    Of course, speed is a consideration when making trips; faster speed means less time used, which can be a significant consideration, particularly for daily trips. But Genec's comment does not appear to concern this consideration.
    John, if we Americans were making over 30 mile round trips or longer, then perhaps speed would make all that much difference... But in my experience it comes down to a couple of things... first most commutes are in the 15 mile or less range, according to the national census. Second, most cyclists comfortably ride about 12-15 miles an hour. Third, most cyclists, already commited to being slower than most traffic, have readily accepted that a commute of about 45 minutes to an hour each way is just about "right." Oddly this is about the same time period one might spend in a gym.

    Of course there are extremes, where in someone may only be commuting about 2-3 miles or perhaps as long as 60, but these are outliers.

    Go sit on the commuting forum for a while and you will see that my figures are pretty consistent with cyclists who commute on a regular basis.

  10. #335
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    4,069
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by genec View Post
    John, if we Americans were making over 30 mile round trips or longer, then perhaps speed would make all that much difference... But in my experience it comes down to a couple of things... first most commutes are in the 15 mile or less range, according to the national census. Second, most cyclists comfortably ride about 12-15 miles an hour. Third, most cyclists, already commited to being slower than most traffic, have readily accepted that a commute of about 45 minutes to an hour each way is just about "right." Oddly this is about the same time period one might spend in a gym.

    Of course there are extremes, where in someone may only be commuting about 2-3 miles or perhaps as long as 60, but these are outliers.

    Go sit on the commuting forum for a while and you will see that my figures are pretty consistent with cyclists who commute on a regular basis.
    So what's your point in presenting these data? I have written nothing that contradicts these, but I have to assume that you thought that you were making some point.

  11. #336
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    4,069
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by delcrossv View Post
    I think Franklin is a lot less vitriolic that our own John. That said, dutch style infrastructure sure looks nice. Aside from some "my way or the hightway" attitudes, I don't see an issue with having BOTH. Infrastructure when you can get it, VC where it's not available.
    As I have already remarked, as an American author such as I am, that John Franklin is writing for a different readership in a different nation with a different view of cycling. Franklin's book is published by the British government; he doesn't have to fight that government. Whereas, in America, cyclists ought to be fighting against the anti-cycling policies and actions of American governments and American society, and even just plain instruction has to be given in the context of a society that dislikes and opposes it. The result is that the infrastructure that we get in America, starting with the AASHTO bikeways, has been designed by the motoring establishment for the purpose of limiting cyclists' right to use the roadways and forcing them to ride in an incompetent manner, with no regard to the safety of cyclists. That's historical fact, not opinion. I was there observing it being done. And the later generation of bikeways, the NACTO designs, while not designed by the motoring establishment to limit cyclists' use of the roadway, are so suffused by the intention of attracting incompetent cyclists that they don't make cycling safe and in some cases are dangerous.

    The Dutch system works fine in the Netherlands; it suits them. However, attempts to import into America bits and pieces of their system have not, so far, produced either the safety or the modal share typical of the Netherlands. I see very strong reasons for concluding that such results would be most unlikely, highly improbable.

  12. #337
    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
    18,016
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by John Forester View Post
    I have instructed cyclists to operate according to the law that applies in many states, and used to apply in all states, even though it may not apply in some states today. And I have given my reasons for these instructions.
    bollocks. in your book, you use the phrase cyclists should notice they're failed to use legal hand signals.

    You explicitly instruct cyclists to break existing traffic laws in your book.

    When you repeatedly misinform the forum about how and what your instructions for bicycling entails, john, no one can trust you're telling the truth about what you've written, or anything else for that matter.
    "Evidence, anecdote and methodology all support planning for roadway bike traffic."

  13. #338
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    4,069
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Bekologist View Post
    bollocks. in your book, you use the phrase cyclists should notice they're failed to use legal hand signals.

    You explicitly instruct cyclists to break existing traffic laws in your book.

    When you repeatedly misinform the forum about how and what your instructions for bicycling entails, john, no one can trust you're telling the truth about what you've written, or anything else for that matter.
    I repeat. My instructions are completely legal in all states that have not adopted the 1962 change in the UVC, the change that removed the qualification that signalling is required only to alert other drivers who may be affected by the desired movement. California, where I live and write and is considered a leading state in matters of traffic law, is one of those states.

  14. #339
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    312
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by wsbob View Post
    "...with a first statement that cyclists are prohibited from using much of the roadway followed by a list of exceptions under which that prohibition does not apply. ..." John Forester


    In other words, where exists on or at bike lanes, bike paths, etc, what could be any one of or number of situations or conditions from what would be a very long list of bike lane and bike path situations or conditions covered under the list of exceptions directly part of the law, people biking in Oregon Are Not Prohibited from riding main lanes of roadways where bike lanes, MUP's, cycle tracks are adjacent to the roadway.

    For any readers that would like to study Oregon's bike specific laws for themselves, here again, is the link to a site providing the text for ORS 814.420, and by the way, on the sidebar to the left of the page, also links to other Oregon bike related laws: http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/814.420
    Quote Originally Posted by John Forester View Post
    Traffic laws are meant to be used by the people every day in situations that often involve life or death decisions. As Wsbob makes clear, the bicycle traffic laws, be they for Oregon or other states, are so confused that only specialists in them can understand them, assuming that they can be understood (which is problematic). Creating traffic laws that are so confusing that only specialists can obey them is obviously the wrong path. This is particularly so when all that is required is nothing at all for states in which bicycles are defined as vehicles (as in Oregon), and for states in which bicycles are not defined as vehicles, granting cyclists the rights and duties of drivers of vehicles. That's all that's required.

    I can't speak to state's bike specific laws other than Oregon's and maybe New York's, but Oregon's bike specific laws actually are fairly easy to understand and comply with, though for a reliable understanding of them, it does help to read them and think about what they specify. Oregon's bike laws aren't confused, though (2) of 814.420 has some uncertainty that could benefit from clearing up.

    ORS 814.420 is actually quite a good law for cyclists in its specifying to some extent rather than arbitrarily leaving to individual interpretation, some of the vast array of situations and conditions creating the need for people that bike to not ride in bike lanes, on bike paths, etc. While I don't know for sure...haven't been able to read about Oregon legislative committee discussion leading to creation of the law...I think outlining for all road users, various situations and conditions people that bike likely would encounter in bike lanes, paths, etc, possibly was part of the reason the law was created.

  15. #340
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    4,069
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by wsbob View Post
    I can't speak to state's bike specific laws other than Oregon's and maybe New York's, but Oregon's bike specific laws actually are fairly easy to understand and comply with, though for a reliable understanding of them, it does help to read them and think about what they specify. Oregon's bike laws aren't confused, though (2) of 814.420 has some uncertainty that could benefit from clearing up.

    ORS 814.420 is actually quite a good law for cyclists in its specifying to some extent rather than arbitrarily leaving to individual interpretation, some of the vast array of situations and conditions creating the need for people that bike to not ride in bike lanes, on bike paths, etc. While I don't know for sure...haven't been able to read about Oregon legislative committee discussion leading to creation of the law...I think outlining for all road users, various situations and conditions people that bike likely would encounter in bike lanes, paths, etc, possibly was part of the reason the law was created.
    That argument is plain false, Wsbob. First, it is obvious that there is no need at all to have laws of this nature, describing the actions permitted on roadways, bike lanes, bike paths alongside roadways. All that is needed is no such laws at all; just let the cyclist choose which of the available facilities best suits his travel need, just so long as he obeys the primary law for cyclists, requiring obedience to the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles. Come on, Wsbob. Provide a reasonable justification for the existence of such laws. Only if there is a reasonable justification for such laws is it reasonable to discuss how well, or how badly, they operate.

  16. #341
    Mmm hm! agent pombero's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Portland, Oregon
    Posts
    1,164
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by John Forester View Post
    Provide a reasonable justification for the existence of such laws. Only if there is a reasonable justification for such laws is it reasonable to discuss how well, or how badly, they operate.
    Why is it reasonable for cyclists to stop at stop signs and red lights? These traffic control devices work against cyclists. There is no reasonable explanation why cyclists shouldn't be able to treat stop signs and red lights as yield signs. From what I've gathered reading your book, you believe that cyclists should follow these rules just as motorized vehicles are required to do. Why?

  17. #342
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    4,069
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by agent pombero View Post
    Why is it reasonable for cyclists to stop at stop signs and red lights? These traffic control devices work against cyclists. There is no reasonable explanation why cyclists shouldn't be able to treat stop signs and red lights as yield signs. From what I've gathered reading your book, you believe that cyclists should follow these rules just as motorized vehicles are required to do. Why?
    Agent pombero fails to notice the difference between the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles and the special laws for cyclists alone. The rules of the road for drivers of vehicles provide a system of operation that enables drivers of vehicles to operate in reasonable safety and with reasonable convenience. These rules should be obeyed by all drivers of vehicles operating on the roadway. The special laws for cyclists alone are of a different character entirely. That is why I asked Wsbob to provide a reasonable justification for such laws, not for the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles, whose justification should be so obvious.

  18. #343
    Mmm hm! agent pombero's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Portland, Oregon
    Posts
    1,164
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by John Forester View Post
    Agent pombero fails to notice the difference between the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles and the special laws for cyclists alone. The rules of the road for drivers of vehicles provide a system of operation that enables drivers of vehicles to operate in reasonable safety and with reasonable convenience. These rules should be obeyed by all drivers of vehicles operating on the roadway. The special laws for cyclists alone are of a different character entirely. That is why I asked Wsbob to provide a reasonable justification for such laws, not for the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles, whose justification should be so obvious.
    You should be a linguistics professor w/ a specialty in semantics! Bicycles are not cars, never have been, never will be. There are and will forever be separate rules for the road for these two different modes of transportation.

    You live in a delusional world if you believe bicycles are the same as cars and should be regulated as such.
    Last edited by agent pombero; 12-05-12 at 07:12 PM.

  19. #344
    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
    18,016
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by John Forester View Post
    I repeat. My instructions are completely legal in all states that have not adopted the 1962 change in the UVC, the change that removed the qualification that signalling is required only to alert other drivers who may be affected by the desired movement. California, where I live and write and is considered a leading state in matters of traffic law, is one of those states.
    no, your insrtructions are not legal. your book has long instructed cyclists to disregard the legal requirement to use left arm signals while cycling in slow speed traffic. Your book instructs cyclists to break the law, disregard the rules of the road and fail to use legal signals in traffic.

    The rules of the road for drivers of vehicles provide a system of operation that enables drivers of vehicles to operate in reasonable safety and with reasonable convenience.
    correct, John. And those rules require legal signals from vehicle operators in the midst of traffic. whether in Holland, Lemon Grove, or Atlantic City.

    Eye contact is not a legal substitute for a hand signal in traffic for drivers of vehicles in any state, regardless of any figments john posts here about traffic laws.

    In his book he mentions that in slow speed traffic a cyclist has a legal requirement to use those legal hand signals, but then instructs cyclists to disregard the legal requirements of the rules of the road for traffic cycling.



    Yet even more forester misdirect about his own published cycling advice, the rules of the road, and traffic laws affecting bicyclists - insatiable levels of deceit.

    A cyclist whose dubious, fabricated methods of traffic cycling instructs others to disregard rules of the road for vehicles about legal turn signals wouldn't get very far as a cycling authority in Holland.
    Last edited by Bekologist; 12-05-12 at 07:46 PM.
    "Evidence, anecdote and methodology all support planning for roadway bike traffic."

  20. #345
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    312
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by wsbob View Post
    I can't speak to state's bike specific laws other than Oregon's and maybe New York's, but Oregon's bike specific laws actually are fairly easy to understand and comply with, though for a reliable understanding of them, it does help to read them and think about what they specify. Oregon's bike laws aren't confused, though (2) of 814.420 has some uncertainty that could benefit from clearing up.

    ORS 814.420 is actually quite a good law for cyclists in its specifying to some extent rather than arbitrarily leaving to individual interpretation, some of the vast array of situations and conditions creating the need for people that bike to not ride in bike lanes, on bike paths, etc. While I don't know for sure...haven't been able to read about Oregon legislative committee discussion leading to creation of the law...I think outlining for all road users, various situations and conditions people that bike likely would encounter in bike lanes, paths, etc, possibly was part of the reason the law was created.
    Quote Originally Posted by John Forester View Post
    That argument is plain false, Wsbob. First, it is obvious that there is no need at all to have laws of this nature, describing the actions permitted on roadways, bike lanes, bike paths alongside roadways. All that is needed is no such laws at all; just let the cyclist choose which of the available facilities best suits his travel need, just so long as he obeys the primary law for cyclists, requiring obedience to the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles. Come on, Wsbob. Provide a reasonable justification for the existence of such laws. Only if there is a reasonable justification for such laws is it reasonable to discuss how well, or how badly, they operate.

    First of all...I didn't present an argument, but instead, some of my views about Oregon's bike specific laws and something about why they may have come to be. If you don't like my views on this, which seems to be the case...that's fine with me. On the question of whether a need for such laws exist, I think such a need does exist, which I offered a possible explanation of, and which I believe is basically reasonable. It seems many Oregonians also, think there is a need for bike specific laws. Oregonians for the most part seem to be getting along just fine with bike specific laws the state has created. Since you seem to think bike specific laws aren't necessary, go ahead and set about abolishing them in your home state of California.

  21. #346
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    4,069
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by wsbob View Post
    First of all...I didn't present an argument, but instead, some of my views about Oregon's bike specific laws and something about why they may have come to be. If you don't like my views on this, which seems to be the case...that's fine with me. On the question of whether a need for such laws exist, I think such a need does exist, which I offered a possible explanation of, and which I believe is basically reasonable. It seems many Oregonians also, think there is a need for bike specific laws. Oregonians for the most part seem to be getting along just fine with bike specific laws the state has created. Since you seem to think bike specific laws aren't necessary, go ahead and set about abolishing them in your home state of California.
    You have written much about Oregon's cyclist-specific traffic laws, saying that they are easy to understand and to obey. However, you have refused to recognize how they operate, or how their structure defines their method of operating. You have failed to provide any reason for their existence. That is, you have failed to describe how their requirements are better than obeying the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles. And you have failed to state what purpose these laws serve. In short, why are you bothering the rest of us with either inability to think or deliberate avoidance of thought? Traffic law is for the daily use of the people in situations that involve life and death decisions. You, Wsbob, are defending a position of deliberate ignorance that makes it much more difficult for the general public to understand what the law is supposed to do, and therefore how to obey it properly.

    I have no idea of what you think your purpose is in participating in this discussion, but to participate from the position of deliberate ignorance doesn't assist the discussion.

  22. #347
    Mmm hm! agent pombero's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Portland, Oregon
    Posts
    1,164
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by John Forester View Post
    ...Oregon's cyclist-specific traffic laws, saying that they are easy to understand and to obey. However, you have refused to recognize how they operate, or how their structure defines their method of operating.
    Read the law. It explains how these bike lanes operate.

    Quote Originally Posted by John Forester View Post
    You have failed to provide any reason for their existence. That is, you have failed to describe how their requirements are better than obeying the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles. And you have failed to state what purpose these laws serve. In short, why are you bothering the rest of us with either inability to think or deliberate avoidance of thought? Traffic law is for the daily use of the people in situations that involve life and death decisions. You, Wsbob, are defending a position of deliberate ignorance that makes it much more difficult for the general public to understand what the law is supposed to do, and therefore how to obey it properly.
    The research is clear buddy on why these segregated cycle facilities exist. Cyclists are safer when they have their own bike lanes. Are they invincible, impervious to the idiots in motorized vehicles who slam into cyclists in these lanes anyway? No. I will admit there are times when I don't use the bike lane:

    (1) if the road has a bike lane in the door zone I will instead take the lane;
    (2) ~100 feet before any major intersection I take the lane. I never arrive at a red light on the far right inside the bike lane.

    You will cite some research, I'm sure, discounting that bike lanes make cycling safer.

    But you can't discount this with any of your research: segregated cycling facilities BRING more people out on bicycles. It is why Portland is either #1 or #2 bike capital of the USA. More people on bikes = safer for everyone.

  23. #348
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    312
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by John Forester View Post
    You have written much about Oregon's cyclist-specific traffic laws, saying that they are easy to understand and to obey. However, you have refused to recognize how they operate, or how their structure defines their method of operating. You have failed to provide any reason for their existence. That is, you have failed to describe how their requirements are better than obeying the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles. And you have failed to state what purpose these laws serve. In short, why are you bothering the rest of us with either inability to think or deliberate avoidance of thought? Traffic law is for the daily use of the people in situations that involve life and death decisions. You, Wsbob, are defending a position of deliberate ignorance that makes it much more difficult for the general public to understand what the law is supposed to do, and therefore how to obey it properly.

    I have no idea of what you think your purpose is in participating in this discussion, but to participate from the position of deliberate ignorance doesn't assist the discussion.

    John...I'm not going to answer to your agenda. I'm happy to share ideas and views about in-traffic biking, bike specific law, which I have...and learn about ideas and views other people care to share. If you want to find somebody to browbeat, have fun, but it's not going to be me. In posting comments to this thread, if I'm bothering anyone else...besides you, whom I think I've made a fair effort not to bother, despite responses on your part I think most polite company would find to be uncalled for rudeness and obnoxiousness...they're welcome to say as much in a comment, personal message, report to the mods...whatever, and I'll be happy to make amends as needed. You're the only one that seems to have been upset by views I've expressed here.


    agent pombero...and of course, your numbered examples below all are examples of exceptions to riding bikes in bike lanes that Oregon law in its statute ORS 814.420, effectively acknowledges people that bike have the legal right to make as part of their right to travel the road riding a bike.


    "(snip)...Cyclists are safer when they have their own bike lanes. Are they invincible, impervious to the idiots in motorized vehicles who slam into cyclists in these lanes anyway? No. I will admit there are times when I don't use the bike lane:

    (1) if the road has a bike lane in the door zone I will instead take the lane;
    (2) ~100 feet before any major intersection I take the lane. I never arrive at a red light on the far right inside the bike lane. ...(snip) " agent pombero #347
    Last edited by wsbob; 12-06-12 at 01:02 AM.

  24. #349
    Mmm hm! agent pombero's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Portland, Oregon
    Posts
    1,164
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    The best thing that can happen for the cycling community is for us just to ignore and forget an era that is on its way out, so to speak...

  25. #350
    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
    18,016
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by agentpopmero
    The best thing that can happen for the cycling community is for us just to ignore and forget an era that is on its way out, so to speak...

    It's unfortunate, agent pompero, that in some places bicycling advocacy is infected with bicyclists, convinced of their own cycling prowess, holding back progress towards creating more populist bicycling conditions in this country. There is a shrouded cabal suppressing bicycling participation in america. this cabal breeds its ideology by incensing new found traffic cyclists that bike lanes and laws protecting cyclists road rights take away their freedom to get around town on a bicycle.

    This postured 'infringement by facilitation' is absurd, but these loosely knit groups of road right ideologues persist in bicycling advocacy, loudly railing that everyone is simply better off pretending they're a car and that's how cities should plan for bicyclists - also absurd.

    There are reasons bicycling hasn't been better planned for to date in this country. A fracas of bad, infected bicycle planning in some locales has really stunted progress. There are well known cases of anti-bicycling being undertaken by groups pretending to be the voice of state bicycling advocacy. There is an astroturf cycling 'advocacy' organization in California misrepresenting itself as the mainstream voice of california advocacy, despite it having no such coalition.

    this organization has shrewdly positioned itself as the spokesagency for california bicycling advocacy groups despite it having no representative legitimacy, and it's hard at work behind the scenes in the state house with efforts to block bicycle bills that frequently have the support of the bulk of the states' advocacy groups.

    Some of these bicyklists are specifically fighting to keep california looking as autocentric as it is and limit bicycling planning. This vehikular camp is pernicious and is fighting better planning for bike traffic here in america, and they use contrived criticisms of cities where more than a third of their populace bicycle for everyday trips.


    america's bicycling advocacy is infected with bicyclists convinced they are honk! honk! motor vehicles (but not following the law, necessarily) who are trying to get senior citizens to ride traffic sprints as a matter of coping with heavy, fast auto traffic.

    In the forester method, these senior cyclists are given instruction to not use hand signals while riding the lane lines changing lanes so as to never get in the way of faster traffic - a disaster waiting to happen.....

    Can you guys picture it, the volume of Dutch cyclists, out on the lane lines in the midst of traffic on multiple lane arterials, deliberately not using hand signals, trying to shoot the gap a la the forester traffic cycling technique?

    The makings of a true traffic catastrophe.

    it doesn't seem like that method would work for a city moving a third of its populace by bicycle. it just doesn't.
    Last edited by Bekologist; 12-06-12 at 08:29 AM.
    "Evidence, anecdote and methodology all support planning for roadway bike traffic."

Page 14 of 29 FirstFirst ... 4121314151624 ... 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
  •