Advertise on Bikeforums.net



User Tag List

Page 15 of 29 FirstFirst ... 5131415161725 ... LastLast
Results 351 to 375 of 702
  1. #351
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    4,070
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by wsbob View Post
    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
    I can well understand that a personal policy of deliberate ignorance is most suited to one who attempts to be a spokesman for how American governments and society treat cyclists.

  2. #352
    MUP World Champ adamhenry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Oceanside, CA
    Posts
    221
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by John Forester View Post
    I can well understand that a personal policy of deliberate ignorance is most suited to one who attempts to be a spokesman for how American governments and society treat cyclists.
    Pot attempting to call a kettle black!

  3. #353
    Been Around Awhile I-Like-To-Bike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Burlington Iowa
    My Bikes
    Vaterland and Ragazzi
    Posts
    20,226
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by John Forester View Post
    I can well understand that a personal policy of deliberate ignorance is most suited to one who attempts to be a spokesman for how American governments and society treat cyclists.
    Ludicrous, laughable and downright silly willy coming from this source!

  4. #354
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    4,070
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by agent pombero View Post
    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.
    The traffic laws of every state either treat bicycles as vehicles or treat cyclists as drivers of vehicles. For traffic-law purposes, they are the same.

  5. #355
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    4,070
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by agent pombero View Post
    Read the law. It explains how these bike lanes operate.



    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.
    There's no denying that the public believes that bike lanes make cycling much safer. And, therefore, that belief does produce some switching from motor to bicycle transport. You claim that that belief has made Portland the "#1 or #2 bike capital of the USA." But you also admit, by your own actions, that it is often safe to obey the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles instead of the bike lane. I think that cycling is a good activity that should be encouraged, but enticing people into cycling by false promises of bikeway safety and under special
    cyclist-only traffic laws written to make motoring more convenient I consider to be contemptibly unethical. Bicycle advocates would do better by admitting the truth of how American government and motorists treat cyclists.

  6. #356
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    4,070
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Bekologist View Post
    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.
    Bek's posting illustrates compellingly the absurdities into which bicycle advocacy ideology forces its believers. It is correct that there is a policy war about American bicycle transportation, but Bek either doesn't understand it or his ideology prevents him from describing it accurately. On one side are the American motoring establishment and American governments that, in highway affairs, obey the motorists, and the bike planners and the bicycle advocates. On the other side are those cyclists who recognize the safety and convenience of obeying the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles.

    It is absurd that American bicycle advocates side with American motorists against lawful cyclists; that is an historical accident. The American motoring establishment has, for seventy years or more, carried on a campaign to shove cyclists off to the side of the roadway, or off it entirely, just to make motoring more convenient. It justified that campaign by declaring, without evidence, that the greatest danger to cyclists was same-direction motor traffic. "The cyclist who rides in traffic will either delay the cars, which is Sin, or, if the cars don't choose to slow down, will be crushed, which is Death, and the Wages of Sin is Death." It appeared that cycling was going away, except for children, until the 1960s brought an increase in young adult cycling. That frightened the motorists, so they invented the American bikeway system (the AASHTO designs), and the special cyclist-only laws to enforce this anti-cyclist policy, to better shove cyclists to the side of the roadway or off it entirely. The public accepted those designs because the public believed in the great danger of same-direction motor traffic. The public ended up believing two falsities about those bikeways: that they made cycling much safer, and they particularly made cycling much safer for people who did not obey the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles.

    Then the bicycle advocates jumped in to cooperate with the motorists on the bikeway bandwagon. They believed that the false promises of bikeway safety would persuade a great many Americans to switch a transportationally significant portion of trips from motor to bicycle transport.

    The prime motivation of bicycle advocates is not cycling but the anti-motoring desire to switch trips away from motoring. That is why, as exemplified by Bek's posting (above), bicycle advocates can understand the opposition to their policies only in terms of support for motoring instead of support for lawful, competent cycling. That is also why bicycle advocates go to such trouble to search out ways to pretend (as in Bek's posting) that lawful, competent cycling, in accordance with the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles, is instead lawbreaking foolishness.

    It has often been urged that this division in the cycling world be healed. Well, it can. The bicycle advocates should give up their alliance with the motorists to argue that bikeways are an additional facility for the benefit of cyclists, so that cyclists should be free to choose to use either bikeways, or the roadways when used in accordance with the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles. That means repealing the cyclist-limiting cyclist-only special traffic laws that were designed by motorists for their own convenience. To true advocates of cycling, that should present no policy problem.

  7. #357
    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
    18,026
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    ...see what I mean?
    "Evidence, anecdote and methodology all support planning for roadway bike traffic."

  8. #358
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    312
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Biking infrastructure that's separate from main roadways, on the order of what Holland and Denmark has, offers people that bike, a reduction in the potential for being hit by a motor vehicle when traveling the main lanes of streets and roads. A common consideration coming to mind to people debating about the possibility of beginning to use a bike to get around...for example, their neighborhood, what might likely be the potential of their being hit by a motor vehicle.

    From Portland, as reported in the local weblog, 'bikeportland' is a story of an example of the kind riding more people are becoming interested in, and the seriousness of collisions that can occur in street infrastructure that doesn't adequately provide for vulnerable road user use. The story basically, is about a guy riding a bike and towing his child in a bike trailer, waiting at an intersection behind a couple cars ahead of him, for a red light to change. The trailer displays a blinkie, guy's wearing yellow reflective jacket...street they're on is what I believe to be, but am not sure of...is a fairly busy cross-street, crossing a major thoroughfare...time of day around 5pm.

    The apparently infrequently occurring, but very alarming thing happens: a car approaching at low speed from behind father and son on bike and in trailer...collides with the back of the trailer, partially crushing the trailer. Fortunately...the child escapes the collision with minor injuries.


    Link to story for anyone interested in reading it through: http://bikeportland.org/2012/12/04/m...462971#respond


    General location of the collision is within an older residential-business neighborhood about three miles from Downtown.


    Tonight, Thursday the 6th...just checked the same thread for new comments. Here's another account of a car-bike/trailer collision, same general part of town: http://bikeportland.org/2012/12/04/m...omment-3467227
    Last edited by wsbob; 12-07-12 at 12:55 AM.

  9. #359
    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
    ...see what I mean?
    Yup. It's amazing.

  10. #360
    genec genec's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    san diego
    My Bikes
    custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2
    Posts
    22,825
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Bekologist View Post
    ...see what I mean?
    Quote Originally Posted by hagen2456 View Post
    Yup. It's amazing.
    You mean you just caught on?

  11. #361
    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 genec View Post
    You mean you just caught on?
    Yup. Amazing, eh?

  12. #362
    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
    3,100
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I am a Portland resident and I believe that there has been a high degree of anti-car bias in PDX. We tame, reduce, and calm in PDX more than any other city in the North America. I personally support this emphatically and have been car free for many years.

    JF's comments about bike boxes and switchovers in PDX are spot on. IMO, a significant percentage of cycling fatalities in PDX are due to the false sense of confidence created by infrastructure at intersections (cycling through lanes and bike boxes). Interestingly, Jensen et al published several manuscript and abstracts showing that unsignaled or unchannelized cycle tracks in CPH are less safe than bike lanes. As a consequence the Danes have borrowed a page from the Dutch and now build cycletracks that minimize conflict at intersections. Having cycled in the Netherlands I believe that Dutch separated facilities are for the most part well-thought out and well engineered. In PDX and in the rest of North America this is, IMO, absolutely not the case.

    Some specific examples of flawed infrastructure in PDX:

    The Broadway cycle track. This facility replaced a bike lane and is a separated path flanked by a sidewalk and parked cars on the left. Unfortunately there has been little attempt to mitigate conflict with pedestrian traffic and this had become a serious issue due to the large number of university students/staff in this area. Moreover, because the cycle track is protected by a barrier of parked cars, the lack of vehicle sight lines puts cyclists at signficant pull in and right hook risk. I take the lane on Broadway due to the right hook risk at the terminus.

    The Cully cycle track.
    This facility also replaced a bike lane. The cycle track is flanked by a sidewalk and separated from the road by vehicle parking. This cycle track has bizarre S-curves that interfere with efficient transport. The glaring safety issue is once again the blocking of vehicle sight line by parked cars. This design would never fly in CPH or AMS.

    The Moody cycle track.
    This facility is IMO a textbook example of bad design. This two way cycle track has two very poorly designed switchovers. One actually occurs in the middle of an intersection at the start of the path and the other facilitates a left turn at the terminus. In both cases the switchover crosses over the pedestrian portion of the path with little visible warning. (The lane markings are white paint on white pavement and are very hard to see.) The most dangerous design flaw occurs at the beginning of the cycle track where a large bridge column obscures sight-lines causing significant conflict with pedestrians who erroneously walk in the cycle track.

    These new facilities are perfect examples of engineering on the cheap that would be rejected in CPH or AMS.

  13. #363
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Delaware
    My Bikes
    Many English 3 Speeds
    Posts
    166
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    The Broadway cycle track. This facility replaced a bike lane and is a separated path flanked by a sidewalk and parked cars on the left. Unfortunately there has been little attempt to mitigate conflict with pedestrian traffic and this had become a serious issue due to the large number of university students/staff in this area. Moreover, because the cycle track is protected by a barrier of parked cars, the lack of vehicle sight lines puts cyclists at signficant pull in and right hook risk. I take the lane on Broadway due to the right hook risk at the terminus.

    Are you allowed to take the lane if facilities are present (legally, or practically)?

    My impression is that Oregon had to adjust their mandatory use law (due to poor designs); locally police will occasionally tell bicyclists they are not allowed to ride on roads without shoulders/bike lanes etc. (not true, but a common belief even among some LEO).

  14. #364
    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
    3,100
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Are you allowed to take the lane if facilities are present (legally, or practically)?
    Legally, no. Nevertheless, in PDX I have done so in the presence of a LEO and have never been questioned or cited.

  15. #365
    Roadmaster Snobbery Club bhtooefr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Newark, Ohio
    My Bikes
    2002 Dahon Boardwalk 1, 2011 TerraTrike Path 8
    Posts
    754
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Actually, in most states with bike lane laws (and, based on the bike lane/path law posted earlier in this thread, ORS 814.420(3)(c), Oregon is included in this), getting out of the bike lane/path to avoid a hazardous condition is legal.

    In any case, being against even good dedicated cycling infrastructure is insanity. Bad bike lanes (this includes door zone bike lanes, bike lanes in the path of significant right hooking traffic, et. al.) are definitely worse than nothing, sure. Good bike lanes are a good thing, although it requires planning to do them right. Dedicated paths on their own light cycle (especially if it's set for a reasonable speed for a cyclist to be doing through a city) are the best, although there's a considerable space requirement to do them (funny, though, some countries with considerable space constraints have pulled them off).

    In my opinion, in areas without good cycling infrastructure, riding a bicycle like a car driver should drive is generally a good idea. (Mind you, that means signaling your lane changes and turns, so that traffic in the area knows you're doing it. This means that they may be more likely to work with you, rather than against you, and you can perform the maneuver less stressfully. And, there is one situation where it's very much safer (not just easier) to signal - when a motorist is about to move into the space that you're about to move into, and has not signaled (so you don't know they're going to do it). Signaling to them can cause them to delay their move.) That said, there are some interesting ideas for turning that I'd like to see implemented - hook lefts can be implemented in a manner that's slower, but far FAR safer for cyclists, for instance, and avoids crossing traffic. (Hell, Melbourne (driving on the left) does hook rights even for cars in some areas, to keep traffic flowing going straight.)

    However, eschewing cycling infrastructure in favor of vehicular cycling (lowercase, because Forester's flavor sure doesn't sound like vehicular cycling to me) should only be done when that cycling infrastructure is truly worse than vehicular cycling. That means things like poorly maintained bike lanes, door zone bike lanes, bike lanes/paths that cross many curb cuts (although, a segregated path that crosses driveways could actually be done in a safe manner, if it's about a car length or so from the right-hand car travel lane, by requiring motorists to come to a complete stop at the lane and look for cyclists), and things like that. Personally, I much prefer the local MUP for my commute - while it's a somewhat winding, hilly route (but all the other routes except for two are further, one is a freeway route that is completely closed to cyclists, and the other involves an extremely steep hill that's worth an extra mile or so (the savings in question) to get around), traffic is relatively low, that traffic can't kill me nearly as easily, the speed differential between different types of traffic is much better (only 12 mph or so (I'm doing 15 mph or so usually, except downhill, and most of the downhills have excellent sight lines), not 20-25 mph) and in my favor (and I watch for pedestrians and take precautions as necessary), and I don't impede motorist traffic significantly, even if I decide I want to ride a bit slower so I don't arrive drenched in sweat.
    2011 TerraTrike Path 8
    2002 Dahon Boardwalk 1 (with 1976 F&S R 2110 2-speed kickback hub)

  16. #366
    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
    3,100
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Actually, in most states with bike lane laws (and, based on the bike lane/path law posted earlier in this thread, ORS 814.420(3)(c), Oregon is included in this), getting out of the bike lane/path to avoid a hazardous condition is legal.
    to exit the broadway cycle track one would have to dematerialize and pass through a wall of parked motor vehicles.

    should only be done when that cycling infrastructure is truly worse than vehicular cycling.
    there are many cyclists in north american who can cruise at 20 mph. nevertheless, most cycling infrastructure in north america is quite dangerous at these speeds. given the amount of time i spend in the saddle i positively bristle at the idea of being forced to cycle at 10-15 mph. north america needs to design cycling infrastructure that takes into account longer distances and greater speeds. there are no old cities with medieval street plans in north america!

  17. #367
    genec genec's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    san diego
    My Bikes
    custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2
    Posts
    22,825
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by spare_wheel View Post

    there are many cyclists in north american who can cruise at 20 mph. nevertheless, most cycling infrastructure in north america is quite dangerous at these speeds. given the amount of time i spend in the saddle i positively bristle at the idea of being forced to cycle at 10-15 mph. north america needs to design cycling infrastructure that takes into account longer distances and greater speeds. there are no old cities with medieval street plans in north america!
    Compare your desire to that of motorists that want to maintain freeway speeds everywhere... oh those poor motorists that must slow down to 25MPH in residential areas... just as you have to slow down to 10-15MPH in certain areas... awwww too bad.

    Look lets face it, we don't always get what we want.

  18. #368
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    19
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by John Forester View Post
    The claim that the vitriol in these discussions is limited to these discussions is inaccurate. That's understandable; few of you readers pay attention to the professional press in bicycling matters. In the bike-planning press I am frequently described, and derided, as the man who has held up American bike planning for forty years. I rarely do anything about these claims; if that's their view, then that is what it is, whether accurate or inaccurate. However, two years ago a bicycle planner, Bruce Epperson, published a full length paper about my actions in the Transportation Law Journal. The paper contained many inaccuracies and falsities that betrayed Epperson's emotional response to his belief that I had held up American bike planning for forty years. The editors of the Transportation Law Journal felt, upon reading my corrections, that their integrity required them to publish my entire corrections, even though they were about half the length of the original paper. My corrections can be found at:
    http://www.johnforester.com/Articles...view%20TLJ.htm
    So you see that I have strongly upset all those whose primary interest is in persuading people to switch trips from motor to bicycle transport: the bicycle trade, the bike planners whose only justification for being called a profession is that they earn money doing it, and the bicycle advocates.
    I love this correction. You sure put up with a lot Mr. Forester. I'm just starting to look more deeply into safe cycling on roadways after realizing how poor my cycling eduction was here in Ontario. I went from being taught to ride on the sidewalk in elementary school (illegal) to learning how to drive without ever learning how to use a bicycle safety. Thanks for helping correct the unfounded beliefs about cycling safety that are still so commonplace. I love bicycle paths as much as everyone else but I feel much safer interacting with cars now that I understand VC.

  19. #369
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    4,070
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by genec View Post
    Compare your desire to that of motorists that want to maintain freeway speeds everywhere... oh those poor motorists that must slow down to 25MPH in residential areas... just as you have to slow down to 10-15MPH in certain areas... awwww too bad.

    Look lets face it, we don't always get what we want.
    The problem is not that some facilities require slow speeds, but that some of those slow-speed facilities are adjacent to prohibited roads where the cyclist is limited only by his own physique. It is being forced to ride slowly when facilities safely suitable for higher speeds are available.

  20. #370
    Roadmaster Snobbery Club bhtooefr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Newark, Ohio
    My Bikes
    2002 Dahon Boardwalk 1, 2011 TerraTrike Path 8
    Posts
    754
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I'll note that in Ohio, that situation usually only applies when the dedicated cycle facilities (and at that point they would be a dedicated cycle trail, and not a bike lane) parallel a limited-access 55 or 65 mph divided freeway. Any other case, you would be allowed to take the lane if a bike lane is unsafe, and as far as I know, never required to take a trail when a non-limited-access road parallels it.

    So, are you advocating taking the lane on a 65 mph freeway, over using a 15 mph max safe speed bike trail? (Keep in mind, cyclists aren't required to go maximum speed, and I PREFER not going maximum speed when I don't have to. Oh, and the 15 mph bike trail here (although it's a 55 mph freeway here), 15 mph is only a suggestion, not an enforced law, and in some areas of the trail, sight lines are far enough and traffic levels low enough that 25+ mph is safe. Considering that 20 mph is about my max on level ground...)

    And, my car is capable of 130+ mph. Does that mean that I get to complain when I can't do 130? No, I slow down and follow the flow of vehicle traffic. Similarly, as a cyclist, if I can't do my desired 12-15 mph level cruising speed, or even max speed downhill, due to traffic, I slow down and follow the flow of traffic, and wait until it's safe to accelerate.
    2011 TerraTrike Path 8
    2002 Dahon Boardwalk 1 (with 1976 F&S R 2110 2-speed kickback hub)

  21. #371
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    4,070
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by bhtooefr View Post
    I'll note that in Ohio, that situation usually only applies when the dedicated cycle facilities (and at that point they would be a dedicated cycle trail, and not a bike lane) parallel a limited-access 55 or 65 mph divided freeway. Any other case, you would be allowed to take the lane if a bike lane is unsafe, and as far as I know, never required to take a trail when a non-limited-access road parallels it.

    So, are you advocating taking the lane on a 65 mph freeway, over using a 15 mph max safe speed bike trail? (Keep in mind, cyclists aren't required to go maximum speed, and I PREFER not going maximum speed when I don't have to. Oh, and the 15 mph bike trail here (although it's a 55 mph freeway here), 15 mph is only a suggestion, not an enforced law, and in some areas of the trail, sight lines are far enough and traffic levels low enough that 25+ mph is safe. Considering that 20 mph is about my max on level ground...)

    And, my car is capable of 130+ mph. Does that mean that I get to complain when I can't do 130? No, I slow down and follow the flow of vehicle traffic. Similarly, as a cyclist, if I can't do my desired 12-15 mph level cruising speed, or even max speed downhill, due to traffic, I slow down and follow the flow of traffic, and wait until it's safe to accelerate.
    You should quit trolling with such ridiculous bait. Try some reasonable discussion instead.

  22. #372
    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
    18,026
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by bhtooefr View Post
    Actually, in most states with bike lane laws (and, based on the bike lane/path law posted earlier in this thread, ORS 814.420(3)(c), Oregon is included in this), getting out of the bike lane/path to avoid a hazardous condition is legal.

    In any case, being against even good dedicated cycling infrastructure is insanity. Bad bike lanes (this includes door zone bike lanes, bike lanes in the path of significant right hooking traffic, et. al.) are definitely worse than nothing, sure. Good bike lanes are a good thing, although it requires planning to do them right. Dedicated paths on their own light cycle (especially if it's set for a reasonable speed for a cyclist to be doing through a city) are the best, although there's a considerable space requirement to do them (funny, though, some countries with considerable space constraints have pulled them off).

    In my opinion, in areas without good cycling infrastructure, riding a bicycle like a car driver should drive is generally a good idea. (Mind you, that means signaling your lane changes and turns, so that traffic in the area knows you're doing it. This means that they may be more likely to work with you, rather than against you, and you can perform the maneuver less stressfully. And, there is one situation where it's very much safer (not just easier) to signal - when a motorist is about to move into the space that you're about to move into, and has not signaled (so you don't know they're going to do it). Signaling to them can cause them to delay their move.) That said, there are some interesting ideas for turning that I'd like to see implemented - hook lefts can be implemented in a manner that's slower, but far FAR safer for cyclists, for instance, and avoids crossing traffic. (Hell, Melbourne (driving on the left) does hook rights even for cars in some areas, to keep traffic flowing going straight.)

    However, eschewing cycling infrastructure in favor of vehicular cycling (lowercase, because Forester's flavor sure doesn't sound like vehicular cycling to me) should only be done when that cycling infrastructure is truly worse than vehicular cycling. That means things like poorly maintained bike lanes, door zone bike lanes, bike lanes/paths that cross many curb cuts (although, a segregated path that crosses driveways could actually be done in a safe manner, if it's about a car length or so from the right-hand car travel lane, by requiring motorists to come to a complete stop at the lane and look for cyclists), and things like that. Personally, I much prefer the local MUP for my commute - while it's a somewhat winding, hilly route (but all the other routes except for two are further, one is a freeway route that is completely closed to cyclists, and the other involves an extremely steep hill that's worth an extra mile or so (the savings in question) to get around), traffic is relatively low, that traffic can't kill me nearly as easily, the speed differential between different types of traffic is much better (only 12 mph or so (I'm doing 15 mph or so usually, except downhill, and most of the downhills have excellent sight lines), not 20-25 mph) and in my favor (and I watch for pedestrians and take precautions as necessary), and I don't impede motorist traffic significantly, even if I decide I want to ride a bit slower so I don't arrive drenched in sweat.
    All very sensible and grounded approach.

    One reality check i like to throw around every now and again about cycling in holland - cyclists didn't always have it that good. Only thru a half century of dedicated planning, experimentation, and retrofit did the Dutch reclaim their cities for cyclists.
    "Evidence, anecdote and methodology all support planning for roadway bike traffic."

  23. #373
    genec genec's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    san diego
    My Bikes
    custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2
    Posts
    22,825
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by John Forester View Post
    You should quit trolling with such ridiculous bait. Try some reasonable discussion instead.
    He is merely citing reality... such bike paths exist in places along the hiway 56 bike path, along Seaworld drive, along the Strand... Hmmm local examples exist and yet you call discussing such examples "trolling."

    Of course the difference here is there is no local law prohibiting the use of the higher speed road... thus making the comment:
    Quote Originally Posted by John Forester
    The problem is not that some facilities require slow speeds, but that some of those slow-speed facilities are adjacent to prohibited roads where the cyclist is limited only by his own physique. It is being forced to ride slowly when facilities safely suitable for higher speeds are available.
    made by you, the real troll bait.

  24. #374
    Senior Member Chicago Al's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Chicago, the leafy NW side
    Posts
    2,240
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by John Forester View Post
    You should quit trolling with such ridiculous bait. Try some reasonable discussion instead.
    "I never think I have hit hard unless it rebounds." --Dr Samuel Johnson

    Well done, bhtooefr. You seem to have (figuratively) drawn blood.
    I never think I have hit hard, unless it rebounds.

    - Dr Samuel Johnson

  25. #375
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    4,070
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Originally Posted by John Forester
    You should quit trolling with such ridiculous bait. Try some reasonable discussion instead.


    He is merely citing reality... such bike paths exist in places along the hiway 56 bike path, along Seaworld drive, along the Strand... Hmmm local examples exist and yet you call discussing such examples "trolling."

    Of course the difference here is there is no local law prohibiting the use of the higher speed road... thus making the comment:
    Originally Posted by John Forester
    The problem is not that some facilities require slow speeds, but that some of those slow-speed facilities are adjacent to prohibited roads where the cyclist is limited only by his own physique. It is being forced to ride slowly when facilities safely suitable for higher speeds are available.





    Quote Originally Posted by genec View Post
    He is merely citing reality... such bike paths exist in places along the hiway 56 bike path, along Seaworld drive, along the Strand... Hmmm local examples exist and yet you call discussing such examples "trolling."

    Of course the difference here is there is no local law prohibiting the use of the higher speed road... thus making the comment:
    made by you, the real troll bait.
    It is well known that situations exist, depending on the location and its laws, in which cyclists are required to use bikeways that require slow speeds for safety when nearby roadways exist which the cyclist could, but for the law, use safely at higher speed. Genec, the discussion was never limited to California. Indeed, the title of the discussion is the facts about cycling in Holland, which seems to have been long avoided.

    The original respondent to my statement asserted that I must be describing a situation in which my criticism does not apply, as if this type were the only type of such situation. That's why I claim that he was trolling with rotten bait rather than having a meaningful discussion of the situation where it does apply.

Page 15 of 29 FirstFirst ... 5131415161725 ... 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
  •