Originally Posted by John Forester (Post 15335645)

http://www.bikeforums.net/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by John Forester http://www.bikeforums.net/images/but...post-right.png
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:
http://www.bikeforums.net/images/misc/quote_icon.png 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.







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.

Originally Posted by genec (Post 15344489)

So you've been to Holland and actually ridden there recently, and have seen how "poorly" it works? If not, your views are largely localized and your opinions regarding cycling in Holland are not worth rotten bait.

Originally Posted by John Forester (Post 15344832)

That statement unethically and illogically claims a personal defect about a matter completely outside the subject of discussion. The subject of discussion was the existence of bikeways so dangerous that they require slow cycling but are adjacent to a roadway which the cyclist could safely use at more nearly his desired speed. Genec has neither discussed the problem raised by such facilities nor has he proved that such facilities do not exist. The latter proof would be difficult indeed, because so many of us know of such facilities.

Instead of entering into a polite and rational discussion of the issue, Genec has dodged the issue by advancing the irrelevant and personal argument that since I have not cycled in Holland my opinions on this issue "are not worth rotten bait". Genec has taken this not relevant opportunity to argue his personal animosity instead of reasonable discussion.

Originally Posted by John Forester (Post 15344832)

entering into a polite and rational discussion of the issue,

Originally Posted by I-Like-To-Bike (Post 15346745)

Genec or anyone else might like to enter into a polite and rational discussion of the issue but:

Conducting a two way polite and rational discussion with a few Vehicular Cycling advocates is an impossibility if the issue, observation or opinion expressed is not in line with the VC advocate's version of the issue, observation, opinion or dogma.

Originally Posted by bikesnob NYC

Though that's clearly an absurd notion, since every North American knows the best course of action is strapping on a helment and pretending to be a car.

Originally Posted by Bekologist (Post 15348313)

Is john telling the forum the Dutch object to their cycletracks?

:roflmao:

hardly! the dutch ride in droves, save money, stay healthy and vital as a result of a build up of cycling-specific infrastructure that includes portions of that infrastructure separating bikes from car traffic and considers bicycle movements preferentially at intersections.

the "eight to 80" population, as they like to say in Bogota, the Netherlands.

oh, did everyone read in this weeks' Economist magazine? Ridership in Buenos Aires, Holland, quintipuled after that city put in a separated cycletrack network.


Let me check my geography though, i'm not sure either of those cities are actually in Holland.

-------------------- as counter to the Dutch and their accursed anti-cycling cycletracks, no one frames the derision more eloquently then BikeSnob NYC in today's blog.....

Originally Posted by John Forester (Post 15348575)

Bek makes clear, through both his rolling laughter icon and his tone, that he believes, or that he chooses to insinuate, that I have been discussing the Dutch attitude to their traffic system. Neither I nor most of the recent contributors have been doing so; the discussion has concentrated on situations in the USA.

Originally Posted by bekologist

the dutch ride in droves, save money, stay healthy and vital as a result of a build up of cycling-specific infrastructure that includes portions of that infrastructure separating bikes from car traffic and considers bicycle movements preferentially at intersections.

the "eight to 80" population, as they like to say in Bogota, the Netherlands.

oh, did everyone read in this weeks' Economist magazine? Ridership in Buenos Aires, Holland, quintipuled after that city put in a separated cycletrack network.

Originally Posted by gcottay (Post 15364891)

Personal animosity aside, aren't the basic principles rather clear? Isn't it a fact that when we share roadways with motor vehicles we are best served by applying the basic skills and principles of vehicular cycling? Isn't it also a fact that well designed separated bikeways and other infrastructures can be great for riding?

It seems to me the whole VC vs Infrastructure debate is dysfunctional.

Originally Posted by gcottay (Post 15364891)

Personal animosity aside, aren't the basic principles rather clear? Isn't it a fact that when we share roadways with motor vehicles we are best served by applying the basic skills and principles of vehicular cycling? Isn't it also a fact that well designed separated bikeways and other infrastructures can be great for riding?

It seems to me the whole VC vs Infrastructure debate is dysfunctional.

Originally Posted by gcottay (Post 15364891)

Personal animosity aside, aren't the basic principles rather clear? Isn't it a fact that when we share roadways with motor vehicles we are best served by applying the basic skills and principles of vehicular cycling? Isn't it also a fact that well designed separated bikeways and other infrastructures can be great for riding?

It seems to me the whole VC vs Infrastructure debate is dysfunctional.

Originally Posted by genec (Post 15368139)

It is because certain factions on either side seem to believe that the other side is going to destroy all their rights/deny them paths.

The VCists believe that promoting infrastructure will cause them to lose rights to ride on the streets, no matter how fast and heavy the motor traffic on said road may be.

The infrastructure folks are afraid that they will be forced to ride on streets in a safe and logical manner, no matter how accommodating the street and traffic might be.

Both sides are focusing on the extremes... with infrastructure folks citing the 8-80 crowd and motioning toward 65MPH arterial roads and shaking their heads; the VC folks point to bad infrastructure designs and decry having to all but walk while trying to maintain their desired speeds... and shake their heads at cyclists that can't seem to negotiate 25MPH residential streets without "special paint."

Meanwhile those that just consider themselves cyclists (neither VC nor Paint & Path) just shake their heads at all the fuss and wonder why we can't all just get along. The division of course means that cycling in general has no clear voice and that legislators can just listen to motorists and do what they want and ignore cyclists.

Originally Posted by John Forester (Post 15368232)

American law and society make the VC vs Infrastructure debate is important, because we don't get "well-designed" bikeways (whatever that might be) and law and society require all of us to use the bikeways when some of use know that using the roadway is often better. It is the legal and societal compulsion to use bikeways that were designed by motoring officials for the convenience of motorists that made the debate important, and it is the virulence of the bicycle advocates, who believe that those bikeways produce a big switch from motor to bicycle transport, that has made the debate so nasty.

If cyclists had the full rights of drivers of vehicles to use the roadways, then bikeway use would be optional with no need for virulent debate. But that is not the fact; back in 1944, and again in 1976, motorists passed laws denying cyclists the full right to use the roadways, purely to make motoring more convenient. American cyclists have to operate within these facts, facts that necessitate strong debate about bikeways.

Originally Posted by genec (Post 15368391)

John says this while fully ignoring the physical aspects of fast moving heavy motor traffic and how such is NOT very conducive to the comfort and well being of most cyclists. Oh sure, there are those that will go out and "dance about" in 55 MPH commuter vehicle traffic, but they are few and far between... meanwhile let's point to the laws as the "the issue."

Oh and as far as "well designed" infrastructure... I can give examples, but perhaps the larger point is not to dance on the head of a pin about "cyclists rights" and instead work toward better definitions of well designed infrastructure.

And just as an example, I find infra built like that shown below to be "well designed."

Originally Posted by genec (Post 15368139)

The infrastructure folks are afraid that they will be forced to ride on streets in a safe and logical manner, no matter how accommodating the street and traffic might be.

....

Originally Posted by John Forester (Post 15368377)

Genec is correct, in a way. American motordom (motorists and motoring officials) have set the traffic laws and societal attitudes regarding bicycle traffic since the 1930s. Since the far-to-the-right (FTR) law and the mandatory-sidepath law appeared in the Uniform Vehicle Code in 1944, cyclists have not had the rights to use the roadway as drivers of vehicles. Then the FTR law was elaborated and a similar mandatory-bike-lane law was created in 1976, all done by motordom over the opposition of cyclists. These events made cyclists second-class road users required to be subservient to motorists, all done for the convenience of motorists.

If the element of governmental compulsion were removed by returning to cyclists the full rights of drivers of vehicles, so that each cyclist who chose would now be free to obey the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles (RRDV), while other cyclists were free to ride in the style they like best (which has been the American policy for seventy years), then the emotionalism about the debate would markedly decline because cyclists would no longer be under the discriminatory domination of the motorists. That action requires only repeal of the three or so anti-cyclist laws in effect in various parts of the nation: the far-to-the-right law, the mandatory-bike-lane law, the mandatory-sidepath law.

Originally Posted by John Forester (Post 15369417)

Genec provides two different claims. He first claims that the virulence of the VC vs Bikeway controversy is not caused by the laws that prohibit cycling on the roadway in accordance with the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles (RRDV). If those laws were repealed, those cyclists who know the value of cycling by the RRDV would not feel jeopardized by the bikeway program. Both the cyclist-restricting laws and the bikeways were designed by motordom for the purpose of shoving cyclists off the roadways, with the laws providing the legal muscle to do so. Every cyclist should care about getting those anti-cyclist, motorist-conveniencing laws repealed, and there is no reason at all to argue for their retention. With them gone, cyclists who prefer to ride by the RRDV would have no reason to feel that their rights are being jeopardized by the bikeway program. That would end the virulence.

Genec's second claim is that well-designed bikeways are possible. That shown in his pictures is mostly well-designed (there's no point in looking at specific details) specifically and only because he shows sidepaths built alongside freeways that, at the time of construction, were across undeveloped land. It is obvious that if that is the foundational requirement, not much of a freeway system is possible.

Originally Posted by Bekologist (Post 15348313)

Is john telling the forum the Dutch object to their cycletracks?


hardly! the dutch ride in droves, save money, stay healthy and vital as a result of a build up of cycling-specific infrastructure that includes portions of that infrastructure separating bikes from car traffic and considers bicycle movements preferentially at intersections.

the "eight to 80" population, as they like to say in Bogota, the Netherlands.

oh, did everyone read in this weeks' Economist magazine? Ridership in Buenos Aires, Holland, quintipuled after that city put in a separated cycletrack network.


Let me check my geography though, i'm not sure either of those cities are actually in Holland.

-------------------- as counter to the Dutch and their accursed anti-cycling cycletracks, no one frames the derision more eloquently then BikeSnob NYC in today's blog.....

Originally Posted by bhtooefr (Post 15365291)

but the vast majority of cyclists ride at speeds that ARE safe for dedicated cycling infrastructure.

Originally Posted by spare_wheel (Post 15415901)

in northern europe this is likely true. in portland at 6 pm on just about any major bike route, not so much.

Originally Posted by botto (Post 15415883)

where is this mythical Bogota, Netherlands? doesn't come up on google maps.

Originally Posted by botto

there is next to no infrastructure for cycling in bogota.